DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on December 3rd 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 have been amended and claims 6, 13 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12 and 13 – 19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 9 -13, filed December 3rd 2025, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12 and 13 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Herbst reference does not teach or suggest, “identifying at least one first partition optimized only for the IUD operations, wherein the at least one first partition does not execute the query operations” as recited in claim 1. He further argues that the Herbst reference teaches a coexistence of OLTP and OLAP within a unified system, which fundamentally incompatible with the claim 1 recitation that “the at least one first partition does not execute the query operations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference is made to Fig. 4 of applicant’s drawings and paragraphs [0046] – [0052] of applicant’s specification. Particular reference is made to paragraph [0048] which teaches a “non” conventional MPP DBMS that has data manipulation enabled, meaning beyond the conventional MPP DMBS this particular MPP DBMS can do both data manipulation and queries therefore it encompasses both applications within one system. This is depicted in Fig. 5 where there is one contiguous external storage with partition groups. Therefore applicant’s own disclosure teaches a “unified” system that that does both OLAP and OLTP, where upon the insert/update/delete feature being enabled, a hash is computed of the partition map and the operation is sent to that partition. It loads a new partition map and then sends the operation to that partition. The Herbst reference also teaches the presence of an MPP system that supports both OLAP and OLPT, wherein first and second storage medium … In some embodiments, the first storage medium comprises in-memory columnar storage and the second storage medium comprises disk-based storage. [0019]. By parity of reasoning where, applicant’s disclosure generates a hash and a new partition to determine where to sent the operation, the Herbst reference generates a query rewrite to determine which of the storage media that is visible by default to send its operation to. Therefore the storage media whose settings has not been setup to receive such an operation is not optimized for such an operation.
Secondly, applicant’s representative argues that the Herbst references manages OLTP and OLAP through visibility toggling and query rewriting, not by structural exclusivity.
Examiner respectfully submits submits that applicant’s disclosure specifies its “exclusivity” based on a hash determined at runtime when a feature is enabled. The broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s claimed invention in light of the disclosure indicates that a contiguous external storage medium Fig. 4 (230) serves both insert/update/delete operations and that is determined at runtime if such a feature is enabled wherein a hash is computed to determine with of the partitioned external storage the operation will be sent to. The Herbst reference teaches a first and second storage with a default setting as to which is visible for such an operation and ensure physical exclusivity ab initio.
Third, applicant’s representative argues that the Herbst reference teaches that the apparatus 500 may decouple OLTP optimized visibility from storge media allocation and thus the mechanism does not create a partition incapable of executing query operations. To the contrary, the Herbst reference confirms that OLAP access remains possible: “hot and cold data may be accessible and visible via standard SQL queries”
Examiner respectfully submits that applicant’s claimed invention read in light of his disclosure teaches that in Fig. 4 (410) if direct access is not enabled, then the process using tradition method in step (415). In such a scenario, applicant’s disclosure actually teaches a “decoupling” of the two types of operations, i.e. OLAP and OLTP.
Fourth Applicant’s representative argues that OLAP queries are supported through query rewriting, hence Herbst approach ensures OLAP access persists, contradicting the claimed approach of applicant’s claimed invention are recited in independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s claimed invention in light of the disclosure indicates that Fig. 4 steps (410) and (415) using the traditional method indicates, applicant’s disclosure also ensures OLAP to persist.
Fifthly, applicant’s representative argues that the reliance on the Herbst reference as a motivation to combine is also insufficient. Herbst achieves performance improvements through query rewriting and visibility toggling, not through structural exclusivity. Accordingly, the cited combination fails to teach and suggest the claimed feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees where the Herbst reference actually teaches an in-memory columnar store as a first storage and a physical disk as second storage thereby ensuring structural exclusivity.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
4. 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.
5. 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 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 8 – 10, 12 and 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagtiani et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20140156666), hereinafter Jagtiani), in view of Herbst et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20140365424) hereinafter Herbst.
