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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 17/991,949 filed on 11/22/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2022 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner interprets the “computer readable storage medium” recited in claim 15 to include only non-transitory type of medium in view of Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0013. Therefore, claims 15-20 are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAWLICK et al. (AU-2003252183-A1, hereinafter “Gawlick”).
Regarding claim 1, Gawlick teaches a method implemented by an information handling system that includes a processor and a memory accessible by the processor (Gawlick ¶0440), the method comprising:
running a replication tool that replicates a source database of a source database type to a target database of a target database type (Gawlick ¶0086, “Typically, an apply process applies events to the local database where it is running, but, in a heterogeneous database environment, it can be configured to apply events at a remote database that is a different type of database than the local database. For example, the local database may be a database created by a database server produced by one company, and the remote database may be a database created by a database server produced by another company”, i.e., databases of different types; and ¶0090, “assume that a user wants to use system 100 to replicate at a target database a table that exists in a source database. To program system 100 to carry out the replication, the user could register a set of rules that: * identify the database table that is to be replicated * identify the target database, and * specify the data capture, staging, propagation and consumption options for performing the replication”, i.e., database replication);
in response to encountering a replication error that cannot be resolved by the replication tool (Gawlick ¶0087 “According to one embodiment, an apply process detects conflicts automatically when directly applying LCRs.”):
matching the replication error to a business logic recovery rule selected from a plurality of business logic recovery rules that are external to the replication tool (Gawlick ¶0087 “When conflicts occur, users need a mechanism to ensure that the conflict is resolved in accordance with user-specified business rules. According to one embodiment, information sharing system 100 includes a variety of prebuilt conflict resolution handlers. Using these prebuilt handlers, users can define a conflict resolution system for each of the users' databases that resolves conflicts in accordance with user-specified business rules”); and
applying the matching business logic recovery rule to the replication error, wherein the application of the business logic recovery rule corrects the replication error (Gawlick 0087, “Using these prebuilt handlers, users can define a conflict resolution system for each of the users' databases that resolves conflicts in accordance with user-specified business rules”; and ¶0180, “If the error handler can resolve the error, then it should apply the LCR, if appropriate. An error handler may resolve an error by modifying the LCR before applying it. If the error handler cannot resolve the error, then the apply process places the transaction, and all LCRs associated with the transaction, into an exception queue”).
As to claim 3, Gawlick also teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to failing to initially match the replication error to one of the plurality of business logic recovery rules (Gawlick ¶0180 “If the error handler cannot resolve the error, then the apply process places the transaction, and all LCRs associated with the transaction, into an exception queue”):
receiving the business logic recovery rule from a user of the replication tool (Gawlick ¶¶0181-0185);
adding the received business logic recovery rule to the plurality of business logic recovery rules (Gawlick ¶0186);
after adding the received business logic recovery rule to the plurality of business logic recovery rules, performing the matching of the replication error to the business logic recovery rule that was added to the plurality of business logic recovery rules and the applying the matching business logic recovery rule to the replication error (Gawlick ¶0180, “An error handler may resolve an error by modifying the LCR before applying it”).
As to claim 4, Gawlick teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
proactively determining one or more data points in the replication of the source database to the target database where replication may fail (Gawlick ¶0101);
writing one or more of the business logic recovery rules (Gawlick ¶¶0102-0107); and
including the written business logic recovery rules in the plurality of business logic recovery rules (Gawlick ¶0108).
As to claim 5, Gawlick also teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the business logic recovery rules are written in a human-readable data-serialization language (Gawlick ¶0438, i.e., XML language).
As to claim 6, Gawlick also teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the business logic recovery rules include a rule name, an error identifier, an applicable range, an error type, and a resolution policy (Gawlick ¶¶0221-0232).
As to claim 7, Gawlick also teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
injecting the plurality of business logic recovery rules into a set of native replication tool recovery resolutions (Gawlick ¶0110).
Claim 8 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawlick in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11032361 B1, hereinafter “Chen”).
As to claim 2, Gawlick also teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the running of the replication tool is halted when the replication error is encountered (Gawlick ¶0180, “An error handler may resolve an error by modifying the LCR before applying it. If the error handler cannot resolve the error, then the apply process places the transaction, and all LCRs associated with the transaction, into an exception queue”), but fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising:
resuming the running of the replication tool at a point in the replication where the replication error was encountered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches resuming the running of the replication tool at a point in the replication where the replication error was encountered (Chen Col 14, Ln 28-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gawlick by incorporating the teachings of Chen. The motivation would be for allowing replication process from each replicated streamers to be paused and resumed independently of the other replicated streamers (Chen Col 14, Ln 30-38).
Claim 9 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168