DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending in the application and claims 1-24 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-24 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherryholmes et al. US2011/0004586 in view of Chamberlin et al. US2016/0140177 in view of Kumarasamy US2018/0129567
Regarding claim 1, Cherryholmes teaches: executing code, stored in a memory, with one or more processors to cause the virtual database system to perform: (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0049 0052 virtual database realized on main memory and processor)
mounting the backup database by the virtual database system; (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0058 0073 attach backups as virtual database and mounting this virtual database to source database)
wherein the backup database is a virtual database and the virtual database system is configured to utilize a transaction log portion of a backup file of the virtual database instead of a physical transaction log file to recover the production-level database; (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0030 0050 0051 0058 request for log pages intercepted reading request from transaction log of backup file instead of physical transaction log to perform roll back where backup file is in new virtual database as a backup)
intercepting, with the virtual database system, a test command directed from a database management system (DBS) to the production-level database, (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0050 user submits command to database server and virtual database software intercepts the request)
executing by the virtual database system the intercepted test command against the backup database; and (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0050 0058 intercepted command to be rerouted to data location in backup file in virtual database such that virtual database is backup database)
receiving returned results from the backup database responsive to the test request; and (Cherryholmes see paragraph 0050 0066 0067 intercepted command to be rerouted to data location in backup file)
Cherryholmes does not distinctly disclose: updating the backup database by the virtual database system to maintain synchronization of the backup database with the production-level database, the virtual database is a snapshot in time of the production-level database
wherein the test command correlates with a test request formulated to derive performance information about the production-level database
utilizing the returned results
However, Chamberlin teaches: updating the backup database by the virtual database system to maintain synchronization of the backup database with the production-level database; (Chamberlin see paragraph 0062 updating mimic database based on changes in production database where mimic database is the backup database as Chamberlin as combined with the primary reference)
wherein the test command correlates with a test request formulated to derive performance information about the production-level database; (Chamberlin see paragraph 0060 user requesting to gather information such as DBMS configuration settings, query usage statistics, system resources)
utilizing the returned results. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0065 acts on results of query incorporating tuning results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Cherryholmes does not distinctly disclose: the virtual database is a snapshot in time of the production-level database
However, Kumarasamy teaches: the virtual database is a snapshot in time of the production-level database (Kumarasamy see paragraph 0079 0278 0320 snapshot of storge volume that hosts database at given point in time and stored in storage database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include snapshots as taught by Kumarasamy for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 2, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: wherein formulated to derive performance information about the production-level database comprises formulated to perform one or more of:
obtaining measured performance improvement metrics in conjunction with tuning or configuration changes of the production-level database and (Chamberlin see paragraph 0064 0077 tuning results lead to determining an improvement in performance such as query performance improved by 20% or making database 10 times bigger)
concurrently evaluating several changes to the production-level database and obtain results for each change; (Chamberlin see paragraph 0063 multiple tuning analysis from requests conducted simultaneously)
characterizing any type of performance of the production-level database including one or more of:
testing a state of the production-level database; and
testing performance against multiple query formulations to determine a preferred query formulation.(Chamberlin see paragraph 0077 what if scenario to change database state, examiner notes the optional recitation in claim language)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 3, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: teaches: wherein the backup database continuously synchronized replica. (Kumarasamy see paragraph 0079 0278 0320 snapshot of storge volume that hosts database at given point in time and stored in storage database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include snapshots as taught by Kumarasamy for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 4, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: wherein the backup database is either an equivalent of the production-level database or the backup database includes changes not made to the production-level database. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0063 0065 tuning analysis includes query plan directed at mimic system before determining whether or not to implement tuning recommendation at production system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 5, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: wherein the returned results comprise a baseline performance measure of the production-level database to assess performance impacts of current or prospective changes to the production-level database. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0064 0077 tuning results lead to determining an improvement in performance such as query performance improved by 20% or making database 10 times bigger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 6, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: evaluating the results to evaluate the production-level database;
comparing the results with previous results;
reformulating a future test request; and
applying one or more changes to the production level database including one or more of:
changing a way data in a table of the production-level database is indexed;
adding or deleting portions of the production-level database; and
reorganizing the production-level database. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0064 tuning results to consider changes to hosting environment such as more memory or processing power, changes to DBMS, changes to design of database, determining an improvement in performance. Examiner notes the optional claim language in claim language)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 7, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: prior to applying any of the one or more changes to the production level database,
applying one or more of the changes to the virtual database. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0063 0065 query result produced in mimic and determining tuning results before applying to production system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claim 8, Cherryholmes as modified further teaches: causing the DBS to issue the test command to the production level database. (Chamberlin see paragraph 0003 query plan execution plan access plan to dbms)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a virtual database system as taught by Cherryholmes to include query tuning taught by Chamberlin for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing data
Regarding claims 9-24, note the rejection of claim(s) 1-8. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Prior art does not teach that the backup database is a virtual database
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Cherryholmes teaches that a backup database is a virtual database. Paragraph 0058 explicitly recites “backups as a virtual database” which reads on the claimed concept.
Applicant’s argument: Prior art does not teach point in time snapshot
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is moot as newly amended claims are responded to in the above rejection
Applicant’s argument: Prior art does not teach a test
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Examiner interprets the test as a command. There is no specific definition given to the term “test’ nor does the functionality differ from a normal command and therefore prior art reads on the concept of a test. Furthermore, a command can be used as a “Test” which further supports that prior art teaches the recited concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153