Regarding claim 1 Jagtiani teaches a method, (Figs. 3, 6 - 8 method [0011], [0014] – [0016]) comprising: based on an insert/update/delete (IUD) feature (Since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed
from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; now any insert that happens whose hash bucket turns out to be in between 500-1000 will directly go to DBPartition_new [0043]/staged updates to the query catalog [0021], Thereafter, then the method 300 proceeds to step 370, where the catalog table is updates to associate the re-allocated entries with the new table partition [0028], applying the updated hash function to the entry to obtain a hash value, [0039], where the catalog table is updates to associate the migrated entries with the new DBpartition, updating the catalog in step 690 may include removing the previous existing DB association, e.g., <New DBpartition>. [0041]/ where the migrated entries are deleted from the existing DBpartition and indexes within the new and old DBpartitions are rebuilt. [0041]) such as “insert/update/delete (IUD) feature” being enabled, (a condition of a read/write pattern or any other condition as determined by a DBA [0026]) such as “being enabled” and based on receiving an IUD operation (queries received … since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; [0021]) such as “IUD request” at a massively parallel processing (MPP) database management system (DBMS) engine, (massively parallel processing (MPP) database and management thereof [0020])
and based on the IUD operation (queries received … since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; [0021]) such as “IUD request” being an insert operation, (Now any insert that happens whose hash bucket turns out to be in between 500-1000 will directly go to DBPartition_new. [0043]) calculating a distribution key by hash, (Alternatively, if a hash algorithm is used, then step 660 may include applying the updated hash function to the entry to obtain a hash value, and then determining whether the hash value has been re-allocated to the new DBpartition. [0039]) generating a new partition map, (ABS., re-updated catalog) (re-updated catalog [0042]) and executing the insert operation (Now any insert that happens whose hash bucket turns out to be in between 500-1000 will directly go to DBPartition_new. [0043]) using the new partition map. (ABS., re-updated catalog) (re-updated catalog [0042]) loading a first partition map (ABS., updated catalog) (updated catalog [0021]) such as “first partition map”
Jagtiani does not fully disclose that is configured to perform both query operations and IUD operations; identifying at least one first partition optimized for the IUD operations, wherein the first partition does not execute the query operations; corresponding to the at least one first partition optimized for only IUD operation
Herbst teaches that is configured to perform both (Initially, at S210 a database containing entries is stored across first and second storage medium … In some embodiments, the first storage medium comprises in-memory columnar storage and the second storage medium comprises disk-based storage. [0019]; In addition, in-memory computing-and especially a colunmwise data organization-may lead to new reporting
applications (such as OLAP applications for year-to-year comparisons, planning, prediction, data mining, and/or sentiment analysis) as well as applications for creating and changing data (such OLTP applications). That is, OLTP and OLAP may no longer be separate systems with redundant data. Instead, OLTP and OLAP may represent different data usage scenarios within a single system 600. [0035]) query operations (OLAP queries [0032]) and IUD operations; (OLTP queries [0033]) identifying at least one first partition optimized for the IUD operations, (A subset of the entries stored in the first storage medium may be identified at S220 as being default "visible" for OLTP accesses. [0020]) SEE Fig. 3, (310) (320) wherein the at least one first partition (the first storage medium [0020]) does not execute the query operations; (Entries in the first storage medium 310 that are not within the subset, as well as all entries stored in the second storage medium 320, are default invisible for OLTP [0021]; That is, the apparatus 500 may decouple OLTP-optimized visibility from storage media allocation according to technical settings [0032], [0045]) corresponding to the at least one first partition(the first storage medium [0020]) optimized for only IUD operation (A subset of the entries stored in the first storage medium may be identified at S220 as being default "visible" for OLTP accesses. [0020])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jagtiani to incorporate the teachings of Herbst wherein that is configured to perform both query operations and IUD operations; identifying at least one first partition optimized for the IUD operations, wherein the first partition does not execute the query operations loading a first partition map corresponding to the at least one first partition optimized for only IUD operation. By doing so OLTP and OLAP may no longer be separate systems with redundant data. Instead, OLTP and OLAP may represent different data usage scenarios within a single system 600. Herbst [0035]
Claims 8 and 15 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 2 Jagtiani in view of Herbst teaches the method of claim 1,
Jagtiani as modified further teaches comprising: based on the IUD operation(queries received … since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; [0021]) such as “IUD request” being other than the insert operation, (delete [0028]) loading the first partition map (ABS., updated catalog) (updated catalog [0021]) such as “partition map” based on a search condition (In this case, the range algorithm may be modified to re-allocate entries having a SSN between 1-500 to the new DBpartition, while leaving entries having an SSN between 501-1000 allocated to the exiting DBpartition [0038]) of a Structured Query Language (SQL) statement (staged search [0021]) such as “SQL statement”
Claims 9 and 16 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 3 Jagtiani in view of Herbst teaches the method of claim 1,
Jagtiani as modified further teaches wherein the MPP DBMS engine (massively parallel processing (MPP) database and management thereof [0020])
Jagtiani does not fully disclose comprises at least one second partition optimized for executing only query operations, and the at least one first partition optimized only for the IUD requests.
Herbst teaches comprises at least one second partition (ABS., second storage medium) (Fig. 3, (320) second storage medium) optimized for executing only query operations, (Fig. 2 (S210) (entries in the second storage medium being default invisible for OLTP [0019]) SEE Fig. 3 (320) and the at least one first partition (ABS., first storage medium) (Fig. 3, (330) default visible for online transactional processing [0021]) optimized only for the IUD requests (Fig. 2 (S220) (entries in the first storage medium being default visible for OLTP [0020]) SEE Fig. 3 (330)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jagtiani to incorporate the teachings of Herbst comprises at least one second partition optimized for executing only query operations, and the at least one first partition optimized only for the IUD requests. By doing so a database 330 having entries is stored such that it spans both the first storage medium 310 and the second storage medium 320. A subset of the database 330 in the first storage medium 310 is identified as being default visible for OLTP. That is, entries in that subset may be thought of as being "hot" data from an OLTP perspective. Entries in the first storage medium 310 that are not within the subset, as well as all entries stored in the second storage medium 320, are default invisible for OLTP, and may be considered "cold" data from an OLTP perspective. Herbst [0021]
Claims 10 and 17 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 5 Jagtiani in view of Herbst teaches the method of claim 1,
Jagtiani as modified further teaches, based on the IUD feature(Since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; now any insert that happens whose hash bucket turns out to be in between 500-1000 will directly go to DBPartition_new [0043]/staged updates to the query catalog [0021], Thereafter, then the method 300 proceeds to step 370, where the catalog table is updates to associate the re-allocated entries with the new table partition [0028], applying the updated hash function to the entry to obtain a hash value, [0039], where the catalog table is updates to associate the migrated entries with the new DBpartition, updating the catalog in step 690 may include removing the previous existing DB association, e.g., <New DBpartition>. [0041]/ where the migrated entries are deleted from the existing DBpartition and indexes within the new and old DBpartitions are rebuilt. [0041]) such as IUD feature” not being enabled (For example, if the tl-pl is filled much faster than the tl-p2, then adding the tl-p4 will not alleviate the imbalance in the tl 110 because, when using conventional techniques, data cannot be moved from the tl-pl to the tl-p4 without taking the conventional MPP database 200 offline (i.e., interrupting runtime operation). [0025])
Jagtiani does not fully disclose wherein the IUD operation is directed to at least one second partition optimized for executing only query operations,
Herbst teaches wherein the IUD operation (OLTP query [0019])is directed to at least one second partition (ABS., second storage medium) (Fig. 3, (320) second storage medium) optimized for executing only query operations, (Fig. 2 (S210) (entries in the second storage medium being default invisible for OLTP [0019]) SEE Fig. 3 (320)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jagtiani to incorporate the teachings of Herbst wherein the IUD operation is directed to at least one second partition optimized for executing only query operations. By doing so determining some of the OLTP-hot subset of the database 330 may be based on check logic with coded algorithms at an application server on top of the database 330 . Herbst [0022].
Claim 12 correspond to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagtiani et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20140156666), hereinafter Jagtiani), in view of Herbst et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20140365424) hereinafter Herbst and in further view of Gokturk et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160192203) hereinafter Gokturk.
Regarding claim 4 Jagtiani in view of Herbst teaches the method of claim 1,
Jagtiani as modified further teaches wherein a data transfer path for the IUD operation request (insert [0043]/update [0041]/delete [0041]) such as “IUD request” in the MPP DBMS engine(massively parallel processing (MPP) database and management thereof [0020]) having the IUD feature enabled (a condition of a read/write pattern or any other condition as determined by a DBA [0026]) such as “insert/update/delete (IUD) feature being enabled”
Jagtiani does not fully disclose is changed from network broadcast to single partition direct, thereby reducing network bottleneck.
Gokturk teaches wherein a data transfer path (route [0023]) is changed (Using the cost computation method explained above, cost of each alternative path is calculated and the path that provides the minimum cost is selected as the best route. [0090]) from network broadcast (broadcast through all available interfaces to reach all APs within the mesh network. [0034]) to single partition direct, (selecting a single best channel [0063]) thereby reducing network bottleneck (ensuring the lowest cost determined in ascending order [0056])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramesh to incorporate the teachings Gokturk wherein is changed from network broadcast to single partition direct, thereby reducing network bottleneck. By doing so select the topology combination that optimizes the cost of end-to-end communication in the network. Gokturk [0092].
Claims 11 and 18 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected accordingly
Claims 7, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagtiani et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20140156666), hereinafter Jagtiani), in view of Herbst et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20140365424) hereinafter Herbst and in further view MacDonald et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20170139910) hereinafter MacDonald.
Regarding claim 7 Jagtiani in view of Herbst teaches the method of claim 1,
Jagtiani as modified further teaches comprising: based on the IUD feature (Since each entry is written to the new DBpartition before being deleted/removed from the existing DBpartition, [0021]; now any insert that happens whose hash bucket turns out to be in between 500-1000 will directly go to DBPartition_new [0043]/staged updates to the query catalog [0021], Thereafter, then the method 300 proceeds to step 370, where the catalog table is updates to associate the re-allocated entries with the new table partition [0028], applying the updated hash function to the entry to obtain a hash value, [0039], where the catalog table is updates to associate the migrated entries with the new DBpartition, updating the catalog in step 690 may include removing the previous existing DB association, e.g., <New DBpartition>. [0041]/ where the migrated entries are deleted from the existing DBpartition and indexes within the new and old DBpartitions are rebuilt. [0041]) such as “insert/update/delete (IUD) feature” being enabled, (a condition of a read/write pattern or any other condition as determined by a DBA [0026]) such as “being enabled”
Jagtiani does not fully disclose loading a corresponding partition map corresponding to a partition group having a failed partition; determining which recovery partition is defined to assume data operations for the failed partition; and routing the data operations from the failed partition through the recovery partition using the corresponding partition map of the failed partition.
MacDonald teaches loading a corresponding partition map (consulting a partition map [0034]) see also Figs. 4 & 5 (420) (520) client loads locally cached copy of partition map; [0048], [0057], [0062] and [0079] corresponding to a partition group (Fig. 9, (950) replica group [0078]) such as “partition group” having a failed partition; (Fig. 9 (910) primary copy becomes unavailable [0078]) determining which recovery partition is defined to assume data operations (Fig. 9 (930) read-only copy is promoted to become the new primary copy of partition [0078]) for the failed partition; (Fig. 9 (910) primary copy becomes unavailable [0078]) and routing data operations (automatic routing of client queries to the appropriate databases. For example, in one embodiment, SRDBS's query routing mechanism may automatically route a client's queries to the appropriate database server that holds the required data [0024], [0031], [0034], [0037] – [0041], [0044], [0048], [0075], [0076] and [0090]) see also Fig. 10, (1020) administrative server begins transfer of data from source replica group to destination replica group [0079] from the failed partition (Fig. 9 (910) primary copy becomes unavailable [0078]) through the recovery partition (Fig. 9 (930) read-only copy that has been promoted [0078]) using the corresponding partition map (partition map [0034]) of the failed partition. (Fig. 9 (910) primary copy becomes unavailable [0078])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramesh to incorporate the teachings of MacDonald wherein comprising: based on an insert/update/delete (IUD) feature being enabled, loading a partition map corresponding to a partition group having a failed partition; determining which recovery partition is defined to assume data operations for the failed partition; and routing data operations from the failed partition through the recovery partition using the partition map of the failed partition. By doing so since the change is local to the gateway process or processes managing the affected database replica group, the change may only be broadcast to these specific gateway processes, as in 950. MacDonald [0078].
Claims 14 and 19 correspond to claim 7 and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this
final action.
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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. 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.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166