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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is non-final, and is in response to the amendments filed on 04/23/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1, 11, 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-20 is withdrawn, in view of amendments.
The arguments regarding the towards the 103 rejection are mute since the amendment necessitated a new search, which found new art.
Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 are withdrawn.
A new rejection is made for claims .. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorensen et al al US 10536520 in further view of DiScala M. et al Automatic Generation of Normalized Relational Schemas from Nested Key-Value Data. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, 2016.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Firmli et al, CSR++: A Fast, Scalable, Update-Friendly Graph Data Structure, OPODIS 2020
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Prahlad et al US 20090248762
Claims 4,5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Jiang, et al Holistic primary key and foreign key detection, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2019
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 04/23/2025 have been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 11, 20 have been amended
Re Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter - the rejection is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment and arguments, the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 is withdrawn.
A new ground of rejection under U.S.C. 103 is made with respect to independent claims 1, 11, 20. The newly added limitations require application of different prior art than that previously relied upon. In addition, dependent claims which depend from the newly amended claims are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped, and a single rejection analysis is performed, on a representative claim for the group.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10- 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou, CN 109635037, in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520.
Regarding claim 1, representative of claims 11 and claim 20, which have similar limitations, Bruno discloses
a method for populating test data in a test environment for a plurality of production datastores comprising a plurality of tables the method comprising: { [0001] This invention is related to databases, and more specifically, to generating synthetic databases for testing purposes },
populating, by the one or more processors and using the ordered graph, the test environment with the test data, the test data satisfying the identified one or more invisible foreign-key relationships, wherein a first table associated with a first production datastore in the test environment includes test data generated from a corresponding second table associated with a second production datastore in the test environment. { see at least [0062] Evaluation of a DGL program can proceed as follows. In general, a DGL program can be seen as a directed acyclic graph (DAG).[0070] A thin layer on top of DGL can be provided that allows annotating a SQL DDL CREATE TABLE statement to additionally specify how to populate the created table. [0079] The resulting data generator executable 908 is then run to create and populate a database.; [0101] A generator is used that populates a fact table R with a foreign-key to a dimension table S.}
Bruno does not teach, however Firebird teaches
determining, based on the one or more datastore requests intercepted as the datastore requests are sent or received over the network, at least one intersection between tables of different production datastores among the plurality of production datastores using row-level values at a column-level for results of the one or more datastore requests; { [page XXVII] Network Access A Firebird server running on any platform accepts TCP /IP client attachments from any client platform that can implement the Firebird API. Clients cannot attach to a Firebird server through any medium of filesystem sharing (NFS shares, Samba client connections, Windows shares or mapped drives, etc.); A Firebird server running on a services-capable Windows host can accept attachments from Windows clients through the Named Pipes network protocol. …[page XXVII] Transactions All user tasks in Firebird are enclosed within transactions. A task begins with a START TRANSACTION statement and ends when work posted by the user task is committed or rolled back. A user task can make multiple requests for operations to be performed within a single transaction, including operations in more than one database.
Page 22; Joining Joining is one of the most powerful features of a relational database because of its capacity to retrieve abstract, normalized data from storage and deliver denormalized sets to applications in context. In JOIN operations, two or more related tables are combined by linking related columns in each table. Through these linkages, a virtual table is generated that contains columns from all of the tables. …Joining is used in SELECT statements to generate denormalized sets containing columns from multiple tables that store related data. The sets of columns extracted from each table are known as streams. The joining process merges the selected columns into a single output set. The simplest case is a two-table join, where two tables are linked by matching elements of a key that occurs in both tables. The key columns far making the linkage are chosen on the basis that they implement the relationship unambiguously-that is, a key in the left -side table of the join will find only the rows in the right -side table that belong to the relationship, and it will find all of them. Typically, the linkage is made between a unique key in the left -side table (primary key or another unique key) and a formal or implied foreign key in the right -side table.
PNG
media_image1.png
871
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The intersection between tables of different production datastores among the plurality of production datastores using row-level values at a column-level for results of the one or more datastore requests is interpreted as the elements in which column that match in the rows – in the example in Fig 22-1 these are 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109.
identifying, by one or more processors, and using the one or more datastore requests, one or more invisible foreign-key relationships between respective pairs of tables in the plurality of production datastores based on the at least one intersection
Page 22; Joining Joining is one of the most powerful features of a relational database because of its capacity to retrieve abstract, normalized data from storage and deliver denormalized sets to applications in context. In JOIN operations, two or more related tables are combined by linking related columns in each table. Through these linkages, a virtual table is generated that contains columns from all of the tables. …Joining is used in SELECT statements to generate denormalized sets containing columns from multiple tables that store related data. The sets of columns extracted from each table are known as streams. The joining process merges the selected columns into a single output set. The simplest case is a two-table join, where two tables are linked by matching elements of a key that occurs in both tables. The key columns far making the linkage are chosen on the basis that they implement the relationship unambiguously-that is, a key in the left -side table of the join will find only the rows in the right -side table that belong to the relationship, and it will find all of them. Typically, the linkage is made between a unique key in the left -side table (primary key ar another unique key) and a formal or implied foreign key in the right -side table.
PNG
media_image1.png
871
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
foreign-key relationships between respective pairs of tables in the plurality of production datastores based on the at least one intersection is interpreted as the FK
based on the intersection of the two tables, in column looking for the elements that match in the rows,– in the example in Fig 22-1 these are 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno with Firebird. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of using a classic/textbook procedure of connecting elements in tables based on implied/implicit keys, searching the matches of elements. In the instant case, Bruno evidently discloses the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph. Firebird is merely relied upon to illustrate the identification of implicit foreign-key relationships. As best understood by Examiner, since using of foreign-key relationships, and identifying implicit foreign-key relationships, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno and Firebird would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno in view of Firebird.
Bruno/Firebird does not disclose, however Zhou discloses:
generating, by the one or more processors, a directed graph, wherein each of the plurality of production datastores is represented by a respective node of the directed graph and each identified invisible foreign-key relationship is represented by a respective edge between a first node and a second node of a respective pair of tables corresponding to the invisible foreign-key relationship;
topologically ordering, by the one or more processors, the directed graph { [Abstract] data table as the node, the constraint relation to outer key of the data table is a directed edge between two nodes, generating a directed graph; converting the directed graph into a directed graph of adjacency matrix, input a directed graph adjacency matrix and effective distance of node to be added; the node of the adjacency matrix for path searching, obtaining all node paths generating path set}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Firebird with Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of extending the data tables and data records that can be used, yet which miss explicit foreign-keys, while the relationships are otherwise expressed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Firebird evidently discloses the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph. Zhou is merely relied upon to illustrate the identification of implicit foreign-key relationships, and using those in an ordered graph. As best understood by Examiner, since using of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and identifying implicit foreign-key relationships, and using those in an ordered graph are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Firebird and Zhou would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird in view of Zhou.
Bruno/Zhou do not disclose, however Sorensen discloses
intercepting one or more datastore requests as the one or more datastore requests are sent or received over a network connecting the plurality of production datastores with a requesting device {see at least [Claim 1] intercepting, by a storage gateway at a client network, read requests and write requests directed to a primary data store on the client network from one or more processes on the client network… wherein the storage gateway is separate from the primary data store and is implemented by one or more computing device on the client network comprising one or more hardware processors and memory; for the read requests, passing, by the storage gateway, the intercepted read requests to the primary data store at the client network}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou with Sorenson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of identifying foreign-keys relationships and preparing the test tables without interrupting the regular traffic. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhou evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data. Sorenson is merely relied upon to illustrate interception over the network. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data and obtaining it over the network and storing it are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou and Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird in view of Zhou in further view of Sorenson.
Regarding claim 10, Bruno/Firebird Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno further discloses
wherein the directed graph is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). {[0016] FIG. 4A illustrates a diagram of a simple DGL (Data Generation Language) program and corresponding DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph)}
Regarding claims 2, 12 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of independent claims. Sorenson further discloses
storing the one or more datastore requests in persistent storage. {[Claim 1] i … wherein the storage gateway is separate from the primary data store and is implemented by one or more computing device on the client network comprising one or more hardware processors and memory; for the read requests, passing, by the storage gateway, the intercepted read requests to the primary data store at the client network}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen with further teachings of Sorenson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of identifying foreign-keys relationships and preparing the test tables without interrupting the regular traffic, and storing the information to be used at the right moment and again when needed, since traffic could occur at a higher speed than preparation of the test database Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data. Sorenson is merely relied upon to illustrate interception over the network and the storing. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and preparing data and obtaining it over the network and storing it are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen and Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Zhou further discloses
wherein the directed graph comprises a progress state table, and wherein topologically sorting the directed graph comprises updating, for each node, the progress state table with a name of a datastore represented by the node and a respective level in the ordering for the datastore. { [Preferably said module comprises ] a second generating unit, for a certain node 0 with the degree of adjacency matrix starting from traversing the other node obtains the route set… searching subunit for searching becase starting traversal searching as the starting pointing to the edge node; first judging subunit for judging whether the node is accessed, if it is accessed, then marking the node, and returns the searching unit; if it has not been accessed, then enters the traversing unit;} wherein the directed graph comprises a progress state table interpreted as adjacency matrix; and wherein topologically sorting the directed graph comprises updating, for each node, the progress state table with a name of a datastore represented by the node and a respective level in the ordering for the datastore the updating for each mode the progress table interpreted as the marking of the node if it is accessed (nodes are traversed in order).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen with further elements of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of keeping track of the progress while performing the operations in order. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and having it in topological order. Further elements of Zhou are merely relied upon to illustrate details of keeping track of the order. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph, ordering the graph and keeping track of the order are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen.
Regarding Claim 8, 18 Bruno/Firebird Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Zhou further discloses
populating the test environment with the test data using the progress state table of the directed graph to satisfy the one or more identified invisible foreign-key relationships { [Preferably said module comprises ] a second generating unit, for a certain node 0 with the degree of adjacency matrix starting from traversing the other node obtains the route set… searching subunit for searching becase starting traversal searching as the starting pointing to the edge node; first judging subunit for judging whether the node is accessed, if it is accessed, then marking the node, and returns the searching unit; if it has not been accessed, then enters the traversing unit; [summary of invention, 11th sentence] the foreign key constraint relation is defined as one of the following three constraint relation: foreign key constraint relation, transferring foreign key constraint relationship directly, implicit outer key constraint relation; [Abstract] transmits the data table stores different data nodes; [Summary of Invention] S20 input data table to be stored, with an effective distance corresponding foreign key constraint relation between nodes to a directed graph data model;}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen with further elements of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of keeping track of the progress while performing the operations in order and update tables accordingly. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhou evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph and having it in topological order and keeping track of order. Further elements of Zhou are merely relied upon to illustrate populating the tables accordingly. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph, ordering the graph and keeping track of the order and populating tables accordingly are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen and further elements of Zhou would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”) in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorensen et al al US 10536520 in further view of DiScala M. et al Automatic Generation of Normalized Relational Schemas from Nested Key-Value Data. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, 2016.
Regarding Claim 9, 19 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen does not disclose however DiScala discloses
identifying a circular dependency between two or more production datastores, according to the topological sorting; and replacing nodes corresponding with the two or more production datastores with a composite node, the composite node connected to one or more nodes according to edges for nodes to the two or more production datastores. {DiScala [Section 3.1.4.] This process includes a schema generation algorithm that discovers relationships across the attributes of the denormalized datasets in order to organize those attributes into relational tables. It further includes a matching algorithm that discovers sets of attributes that represent overlapping entities and merges those sets together. When the input is a directed acyclic graph (DAG), however, a linear time solution exists. Although we cannot assume that the phase 1 dependency graphs will be DAGs, the transitive nature of functional dependencies allows us to assume that the cycles in the graph will result from bidirectional dependencies between pairs of attributes as shown in Figure 4(b)…[Section 2 third column]. our use of functional dependencies allows us to compress the input dataset through deduplication} Circular dependency between two or more production datastores, according to the topological sorting; is interpreted as the dependency graphs with cycles in the graph resulting from bidirectional dependencies. Replacing nodes corresponding with the two or more production datastores with a composite node, the composite node connected to one or more nodes according to edges for nodes to the two or more production datastores in BRI is interpreted as compress the input dataset through deduplication.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou with DiScala. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of being able to address tables with circular (inter)dependencies by transforming them in a DAG which can be traversed in order. One should note this is a common practice to POSITA, referred to in common terms as using junction tables or bridge tables, replacing tables with such dependencies with a singular combined table. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of foreign-key relationships, building a directed graph. DiScalan is merely relied upon to illustrate transforming any cyclic parts of the graph in acyclic. As best understood by Examiner, since building a directed graph and transforming parts of a graph to acyclic are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou and Sorensen and DiScala would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen in further view of DiScala.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”) in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Firmli et al, CSR++: A Fast, Scalable, Update-Friendly Graph Data Structure, OPODIS 2020
Regarding Claim 7, 17 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen does not disclose however Firmli discloses:
traversing the ordered graph; and {[Section 2, line 20] This separation allows for quick traversals over the graph structure}
populating data across tables for each node concurrently, in accordance with the updated levels in the progress state table. { [Section 3, 3rd line] csr++ enables fast concurrent accesses to the main graph data (vertex and edge tables) and stores additional graph data, such as reverse edges, user-defined keys, and vertex and edge properties.} In BRI populating data across tables for each node concurrently, in accordance with the updated levels in the progress state table is interpreted as concurrent access to vertexes/tables, nodes, and storing (in vertexes/tables) the additional data, such as vertex properties.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen with Firmly. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of speed enabled by multiple processors and concurrency, so multiple tables can be updated simultaneously. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen evidently discloses obtaining the request the use of a directed graph to update tables. Firmli is merely relied upon to illustrate transforming any cyclic parts of the graph in acyclic. As best understood by Examiner, since using a directed graph and updating graph nodes concurrently are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen and Firmli would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird / Zhou/Sorensen in further view of Firmli.
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Prahlad et al US 20090248762
Regarding Claim 3 (13) Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson does not disclose, however Prahlad discloses
wherein intercepting the one or more datastore requests comprises intercepting only read requests for reading request results from the plurality of production datastores { [Claim1] method for accessing electronic data, the method comprising: intercepting a read request for electronic data}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson with Prahlad. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of simplifying the interception, saving time and power, since as recognized in the specification a write request will almost always be preceded by a read request. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhao, Sorenson evidently discloses obtaining the request. Sorenson is merely relied upon to restrict to obtaining to read request. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request and obtaining only the read request are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen and Prahlad would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird in view of Zhou, Sorenson in further view of Prahlad .
Claims 4,5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Bruno, US et al 20060123009, in view of The Firebird Book – A reference for Database Developers , 2004 “(Firebird”), in further view of Zhou et al, CN 109635037 in further view of Sorenson et al US 10536520 in further view of Jiang, et al Holistic primary key and foreign key detection, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2019
Regarding Claim 4, 14 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson do not explicitly disclose, however Jiang discloses:
executing the one or more datastore requests to generate one or more request results, wherein each request result corresponds to a record of a respective table with a primary-key identifier stored in a column of the respective table; and comparing, for a first request result, the primary-key identifier for the first request result with primary-key identifiers in other tables, and for each matched primary-key identifier, identifying an invisible foreign-key relationship between the table storing the first result and the table storing the result corresponding to the matched primary-key identifier. { [Abstract] Primary keys (PKs) and foreign keys (FKs) are important elements of relational schemata in various applications, such as query optimization and data integration. However, in many cases, these constraints are unknown or not documented. Detecting them manually is time consuming and even infeasible in large-scale datasets. We study the problem of discovering primary keys and foreign keys automatically and propose an algorithm to detect both, namely Holistic Primary Key and Foreign Key Detection (HoPF). [3.2] The dependency between primary key and foreign key is obvious, because the righthand side of a foreign key must be a primary key. Although each table may have multiple alternative keys, we assume only one of them is the true primary key. In this work, we use only minimal UCCs for two reasons: 1) the proposed PK features (see details in Section 4) always prefer the minimal UCCs than their non-minimal supersets; 2) the complete set of UCCs (including both minimal and non-minimal UCCs) could contain exponentially more UCCs than the minimal counterpart, because each column combination subsuming a UCC is also a valid UCC.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Bruno, Zhou, Sorenson with Jiang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of simplifying the interception, saving time and power, since as recognized in the specification a write request will almost always be preceded by a read request. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Bruno, Zhao, Sorenson evidently discloses obtaining the request, identifying implicit keys. Jiang is primarily relied upon to be very explicit about the foreign-key being searched in columns, in addition to the other elements disclosed. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the request and obtaining only the read request identifying keys and searching for keys in columns are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bruno, Zhou, Sorensen and Jiang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Bruno/Firebird in view of Zhou, Sorenson in further view of Jiang .
Regarding Claims 5, 15 Bruno/Firebird/Zhou/Sorensen/Jiang disclose the limitations of the parent claim. Bruno, further discloses
wherein the test data comprises at least a portion of the one or more request results. { [0111] First, define a temporary column tmpNat ion which consists of the nations of the corresponding orders' customers. Then, define l_suppkey with a Query iterator that uses the extended SQL CROSS APPLY and newId operators. CROSS APPLY invokes a table-valued function for each row in the outer table expression and returns a unified result set out of all of the partial table-valued results.} In BRI, at least a portion of the one or more request results is interpreted as partial table-valued results.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11755462 B2 Test Data Generation For Automatic Software Testing
CN 102200944 A Test Environment Cloning Method And System For ERP System
Conclusion
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.
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 ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights