DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
No claims are added or amended.
Claims 21 – 30 are canceled.
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 .
Priority
The instant application is a CON of U.S. Patent application 18/201,895.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/21/25, 8/11/25, 10/2/25, 10/17/25, 11/3/25, 12/5/25, 12/24/25, 1/30/26, 3/14/26, and 5/5/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
a control plane comprising a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon and processor that executes computer-readable instructions to execute one or more services running on the control plane, the control plane connected to a plurality of database servers, wherein each of the plurality of database servers is connected to the control plane via a communication channel;
wherein the control plane comprises a plurality of data streams, each of the plurality of data streams configured to communicate messages of a designated type;
and wherein the control plane is configured to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers using the plurality of data streams and the communication channel associated with the database server and the control plane.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 limitations of “a control plane comprising a memory …” “wherein the control plane comprises a plurality of data streams…” and “wherein the control plane is configured to communicate with a database server” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
MENTAL PROCESSES MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 1, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim fails to recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application 2106.04(d)
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); [AltContent: rect]
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation of “a control plane comprising a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon and processor that executes computer-readable instructions to execute one or more services running on the control plane, the control plane connected to a plurality of database servers, wherein each of the plurality of database servers is connected to the control plane via a communication channel” is simply establishing a control plane connected to servers, the limitation “wherein the control plane comprises a plurality of data streams, each of the plurality of data streams configured to communicate messages of a designated type” is simply connecting a control plane with data streams, and the limitation “wherein the control plane is configured to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers using the plurality of data streams and the communication channel associated with the database server and the control plane” is simply establishing that a control plane may communicate using channels.
The claim limitations merely apply a generic computer component and link to the field of use.
THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT MPEP 2106.05(I)
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Claim 2 recites:
wherein to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
listen for a request from the database server on a first one of the plurality of data streams; identify a service from the one or more services for handling the request;
transmit the request to the service;
receive a response from the service; and
transmit the response to the database server on a second one of the plurality of data streams.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 2’s limitations “wherein to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: listen for a request from the database server on a first one of the plurality of data streams; identify a service from the one or more services for handling the request;” “transmit the request to the service;” “receive a response from the service;” and “transmit the response to the database server on a second one of the plurality of data streams” may be observations as a mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 2, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine a tenant identifier based on one or more characteristics of the request;
determine an owner identifier based on the one or more characteristics of the request; and
modify the request based on the tenant identifier and the owner identifier.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 3’s limitations “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine a tenant identifier based on one or more characteristics of the request; determine an owner identifier based on the one or more characteristics of the request; and modify the request based on the tenant identifier and the owner identifier” ” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 3, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “modify[ing]” does not specify performing calculations to compare, it’s simply performing a generic computer process.
Step 2B
Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein identifying the service comprises determining a format of the request.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 4’s limitation “wherein identifying the service comprises determining a format of the request” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 4, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request;
modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider.
The limitation of “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request; modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider” appears to be mere instructions to apply this on a computer.
Therefore, the claim does not recite limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive a request from the database server; identify metadata from the request; and
generate an alert based on the metadata to generate a notification at a user interface.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 6 limitation “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive a request from the database server; identify metadata from the request; and generate an alert based on the metadata to generate a notification at a user interface” recite a mental process, which can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 6, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites “receiv[ing],” “identify[ing],” and generat[ing],;” however, those are merely generic computer functions. The “generat[ing] limitation does not specify calculating, or performing any actions other than generic computer functions.
Step 2B
Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the control plane further comprises a registration data stream, wherein the control plane receives a request for registering a new database server through the registration data stream.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 7 limitations of “wherein the control plane further comprises a registration data stream, wherein the control plane receives a request for registering a new database server through the registration data stream” may be done as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 7, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the plurality of data streams include at least one of a commands topic, an operations topic, and a requests topic.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 8 limitation of “wherein the plurality of data streams include at least one of a commands topic, an operations topic, and a requests topic” may be done as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 8, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: store a first message of the messages sent to the database server for a first period of time;
and in response to not receiving an acknowledgement from the database server of the first message within the first period of time, resend the first message to the database server.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 9’s limitation “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: store a first message of the messages sent to the database server for a first period of time;
and in response to not receiving an acknowledgement from the database server of the first message within the first period of time, resend the first message to the database server” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 9, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing and resending are generic computer functions.
Step 2B
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive, through a data stream of the plurality of data streams, a call to provision a database across a first region of a cloud and a second region of the cloud;
retrieve a grouped network profile associated with the cloud;
determine, based on the grouped network profile, first network details associated with the first region and second network details associated with the second region; and provision the database on a first node in the first region using the first network details and provision the database on a second node in the second region using the second network details.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 10’s limitation “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive, through a data stream of the plurality of data streams, a call to provision a database across a first region of a cloud and a second region of the cloud; retrieve a grouped network profile associated with the cloud; determine, based on the grouped network profile, first network details associated with the first region and second network details associated with the second region; and provision the database on a first node in the first region using the first network details and provision the database on a second node in the second region using the second network details” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 10, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing and resending are generic computer functions. The limitation to “provision” the database is merely performing a generic computer function.
Step 2B
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites:
receive, on a data stream of a messaging cluster of the control plane, a message from a database server over a TCP connection;
route the message to a service of the control plane;
generate a response to the message;
route the response to the messaging cluster; and
send, by the messaging cluster, on the data stream, the response to the database server.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 11’s limitation “receive, on a data stream of a messaging cluster of the control plane, a message from a database server over a TCP connection; route the message to a service of the control plane; generate a response to the message; route the response to the messaging cluster; and send, by the messaging cluster, on the data stream, the response to the database server” may be observations as a mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 11, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All claim limitations receite generic computer functions.
Step 2B
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
listen for a request from the database server on a first one of the plurality of data streams; identify a service from the one or more services for handling the request;
transmit the request to the service;
receive a response from the service; and
transmit the response to the database server on a second one of the plurality of data streams.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 12’s limitations “wherein to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: listen for a request from the database server on a first one of the plurality of data streams; identify a service from the one or more services for handling the request;” “transmit the request to the service;” “receive a response from the service;” and “transmit the response to the database server on a second one of the plurality of data streams” may be observations as a mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 12, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine a tenant identifier based on one or more characteristics of the request;
determine an owner identifier based on the one or more characteristics of the request; and
modify the request based on the tenant identifier and the owner identifier.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 13’s limitations “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine a tenant identifier based on one or more characteristics of the request; determine an owner identifier based on the one or more characteristics of the request; and modify the request based on the tenant identifier and the owner identifier” ” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 13, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “modify[ing]” does not specify performing calculations to compare, it’s simply performing a generic computer process.
Step 2B
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein identifying the service comprises determining a format of the request.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 14’s limitation “wherein identifying the service comprises determining a format of the request” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 14, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request;
modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider.
The limitation of “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request; modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider” appears to be mere instructions to apply this on a computer.
Therefore, the claim does not recite limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites:
receive a request for registering a new database server through a registration data stream.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 16 limitation “receive a request for registering a new database server through a registration data stream” recite a mental process, which can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 16, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites “receiv[ing],” however, receiving is merely a generic computer function.
Step 2B
Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the request is one of a request, a reply to a command from the control plane, and a reply to an operation from the control plane.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 17 limitations of “wherein the request is one of a request, a reply to a command from the control plane, and a reply to an operation from the control plane” may be done as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 17, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites:
store a first message sent to the database server from the control plane for a first period of time; and in response to not receiving an acknowledgement, from the database server, of the first message within the first period of time, resend the first message to the database server.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 18’s limitation “store a first message sent to the database server from the control plane for a first period of time; and in response to not receiving an acknowledgement, from the database server, of the first message within the first period of time, resend the first message to the database server” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 18, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing and resending are generic computer functions.
Step 2B
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request;
modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider.
The limitation of “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: determine an identity of a cloud provider associated with the database server based on the request; modify the request using cloud credentials associated with the cloud provider; and send the modified request to the cloud provider” appears to be mere instructions to apply this on a computer.
Therefore, the claim does not recite limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites:
wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive, through a data stream of the plurality of data streams, a call to provision a database across a first region of a cloud and a second region of the cloud;
retrieve a grouped network profile associated with the cloud;
determine, based on the grouped network profile, first network details associated with the first region and second network details associated with the second region; and provision the database on a first node in the first region using the first network details and provision the database on a second node in the second region using the second network details.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 20’s limitation “wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive, through a data stream of the plurality of data streams, a call to provision a database across a first region of a cloud and a second region of the cloud; retrieve a grouped network profile associated with the cloud; determine, based on the grouped network profile, first network details associated with the first region and second network details associated with the second region; and provision the database on a first node in the first region using the first network details and provision the database on a second node in the second region using the second network details” may be an observation as a mental process, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 20, as a whole, fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing and resending are generic computer functions. The limitation to “provision” the database is merely performing a generic computer function.
Step 2B
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2 and 11 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaibhav Sharma et el. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020032245).
With respect to claim 1, Sharma teaches:
a control plane comprising a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon and processor that executes computer-readable instructions to execute one or more services running on the control plane, the control plane connected to a plurality of database servers, wherein each of the plurality of database servers is connected to the control plane via a communication channel (see paragraph [0029], and Fig. 4, where the control plane is connected to database servers S1 S2 and S3, also see paragraph [0106], where the data storage includes memory);
wherein the control plane comprises a plurality of data streams, each of the plurality of data streams configured to communicate messages of a designated type (see paragraph [0029], and Fig. 4, where the control plane is connected to data streams 114);
and wherein the control plane is configured to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers using the plurality of data streams and the communication channel associated with the database server and the control plane (see paragraph [0039], where channels are used to communicate between the servers and the plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Sharma teaches:
wherein to communicate with a database server of the plurality of database servers, the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to:
listen for a request from the database server on a first one of the plurality of data streams (see paragraph [0101], where each server listens and takes appropriate action);
identify a service from the one or more services for handling the request (see paragraph [0101], where each server listens and takes appropriate action);
transmit the request to the service (see paragraph [0101], where each server listens and takes appropriate action);
receive a response from the service (see paragraph [0101], where each server listens and takes appropriate action); and
transmit the response to the database server on a second one of the plurality of data streams (see paragraph [0101], where each server listens and takes appropriate action).
With respect to claim 11, Sharma teaches:
receive, on a data stream of a messaging cluster of the control plane, a message from a database server over a TCP connection (see paragraph [0029], and Fig. 4, where the control plane is connected to database servers S1 S2 and S3, also see paragraph [0106], where the control plane is connected to data streams 114);
route the message to a service of the control plane; generate a response to the message; route the response to the messaging cluster; and send, by the messaging cluster, on the data stream, the response to the database server (see paragraph [0029], and Fig. 4, where the control plane is connected to data streams 114, also see paragraph [0039], where channels are used to communicate between the servers and the plane).
Conclusion/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights