DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: determining that a first core of a plurality of cores is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core index, and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index, based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation, and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration; wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor”.
The limitations of “A method comprising: determining that a first core of a plurality of cores is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core index, and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index, based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation, and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration; wherein the method is performed by an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “at least one device including a hardware processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “at least one device including a hardware processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “at least one device including a hardware processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “at least one device including a hardware processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of The method of wherein determining that the first core is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing comprises determining that a first version associated with the first core index is an out-of-date version; and wherein the first reindexing operation further comprises generating a reindexed version of the first index that is associated with a second version that is more recent than the first version”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 2, wherein the first reindexing operation further comprises generating a replacement core comprising the reindexed version of the first index, and wherein the operations further comprise replacing the first core with the replacement core”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 1, wherein determining that the first core is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing comprises detecting a change in a schema associated with the first core”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining that a second core of the plurality of cores is associated with a second core index that is a candidate for reindexing; wherein the second core is configured to execute a second running instance of the second core index, and wherein the second core index comprises a second mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the second core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a second reindexing operation at least by: detecting a second set of workload characteristics associated with the second core index, based at least in part on the second set of workload characteristics, selecting a second configuration for the second reindexing operation, initiating the second reindexing operation using the second configuration, and wherein the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation are executed in parallel”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 5, further comprising: prior to the performance of the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation: placing the first core index and the second core index in a soft- closed state, wherein the soft-closed state is a state in which data may be read from the first core index and the second core index, and wherein data cannot be written to the first core index and the second core index”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 6, further comprising: identifying a set of one or more first attributes associated with the first core index, wherein incoming index data having one or more attributes matching one or more of the first attributes is written to the first core index; identifying a set of one or more second attributes associated with the second core index, wherein incoming index data having one or more attributes matching one or more of the second attributes is written to the second core index; creating a third core index; executing a configuration change to cause incoming index data having one or more attributes matching one or more of the first attributes to be written to the third core index; and wherein the configuration change further causes incoming index data having one or more attributes matching one or more of the second attributes to be written to the third core index”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 6, wherein: the first core index is associated with a first time period; the second core index is associated with a second time period; and the third core index is associated with both the first time period and the second time period”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 6, further comprising: performing a planning operation prior to the execution of the first reindexing operation, wherein the planning operation comprises: determining that a third core of the plurality of cores is associated with a third core index that is a candidate for reindexing; wherein the third core is configured to execute a third running instance of the third core index, and wherein the third core index comprises a third mapping of terms to metadata; predicting one or more expected resource use metrics, wherein each of the expected resource use metrics indicate the predicted resource usage for a corresponding resource; based at least in part on the one or more expected resource use metrics, generating a first reindexing plan configured to maintain actual resource usage within a threshold amount of a configured parameter associated with the corresponding resource; and wherein the first reindexing plan indicates that the first reindexing operation for the first core index and a second reindexing operation for the second core index should be performed during a first reindexing stage”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 9, wherein the first reindexing plan further indicates that a third reindexing operation for the third core index should be performed during a second reindexing stage”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 10, wherein the first core index, the second core index, and the third core index are associated with a first tenant in a cloud computing environment, and wherein the method further comprises: determining that a fourth core of a second plurality of cores is associated with a fourth core index that is a candidate for reindexing; wherein the fourth core is configured to execute a fourth running instance of the fourth core index; wherein the fourth core index comprises a fourth mapping of terms to metadata; wherein the fourth core index is associated with a second tenant in the cloud computing environment; and responsive to determining that the fourth core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a fourth reindexing operation”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 11, wherein the first reindexing plan further indicates that the fourth reindexing operation for the fourth core index should be performed during the first reindexing stage”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 11, further comprising: generating a second reindexing plan that indicates that the fourth reindexing operation for the fourth core index should be performed during a third reindexing stage”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 13, wherein the first reindexing plan is associated with the first tenant and the second reindexing plan is associated with the second tenant, and the method further comprises: concurrently executing each reindexing operation associated with the first stage; responsive to detecting that execution of each reindexing operation associated with the first stage has completed, concurrently executing each reindexing operation associated with the second stage; concurrently executing each reindexing operation associated with the third stage; and responsive to detecting that execution of each reindexing operation associated with the third stage has completed, concurrently executing each reindexing operation associated with a fourth stage, wherein the fourth stage is associated with the second reindexing plan”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 14, wherein the reindexing operations associated with the first reindexing plan are performed independently from the reindexing operations associated with the second reindexing plan”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise performing a planning operation prior to the execution of the first reindexing operation, wherein the planning operation comprises: determining that a third core of the plurality of cores is associated with a third core index that is a candidate for reindexing; determining that a fourth core of the plurality of cores is associated with a third core index that is a candidate for reindexing; wherein the first core and the second core are associated with a first tenant; wherein the third core and the fourth core are associated with a second tenant; wherein the first core index is one of a first plurality of core indexes associated with a first sub-tenant; wherein the second core index is one of a second plurality of core indexes associated with a second sub-tenant; wherein the third core index is one of a third plurality of core indexes associated with a third sub-tenant; wherein the fourth core index is one of a fourth plurality of core indexes associated with a fourth sub-tenant; predicting one or more expected resource use metrics associated with the first, second, third, and fourth sub-tenants, wherein each of the expected resource use metrics indicate the predicted resource usage for a corresponding resource; and based at least in part on the one or more expected resource use metrics, generating a first reindexing plan that is configured to maintain actual resource usage within a threshold amount of a configured parameter associated with the corresponding resource”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 16, wherein the first reindexing plan indicates that the first reindexing operation for the first core index and a second reindexing operation for the second core index should be performed independently from one another”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of Claim 16, wherein the first reindexing plan is associated with the first plurality of core indexes, and the method further comprises: generating a second reindexing plan associated with the second plurality of core indexes; generating a third reindexing plan associated with the third plurality of core indexes; and generating a fourth reindexing plan associated with the fourth plurality of core indexes”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “One or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: determining that a first core of a plurality of cores is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core index, and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index; based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation; and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration”.
The limitations of “the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” and “one or more hardware processors”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” and “one or more hardware processors” to perform the claimed steps. The “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” and “one or more hardware processors” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” and “one or more hardware processors” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” and “one or more hardware processors” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations comprising: determining that a first core of a plurality of cores is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core index, and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index; based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation; and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration”.
The limitations of “candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core index, and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata; responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index; based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation; and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a system” and “at least one device including a hardware processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system” and “at least one device including a hardware processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system” and “at least one device including a hardware processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system” and “at least one device including a hardware processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system” and “at least one device including a hardware processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452)
As per claim 1, Potharaju teaches
A method comprising: (see abstract and background)
determining that a first core of a plurality of cores is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing, wherein the first core is configured to execute a first running instance of the first core indexdetermine, based on the metadata describing the lineage of the built index, whether the data source has been updated since the data source corresponding to the built index was indexed, paragraph [0243])
responsive to determining that the first core index is a candidate for reindexing, performing a first reindexing operation at least by: detecting a first set of workload characteristics associated with the first core index, (estimated performance improvement provided by the set of candidate indexes to performance of the workload, paragraph [0244])
based at least in part on the first set of workload characteristics, selecting a first configuration for the first reindexing operation, and initiating the first reindexing operation using the first configuration; (sample index configurations and ranked recommendation of indexes that can be bult for a workload of their choice, paragraph [0077]; rebuilding the index, paragraph [0247])
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (paragraph [0216]).
Potharaju does not explicitly indicate “and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata”.
However, Pratt discloses “and wherein the first core index comprises a first mapping of terms to metadata” (index includes metadata to match keywords to the metadata, paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju and Pratt because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by using a user profile to provide insight into the meaning of some query terms when parsing future queries (see Pratt, paragraph [0025]). This gives the user the advantage of results that the more contextually relevant to the user.
As per claim 19,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 20,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452) and further in view of Maloney et al. (‘Maloney’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20060069672).
As per claim 2, Potharaju teaches
determining that the first core is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing comprises
Neither Potharaju nor Pratt explicitly indicates “
However, Maloney discloses “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt and Maloney because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that the scope of indexes is up-to-date to prevent improper query results (see Maloney, paragraph [0039]). This gives the user the advantage of being assured that critical decisions are not made based on erroneous results.
As per claim 3, Potharaju teaches
the first reindexing operation further comprises generating a replacement core comprising the reindexed
Neither Potharaju nor Pratt explicitly indicates “version of the first index”.
However, Maloney discloses “version of the first index” (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt and Maloney because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that the scope of indexes is up-to-date to prevent improper query results (see Maloney, paragraph [0039]). This gives the user the advantage of being assured that critical decisions are not made based on erroneous results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452) and further in view of Iskender et al. (‘Iskender’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230066989).
As per claim 4,
Neither Potharaju nor Pratt explicitly indicates “determining that the first core is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing comprises detecting a change in a schema associated with the first core”.
However, Iskender discloses “determining that the first core is associated with a first core index that is a candidate for reindexing comprises detecting a change in a schema associated with the first core” (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt and Iskender because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for better management of database unavailability due to changes to the database schema and required reindexing operations (see Iskender, paragraphs [0002],[0048]). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to desired information.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452) and further in view of Fang et al. (‘Fang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160321145).
As per claim 5,
Potharaju and Pratt disclose the claimed invention as shown in claim 1 except for “In re Harza, 214 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960); cf St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis, 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977) (holding that adding layers to an object was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Neither Potharaju nor Pratt explicitly indicates “and wherein the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation are executed in parallel”.
However, Fang discloses “and wherein the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation are executed in parallel” (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt and Fang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by more efficient use of time during the recovery process (see Fang, paragraphs [0001]-[0003]) . This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly recover from disasters.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452) and further in view of Fang et al. (‘Fang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160321145) and further in view of Khobragade et al. (‘Khobragade’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250061090).
As per claim 6,
Neither Potharaju, Pratt nor Fang explicitly indicates “prior to the performance of the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation: placing the first core index and the second core index in a soft- closed state, wherein the soft-closed state is a state in which data may be read from the first core index and the second core index, and wherein data cannot be written to the first core index and the second core index.”
However, Khobragade discloses “prior to the performance of the first reindexing operation and the second reindexing operation: placing the first core index and the second core index in a soft- closed state, wherein the soft-closed state is a state in which data may be read from the first core index and the second core index, and wherein data cannot be written to the first core index and the second core index” (paragraphs [0169]-[0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt, Fang and Khobragade because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being insured that data is not corrupted during a re-indexing operation by providing that data is not overwritten before the operation is completed. This gives the user the advantage of protection of critical data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potharaju et al. (‘Potharaju’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210349901) in view of Pratt et al. (‘Pratt’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210103452) and further in view of Fang et al. (‘Fang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160321145) and further in view of Khobragade et al. (‘Khobragade’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250061090) and further in view of Huang et al. (‘Huang’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11176112).
As per claim 8,
Neither Potharaju, Pratt, Fang nor Khobragade explicitly indicates “the first core index is associated with a first time period; the second core index is associated with a second time period; and the third core index is associated with both the first time period and the second time period”.
However, Huang discloses “the first core index is associated with a first time period; the second core index is associated with a second time period; and the third core index is associated with both the first time period and the second time period” (plurality of index structures with plurality of time periods and combined indexes that would cover different time periods, column 1, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Potharaju, Pratt, Fang, Khobragade and Huang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing adaptive indexing structures where intermediate results of queries are minimized (see Huang, column 1, lines 40-48). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to desired information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-15 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that although these claims would be allowable over the prior art they still have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that would need to be resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights