DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 15/702180 filed on April 21, 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 10, 2025 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
3. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites "and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, managing compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying a table to record failed data. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can document data that is not located a document and thus a failed search. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity as seen as v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head”.
For example, “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “communicating, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determining, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “communicating, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determining, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head”.
For example, “communicating, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determining, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head”.
For example, “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster”.
For example, “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated”.
For example, “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim,9, specifically claim 9 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy”.
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim,10, specifically claim10 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”.
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim,11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is above the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a removal of the search result from at least one search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is above the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a removal of the search result from at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”.
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is above the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a removal of the search result from at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites "and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, managing compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying a table to record failed data. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can document data that is not located a document and thus a failed search. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “determine, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, update a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity as seen as v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determine, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, “based on determining the failed search head, update a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “determine, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head”.
For example, “wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: communicate, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determine, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: communicate, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determine, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head”.
For example, “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: communicate, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determine, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head”.
For example, “wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, managing compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying a table to record failed data. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can document data that is not located a document and thus a failed search. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity as seen as v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry”.
For example, “determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
For example, “based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster”.
For example, “wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated”.
For example, “wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy”.
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 21, specifically claim 21 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 21 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”.
For example, “wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 2-9, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable by Lyle et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,346,824 (herein as ‘Lyle’) and further in view Rao et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0221149 (herein as ‘Rao’).
As to claim 2 Lyle teaches a method comprising:
Lyle teaches based on determining the failed search head, updating a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node);
and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, managing compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node, thus a new node is replacing the workload of the failed node).
Lyle does not teach but Rao teaches determining, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0037-0039 Rao discloses the cluster leader is used to manage the members nodes in a cluster detecting a failure of a node);
Lyle and Rao are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication head leader of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to shared data (Par. 0005 Rao).
As to claim 3 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 14-13 Lyle discloses detecting a node failure. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Lyle discloses data is retained based upon the timeout, before the data is removed. In addition the copies/nodes can expire according to a schedule. Expiring according to a schedule is seen as expiration of a period of time. The timeout is seen as a heartbeat message).
As to claim 4 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches further comprising: communicating, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determining, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head (Col. 12 Lines 58-65 Lyle discloses a timeout occurring when the node is unreachable).
As to claim 5 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 17-20 Lyle discloses internet or ethernet address are associated with the failed node).
As to claim 6 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry (Col. 6 Lines 20-24 Lyle discloses rerouting the traffic to the node that takes over the failed network traffic).
As to claim 7 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster (Col. 8 Lines 37-43 Lyle discloses keeping tracking of number of times a data is reference in the tree structure).
As to claim 8 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated (Col. 8 Lines 37-43 Lyle discloses keeping tracking of number of times a data is reference in the tree structure).
As to claim 9 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy (Col. 8 Lines 50-55 Lyle discloses when the reference count is reached 0, then the data is released).
As to claim 12 Lyle teaches a system comprising:
a memory (Col. 1 Lines 60-65 Lyle discloses a memory);
and one or more processing devices coupled with the memory, the one or more processing devices configured to memory (Col. 1 Lines 60-65 Lyle discloses a processor);:
Lyle teaches based on determining the failed search head, update a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node);
and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, manage compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node, thus a new node is replacing the workload of the failed node).
Lyle does not teach but Rao teaches determine, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0037-0039 Rao discloses the cluster leader is used to manage the members nodes in a cluster detecting a failure of a node);
Lyle and Rao are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication head leader of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to shared data (Par. 0005 Rao).
As to claim 13 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the failed search head is determined based on an expiration of a period of time without the search head leader receiving a heartbeat message from the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 14-13 Lyle discloses detecting a node failure. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Lyle discloses data is retained based upon the timeout, before the data is removed. In addition, the copies/nodes can expire according to a schedule. Expiring according to a schedule is seen as expiration of a period of time. The timeout is seen as a heartbeat message).
As to claim 14 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: communicate, from the search head leader, periodic heartbeat messages to the failed search head; and determine, by the search head leader, an expiration of a period of time during which the search head leader fails to receive a heartbeat message from the failed search head (Col. 12 Lines 58-65 Lyle discloses a timeout occurring when the node is unreachable).
As to claim 15 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the references to the failed search head comprise an identifier associated with the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 17-20 Lyle discloses internet or ethernet address are associated with the failed node).
As to claim 16 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein removing the references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry modifies one or more search results included in the cluster search results registry (Col. 6 Lines 20-24 Lyle discloses rerouting the traffic to the node that takes over the failed network traffic).
As to claim 17 Lyle teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding executable instructions thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processing devices, (Col. 1 Lines 55-60 Lyle discloses a computer-readable storage) cause the one or more processing devices to:
Lyle teaches based on determining the failed search head, update a cluster search results registry maintained by the search head leader by removing references to the failed search head from the cluster search results registry (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node);
and in accordance with the updated cluster search results registry, manage compliance of a replication policy in association with a search result corresponding with the failed search head (Col. 6 Lines 16-18 Lyle discloses updating the portmapper so that traffic is sent to another node, thus a new node is replacing the workload of the failed node).
Lyle does not teach but Rao teaches determine, by a search head leader of a search head cluster comprising a plurality of search heads, a failed search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0037-0039 Rao discloses the cluster leader is used to manage the members nodes in a cluster detecting a failure of a node);
Lyle and Rao are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication head leader of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to shared data (Par. 0005 Rao).
As to claim 18 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the replication policy comprises a replication count configured in association with the search head cluster (Col. 8 Lines 37-43 Lyle discloses keeping tracking of number of times a data is reference in the tree structure).
As to claim 19 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein the retention policy indicates a number of locations in the search head cluster at which the search result is to be replicated (Col. 8 Lines 37-43 Lyle discloses keeping tracking of number of times a data is reference in the tree structure).
As to claim 20 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Lyle teaches wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises determining that a replication count associated with the search result is not in compliance with the replication policy (Col. 8 Lines 50-55 Lyle discloses when the reference count is reached 0, then the data is released).
7. Claim(s) 10, 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Lyle et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,346,824 (herein as ‘Lyle’), further in view Rao et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0221149 (herein as ‘Rao’) and further in view of Hardin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0268644 (herein as Hardin’).
As to claim 10 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
Lyle does not teach but Hardin teaches wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0104 Hardin discloses a replication policy to generate a number of data objects based upon the predetermined number).
Lyle and Hardin are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication policy of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to data (Par. 0005 Hardin).
As to claim 11 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 2.
Lyle does not teach but Hardin teaches wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is above the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a removal of the search result from at least one search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0104 Hardin discloses a replication policy to is used to rebalancing algorithm is used to re-distribute the data objects based upon the policy).
Lyle and Hardin are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication policy of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to data (Par. 0005 Hardin).
As to claim 21 Lyle in combination with Rao teaches teach and every limitation of claim 17.
Lyle does not teach but Hardin teaches wherein managing compliance of the replication policy in association with the search result corresponding with the failed search head comprises: determining that a replication count associated with the search result is below the replication policy; and based on the determination that the replication count is below the replication policy, scheduling a replication of the search result to at least one search head of the plurality of search heads (Par. 0104 Hardin discloses a replication policy to is used to rebalancing algorithm is used to re-distribute the data objects based upon the policy).
Lyle and Hardin are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, replication processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to references of indexes of Lyle to include the replication policy of Hardin, to allow for accessing content in order to provide effective access to data (Par. 0005 Hardin).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.M/ January 22, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159