Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are active in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been considered.
The arguments are drawn to the newly recited limitations. The new ground of rejection as necessitated by the amendment is presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, Claims 1-9 recite a system comprising nodes which lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C 101. No express limitation of any hardware element corresponding to the claimed nodes is mentioned in order to place the claim statutory. Therefore, it can be reasonably be interpreted that the system of claims 1-9 may be directed to a plurality of software code or programs. Thus, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, regarding claims 10 and 16, the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because,
Step 2A: Prong One: yes, invention directed to judicial exception of abstract idea.
In claims 10 and 16, limitations reciting the abstract idea are as follows:
“determining, based on the index query task, a target shard…”, is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and applied in a computing environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that "humans have always performed these functions").
The limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or generic tools. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements “receiving…an index query task…”, “retrieving…an index…”, “sending…a query task result…” as per claims 10 and 16, the limitations are a mere generic function which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/collecting, MPEP 2106.05(g)) that does not confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), aff'g 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that “[s]toring, retrieving, and providing data... are inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Aside from the abstract idea, the additional elements (receiving, retrieving, and sending) are conventional and well known (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an "interface," “processor”, "network," and "database," fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607,614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea).
Additionally, dependent claims incorporate the features of the corresponding independent claims. Dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shcherbakov (US 20210224259).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 10, a data processing method, comprising:
receiving, from a coordinator node, an index query task comprising first information about a target object and a query condition ([0206], [0305], “the search heads 504 can parse the queries to identify the set of data to be processed and the manner of processing the set of data, identify the location of the data (non-limiting examples: intake system 210, common storage 216, acceleration data store 222, etc.), identify tasks to be performed by the search head and tasks to be performed by the search nodes 506, distribute the query (or sub-queries corresponding to the query) to the search nodes 506, apply extraction rules to the set of data to be processed, aggregate search results from the search nodes 506, store the search results in the query acceleration data store 222, return search results to the client device 204”, [0312]);
retrieving, from a memory of a computing apparatus, an index of a data range corresponding to the target object and managed by the computing apparatus ([0354]-[0355]);
determining, based on the index query task, a target shard that is in the data range, that belongs to the target object, and that comprises queried data that meets the query condition ([0509], [0516], [0766]-[0770]); and
sending, from a coordinator node, a query task result about the target shard ([0305], search results, [0766]-[0770]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 11, wherein the computing apparatus corresponds to first index information of a first shard of a plurality of shards and corresponding to a first data range, and wherein determining the target shard further comprises determining, based on the first index information, the target shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 12, wherein the target object is divided into a plurality of files, wherein each file of the plurality of files is divided into a plurality of data blocks, wherein each data block of the plurality of data blocks corresponds to one shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509]), wherein the index query task comprises third information about a query object, wherein data of the target object comprises query object data of the query object, and wherein determining the target shard further comprises: obtaining at least one target file through filtering based on second index information of a file corresponding to the query object in the first data range, wherein each of the at least one target file comprises the queried data ([0519]-[0522]); and obtaining at least one target data block through filtering based on third index information of a data block corresponding to each of the at least one target file, wherein the target data block is the target shard ([0519]-[0522], [0636] and [0640]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 13, wherein the target object is divided into a plurality of files, wherein each file is divided into a plurality of data blocks, wherein each data block of the plurality of data blocks corresponds to one shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509]), wherein the index query task comprises third information about a query object, wherein data of the target object comprises query object data of the query object, wherein determining the target shard further comprises obtaining at least one target data block through filtering based on third index information of a data block corresponding to the query object in the first data range, and wherein the at least one target data block is the target shard ([0519]-[0522], [0636] and [0640]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 14, wherein the plurality of files is grouped into a plurality of partitions, wherein a target partition is in the plurality of partitions that comprises the target shard, and wherein the query object comprises at least one file that is in the first data range and that belongs to the target object ([0261]-[0262], “the indexing node manager 406 can manage the processing of the various streams or partitions of data by the indexing node 404, and can be implemented as a distinct computing device, virtual machine, container, container of a pod, or a process or thread associated with a container. For example, in certain embodiments, as partitions or data streams are assigned to the indexing node 404, the indexing node manager 406 can generate one or more partition manager(s) 408 to manage each partition or data stream. In some cases, the indexing node manager 406 generates a separate partition manager 408 for each partition or shard that is processed by the indexing node 404”).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 15, wherein the plurality of files is grouped into a plurality of partitions, wherein a target partition is in the plurality of partitions that comprises the target shard, and wherein the query object comprises at least one of: at least one first data block comprised in at least one file corresponding to the target partition ([0505]-[0507], [0509]); or at least one second data block comprised in at least one file that is in the first data range and that belongs to the target partition ([0505]-[0507], [0509], [0519]-[0522], [0636] and [0640]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 16, a first index node comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Figure 2); and one or more processors (Figure 2) coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first index node to:
receive, from a coordinator node, an index query task comprising first information about a target object and a query condition ([0206], [0305], “the search heads 504 can parse the queries to identify the set of data to be processed and the manner of processing the set of data, identify the location of the data (non-limiting examples: intake system 210, common storage 216, acceleration data store 222, etc.), identify tasks to be performed by the search head and tasks to be performed by the search nodes 506, distribute the query (or sub-queries corresponding to the query) to the search nodes 506, apply extraction rules to the set of data to be processed, aggregate search results from the search nodes 506, store the search results in the query acceleration data store 222, return search results to the client device 204”, [0312]);
retrieve, from the memory, an index of a data range corresponding to the target object and managed by the first index node ([0354]-[0355]),
determine, based on the index query task, a target shard is in the data range, that belongs to the target object, and that comprises queried data that meets the query condition ([0509], [0516], [0766]-[0770]); and
send, to the coordinator node, a query task result about the target shard ([0305], search results, [0766]-[0770]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 17, wherein the first index node corresponds to first index information of a first shard corresponding to a first data range and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first index node to determine the target shard by determining, based on the first index information, the target shard that comprises the queried data ([0509], [0516], [0766]-[0770]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 18, wherein the target object is divided into a plurality of files, wherein each file of the plurality of files is divided into a plurality of data blocks, wherein each data block of the plurality of data blocks corresponds to one shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509]), wherein the index query task comprises third information about a query object, wherein data of the target object comprises query object data of the query object, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first index node to determine the target shard by: obtaining at least one target file through filtering based on second index information of a file corresponding to the query object in the first data range, wherein each of the at least one target file comprises the queried data; and obtaining at least one target data block through filtering based on third index information of a data block corresponding to each of the at least one target file, wherein the target data block is the target shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509], [0519]-[0522], [0636] and [0640]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 19, wherein the target object is divided into a plurality of files, wherein each file of the plurality of files is divided into a plurality of data blocks, wherein each data block of the plurality of data blocks corresponds to one shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509]), wherein the index query task comprises third information about a query object, wherein data of the target object comprises query object data of the query object, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first index node to determine the target shard by obtaining at least one target data block through filtering based on fourth index information of a data block corresponding to the query object in the first data range, wherein the at least one target data block is the target shard ([0505]-[0507], [0509], [0519]-[0522], [0636] and [0640]).
Shcherbakov discloses claim 20, wherein the plurality of files is grouped into a plurality of partitions, wherein a target partition is in the plurality of partitions that comprises the target shard, and wherein the query object comprises at least one file that is in the first data range and that belongs to the target partition ([0261]-[0262], “the indexing node manager 406 can manage the processing of the various streams or partitions of data by the indexing node 404, and can be implemented as a distinct computing device, virtual machine, container, container of a pod, or a process or thread associated with a container. For example, in certain embodiments, as partitions or data streams are assigned to the indexing node 404, the indexing node manager 406 can generate one or more partition manager(s) 408 to manage each partition or data stream. In some cases, the indexing node manager 406 generates a separate partition manager 408 for each partition or shard that is processed by the indexing node 404”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shyam (US 20050027692) discloses Method, System, And Program For Accessing Data In A Database Table.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERILYN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-4026. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/MERILYN P NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights