Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 17/458,168, filed on 8/26/2021 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 16/722,469 filed on 12/20/2019 is now US PAT 11132379 16/722,469 is a CON of 16/240,549 filed on 01/04/2019 is now US PAT 11106695 16/240,549 is a CON of PCT/CN2017/090269 filed on 06/27/2017
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3,5-16,18-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 9/24/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/26/2023 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA application # 201610518735.2 filed on 07/04/2016.
Double Patenting
In view of terminal disclaimer approved on 8/9/2023, the double patent rejection as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 with respective to claims 1-3,5-16,18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
a)At page 7-9, claim 1, applicant argues:
as amended, claim recites “performing, by the primary database, persistence processing on the first log and performing, by the primary database………second log”, Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically perform persistence processing on log data, which, as explained in the specification, can include “stor[ing] the generated log in a hard disk,” at paragraph 0004. In particular, the human mind cannot practically implement a hard disk that stores data in a persistent manner even after power failure or restart.
Amended claim 1 also recites “synchronizing ... the first log ... from the primary database to a secondary database.” Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically synchronize log data between two databases. In particular, the human mind cannot practically implement two databases, let alone moving data between them so that each database stores a copy of the data.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite matter directed to a judicial exception, and in particular do not recite a mental process.
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims provide a particular solution to a problem in the field of database technologies that “performing persistence processing on the generated log or synchronizing the generated log to the secondary database both need to consume a lot of time. Consequently, it takes a relatively long time for a database data modification request processing mode in the existing technology,” as explained in the specification at paragraph 0005.
For example, claim 1, as amended, recites “generating a first log and a second log based on the data modification request, wherein the first log is a simplified log that includes only the first data, and the second log comprises the first data and the second data,” “synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log,” and “returning, by the primary database, the modification result that corresponds to the data…….
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 9/24/2025) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
For example, if the additional limitations as amended 9/24/2025 (receiving….., modifying………..generating……..performing, by the primary database, persistence……first log …………second log; synchronizing………….returning……prior to a completion of a persistence processing……….) do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”, for example “performing, by the primary database, persistence……first log …………second log”, does not provide any details about how performing………processing on the second log”, returning, …..persistence processing on the first log prior to a completion of a persistence processing……second log”, without satisfying any defined rule(s) and/or condition(s), encompasses mental observations or evaluations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations mental process user/actor that constitute certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) and/or general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea. As discussed, the claims as amended (9/24/2025) the broadest reasonable interpretation of above steps is that those steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Taking the claim 1 (9/24/2025) elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generically recited performing, by the primary database, persistence……first log …………second log, synchronizing,…… returning, …..persistence processing on the first log prior to a completion of a persistence processing……second log are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838F.3d 1307,1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (receiving, generating, performing, synchronizing, and returning data are well-known, generic computer-implemented steps)
Considered as an ordered combination, the generically recited “generating first log…..second log….synchronizing first log……returning…….. in a database add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the first log, second log, persistence processing, synchronizing first log…….. in a database theselves Nor does claim 1 effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. . Instead, claim 1 (as amended 9/24/2025) amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to Claim 14,20 includes similar features, and claims 2-3,5-13,15-16,18-19 depend from claims 1,14, as such, the pending claims fail Prong Two of Step 2A-2B of the PEG 2019. Therefore, examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
b)At page 9-10, claim 1, applicant argues:
The cited prior art of Itoh, Kusunose do not teach “returning, by the primary database, the modification result that corresponds to the data modification request after having performed persistence processing on the first log and prior to a completion of a persistence processing performed by the primary database on the second log…….
Itoh does not teach “primary database return the modification results, performs the persistence processing on the first log………..
Examiner’s response:
As to the above argument (b), as best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Itoh is directed to synchronizing between databases, more specifically, identifying initial state of each databases, data synchronization performed based on query transmission method using “update logs” (Itoh: Abstract). The prior art of Itoh teaches synchronization management server that keeps update records including update log records as part of database management system on both source and destination site as detailed in fig 1. The prior art of Itoh teaches difference log, and update log particularly synchronization process maintains “table” specifically related to not only update log records, record log table but also query log table for example as shown in fig 3 . The prior art of Itoh teaches synchronization management table associated with the specific record identified by the Key, so that particular record may be modified for example deleted or added or inserted because record flag indicates the status of the record modification associated with the timestamp for example as detailed in 0067-0068 corresponds to modifying database record(s) because each record associated with the timestamp, “modification result that corresponds to the data modification” corresponds to Itoh’s 0067-0068, fig 3-4 updated records and returning….modification results are stored as updated records as shown in fig 3, element 203
The prior art of Kusunose is directed to data modification or data modifyication unit modifies database records, while maintaining and/or creating modification log records stored in a database (Kusunose: Abstract).. The prior art of Kusunose teaches database server maintains multiple databases processing database records using remote access server for example as shown in fig 4. In one embodiment, Kusunose teaches specific data modification ie., modify(ing) data using data commands and create modification log (Kusunose: 0033-0034), the modification of data or log data may be “delete”, “change” or “add” via modification logging unit.
It is however, noted that Itoh does not disclose “synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log”, although Itoh teaches synchronizing databases particularly maintaining log records (Itoh: Abstract, fig 1). On the other hand, Kusunose disclosed “synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log” (Kusunose: Abstract, fig 5-6 – 0060 Kusunose teaches modification of log records that including data modification commands. Kusunose teaches selectively identifying record from the database retrieve and log to update and /or modification log stored in the log storage unit element 122, as such modification log entries and added update to the specific records for example A1 and B1 to the search command message communicating to the remote database
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention modifying log records and message sending to a remote database of Kusunose into database management system performing synchronization statues between databases of Itoh because both Itoh, Kusunose teaches log record management in a database system (Itoh: Abstract, fig 1; Kusunose: Abstract, fig 1) and they both are from the database management endeavor. Because both Itoh, Kusunose teaches database management system maintaining log records, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to modification to the selected log records, particularly data modification command (Kusunose: 0064-0066), while maintaining previous log records and updating selected database, thereby modification logging unit creates and stores modification log keeping track of modifications made by the data modification unit (Kusunose: 0012-0013), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the database management system. The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art-KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to Claim 14,20 includes similar features, and claims 2-3,5-13,15-16,18-19 depend from claims 1,14
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 1-3,5-16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,14,20, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
“receiving, for a primary database, a data modification request for the primary database;
modifying second data in the primary database to first data;
generating a first log and a second log based on the data modification request, wherein the first log is a simplified log that includes only the first data, and the second log comprises the first data and the second data;
performing, by the primary database, persistence processing on the first log and performing, by the primary database, persistence processing on the second log;
synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log; and
returning, by the primary database, the modification result that corresponds to the data modification request after having performed persistence processing on the first log and prior to a completion of a persistence processing performed by the primary database on the second log”, these limitations (claim 1,14,20) as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of collecting, modifying log records and/or data
The limitation “receiving, modifying, generating” steps as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of mere data collection
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0112-0119 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para 0112-0119 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
As to claim 2,15, further elaborates “wherein generating the first log and the second log comprises generating the first log and the second log in a memory”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 3,16, further elaborates on
including, in the second log, data that belongs to a same database record as the second data;
performing persistence processing on the second log; and
sending the second log to a data analysis system, so that the data analysis system performs data analysis based on the second log”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
claim 4. (Cancelled)
As to claim 5,18, further elaborates “wherein after synchronizing the first log to the secondary database of the primary database, the method further comprises:
synchronizing, by the secondary database, the modification result and generating the second log based on the first log”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 6, further elaborates on
“performing, by the secondary database, persistence processing on the first log obtained through synchronization or the second log generated based on the first log”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 7, further elaborates on “wherein the first data and the second data each belong to at least one database record; and
the second log further comprises one or more of: data other than the first data in the database record that the first data belongs to, or data other than the second data in the database record that the second data belongs to”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 8 . (Original) The method according to claim 1, “wherein performing the persistence processing on the first log comprises storing the first log in a nonvolatile storage device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 9, further elaborates on wherein the first log and the second log are separately stored in different nonvolatile storage devices by using the persistence processing”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 10,19, further elaborates on “wherein the data modification request is a data update request, a data deletion request, or a data addition request; and
neither the first data nor the second data is null when the data modification request is a data update request; or
the first data is null and the second data is not null when the data modification request is a data deletion request; or
he first data is not null and the second data is null when the data modification request is a data addition request”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 11, further elaborates on wherein the data modification request comprises a request for reducing a total volume of data in the primary database based on one or more policies”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 12, further elaborates on “further comprising sending the second log to an external system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
As to claim 13, further elaborate on:
“persistence processing on the first log and returning the modification result are performed by a main thread or process; and
“persistence processing on the second log is performed by another thread or process”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 17. (Cancelled)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3,5-16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh, US Pub. No. 2016/0259837 filed on Mar 2015 in view of Kusunose, US Pub. No. 2006/0277228 published Dec, 2006
As to claim 1,14,20. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising (Itoh: Abstract – Itoh teaches database management system, synchronization between databases)
“receiving, for a primary database, a data modification request for the primary database;” (Itoh: fig 1, Abstract, 0037-0039 – Itoh teaches synchronization of databases particularly between source database and target databases, maintaining both “update log” and “difference log” element 205 and 208 respectively, primary database corresponds to Itoh’s fig 1, source database and data modification corresponds to update log extraction element 205)
PNG
media_image1.png
252
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“modifying second data in the primary database to first data” (Itoh: fig 1, 0039-0041,0046,0056-0058, 0067-0068, fig 3-4 – Itoh teaches difference log, and update log particularly synchronization process maintains “table” used in synchronization process. The prior art of Itoh teaches synchronization management table associated with the specific record identified by the Key, so that particular record may be modified for example deleted or added or inserted because record flag indicates the status of the record modification associated with the timestamp for example as detailed in 0067-0068 corresponds to modifying database record(s) because each record associated with the timestamp)
PNG
media_image2.png
152
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“generating a first log and a second log based on the data modification request, wherein the first log is a simplified log that includes only the first data, and the second log comprises the first data and the second data” (Itoh: fig 13, 0112-0115 – Itoh teaches update log extraction process between source, target databases identifying respective transaction log, difference log. The prior art of Itoh maintains log records synchronization process using data tables particularly KEY of the entries to identify first , second …..records and it is noted that update log having same KEY representing septic log(s))
“performing, by the primary database, persistence processing on the first log and performing, by the primary database, persistence processing on the second log” (Itoh: fig 1, 0031-0033 – Itoh teaches processing of source database having update log records identified and stored in the source database) ;and
“returning, by the primary database, the modification result that corresponds to the data modification request after having performed persistence processing on the first log prior to a completion of a persistence processing to have been performed by the primary database on the second log” (Itoh: fig 3-4,0033, 0040, 0047, 0056-0060 – Itoh teaches update of log records associated with the synchronization flag ensuring database management system states of the log records, further it is noted that Itoh teaches extracted record to create a complete record data, then sent to synchronization process, further synchronization unit processes and sends updated log record as detailed in 0040, and returning….modification results are stored as updated records as shown in fig 3, element 203)
It is however, noted that Itoh does not disclose “synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log”, although Itoh teaches synchronizing databases particularly maintaining log records (Itoh: Abstract, fig 1). On the other hand, Kusunose disclosed “synchronizing only the first log and not the second log from the primary database to a secondary database of the primary database before returning a modification result that corresponds to the data modification request, so that the secondary database synchronizes the modification based on the first log” (Kusunose: Abstract, fig 5-6 – 0060 Kusunose teaches modification of log records that including data modification commands. Kusunose teaches selectively identifying record from the database retrieve and log to update and /or modification log stored in the log storage unit element 122, as such modification log entries and added update to the specific records for example A1 and B1 to the search command message communicating to the remote database
PNG
media_image3.png
327
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
333
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention modifying log records and message sending to a remote database of Kusunose into database management system performing synchronization statues between databases of Itoh because both Itoh, Kusunose teaches log record management in a database system (Itoh: Abstract, fig 1; Kusunose: Abstract, fig 1) and they both are from the database management endeavor. Because both Itoh, Kusunose teaches database management system maintaining log records, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to modification to the selected log records, particularly data modification command (Kusunose: 0064-0066), while maintaining previous log records and updating selected database, thereby modification logging unit creates and stores modification log keeping track of modifications made by the data modification unit (Kusunose: 0012-0013), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the database management system
As to claim 2,15, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed “wherein generating the first log and the second log comprises generating the first log and the second log in a memory” (Itoh: fig 1,0036-0037).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3,16, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed
including, in the second log, data that belongs to a same database record as the second data” (Itoh: fig 1, fig 3);
“performing persistence processing on the second log” (0049-0051); and
“sending the second log to a data analysis system, so that the data analysis system performs data analysis based on the second log” (Itoh: 0080-0082).
Claim 4. (Cancelled)
As to claim 5,18 the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed “wherein after synchronizing the first log to the secondary database of the primary database, the method further comprises” (Itoh: fig 1):
“synchronizing, by the secondary database, the modification result and generating the second log based on the first log” (Itoh: fig 1-2, 0031-0033, 0039-0040).
As to claim 6, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed
“performing, by the secondary database, persistence processing on the first log obtained through synchronization or the second log generated based on the first log” (Itoh: 0044-0045,0058-0059).
As to claim 7, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed
wherein the first data and the second data each belong to at least one database record (Itoh: fig 1-2); and
“the second log further comprises one or more of: data other than the first data in the database record that the first data belongs to, or data other than the second data in the database record that the second data belongs to” (Itoh: 0045-0046,0050-0052).
As to claim 8, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed
“wherein performing the persistence processing on the first log comprises storing the first log in a nonvolatile storage device” (fig 1, fig 17, 0050-0053).
As to claim 9, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed “wherein the first log and the second log are separately stored in different nonvolatile storage devices by using the persistence processing” (Itoh: fig 3, 0047-0048)
PNG
media_image5.png
325
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
As to claim 10, 19, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed “wherein the data modification request is a data update request, a data deletion request, or a data addition request” (Itoh: fig 13, 0093-0095); and
“neither the first data nor the second data is null when the data modification request is a data update request” (Itoh: 0096-0098); or
“the first data is null and the second data is not null when the data modification request is a data deletion request” (Itoh: 0046-0047, 0059-0062; Kusunose: fig 1); or
“the first data is not null and the second data is null when the data modification request is a data addition request” (Itoh:0067-0068; Kusunose: 0033-0034, fig 1) .
PNG
media_image6.png
407
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
127
362
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed “wherein the data modification request comprises a request for reducing a total volume of data in the primary database based on one or more policies” (Itoh: 0039-0041).
As to claim 12, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed” further comprising sending the second log to an external system” (Itoh: 0059-0066).
As to claim 13, the combination of Itoh, Kusunose disclosed
“persistence processing on the first log and returning the modification result are performed by a main thread or process” (Itoh: fig 1;fig 3, 0045-0047) and
“persistence processing on the second log is performed by another thread or process” (Itoh: fig 4, 0056-0058)
Claim 17. (Cancelled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2016/0259837
b. US Pub. No. 2006/0277228
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154