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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims contain references to “a logical record,” “the obtained logical record,” and “the moved logical record.”
The final claim determination step is based on detecting a discrepancy between “the obtained logical record” and “the moved logical record” based on “the logical record,” wherein “the logical record” appears to be a source of both “the obtained logical record” and “the moved logical record.”
Applicant is requested to point out, with citations to the specification as filed, how the specification supports this particular discrepancy determination based on identifications of three different “logical records” and the inconsistency timer.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“1. A computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer readable storage media; and
computer readable code stored collectively in the one or more computer readable storage media, the computer readable code including data and instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
reading a raw record from a log entry, wherein the reading is performed during a live data replication process that includes moving logical records in a replication pipeline from a source database to a target database via one or more components:
obtaining a logical record of the logical records by converting the raw record read from the log entry;
determining that a log position of the logical record is in an increasing order relative to log positions of entries in a first hash map;
determining that the logical record does not exist in the first hash map;
inserting the logical record an entry into the first hash map based on the determining that the logical position of the logical record is in the increasing order relative to the log positions of the entries in the first hash map and the determining that the logical record does not exist in the first hash map;
moving the logical record in the replication pipeline for reception by a next component of the one or more components;
based on the reception of the logical record by the next component, updating metadata in a second hash map to indicate that the logical record is successfully moved to the next component, wherein the second hash map includes an inconsistency detection timer;
determining, using the inconsistency detection timer, that the logical record is in a non-commit state for more than a time interval;
detecting a data discrepancy between the obtained logical record and the moved logical record based on the determining that the logical record is in the non-commit state for more than the time interval;
generating, based on the detecting of the data discrepancy, an alert indicative of data loss associated with the logical record.”
Independent Claims 8 and 15 recite similar subject matter.
The independent claims are directed towards a mental process because the elements of reading, obtaining via conversion, determining, inserting, moving, updating based on a determination, determining, detecting, and generating an alert may be performed by a human being with pen and paper or a generic machine.
The claims contain additional elements in the form of “one or more computer processors,” (claims 1, 8, and 15) and “one or more computer readable storage media” (claims 1 and 8), and “generating … an alert.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “one or more computer processors” and “one or more computer readable storage media” are recited at a high level of generality. They appear to be generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “one or more computer processors” and “one or more computer readable storage media” is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are similarly rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a mental process.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, “Sending the generated alert to a user via a communications system,” does not appear to integrate the mental process into a practical application. Displaying an output of a data analysis by displaying the integrated extracted source data is insignificant post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). “Sending the generated alert to a user via a communications system” does not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Similarly, displaying an output of a data analysis by “sending the generated alert via a communications system” is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(g)((3). This element, in part or in whole, does not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
The remaining dependent claims, 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 appear to be directed towards additional data definitions and data analysis steps that do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 20201/0051021) in view of Kaspa et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0374442), and further in view of Bortnikov et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0220617).
As to claim 1, Bhushan teaches a computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors (see Bhushan paragraph [0008]);
one or more computer readable storage media (see Bhushan paragraph [0008]); and
computer readable code stored collectively in the one or more computer readable storage media, the computer readable code including data and instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations (see Bhushan paragraph [0008]), the operations comprising:
reading a raw record from a log entry, wherein the reading is performed during a live data replication process that includes moving logical records in a replication pipeline from a source database to a target database via one or more components (see Bhushan paragraphs [0071]-[0072]. Bhushan moves data from a source to a target. Also see Bhushan paragraph [0019]. Bhushan collects source data that needs to be verified against one another. It is noted that, in paragraph [0021], this source data is converted into a spreadsheet file entry. Thus, the original source data collection, before conversion, is “raw”);
obtaining a logical record of the logical records by converting the raw record read from the log entry (see Bhushan paragraph [0021]. The collected course data is converted into “spreadsheet files.” This is a conversion from a “raw data record” as originally collected to a “logical record” that is in a format for processing);
determining that a log position of the logical record is in an increasing order relative to log positions of entries in a first hash map (see Bhushan paragraphs [0039]-[0040]);
determining that the logical record does not exist in the first hash map (see Bhushan paragraphs [0051]-[0052]. The steps occur in sequence. The system adds a record to the hash map only if the record does not yet exist in the hash map);
inserting the logical record an entry into the first hash map based on the determining that the logical position of the logical record is in the increasing order relative to the log positions of the entries in the first hash map and the determining that the logical record does not exist in the first hash map (see Bhushan paragraphs [0051]-[0052]);
moving the … record in the replication pipeline for reception by a next component of the one or more components (see Bhushan paragraphs [0065], [0067], and [0071]-[0072]. The operations of Bhushan occur in a replication pipeline);
based on the reception of the logical record by the next component, updating metadata in a second hash map to indicate that the logical record is successfully moved to the next component (see Bhushan paragraph [0008], generally. Also see Figure 3 paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and paragraphs [0071]-[0072]. Specifically, Bhushan at [0058]-[0059] and in Figure 3 shows that metadata from the converted spreadsheets may be placed into hashmaps),
…
detecting a data discrepancy between the obtained logical record and the moved logical record … (see Bhushan paragraph [0008], generally. Also see Figure 3 paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and paragraphs [0071]-[0072]. Paragraph [0071]-[0072] show implementing the verification process of Figure 3 in a data processing pipeline. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and [0071]-[0072] describe how hashmaps are compared to identify data discrepancies. An error message is output if the hashmaps are not identical), and
generating, based on the detecting of the data discrepancy, an alert indicative of data loss associated with the logical record (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] and [0071]-[0072] describe how hashmaps are compared to identify data discrepancies. An error message is output if the hashmaps are not identical).
Bhushan does not explicitly teach:
moving the logical record in the replication pipeline so that a next component receives the logical record;
wherein the second hash map includes an inconsistency detection timer; and
determining, using the inconsistency detection timer, that the logical record is in a non-commit state for more than a time interval;
detecting a data discrepancy between the obtained logical record and the moved logical record based on the determination that the logical record is in the non-commit state for more than the time interval
Kaspa teaches:
moving the logical record in the replication pipeline so that a next component receives the logical record (see paragraph [0022] and [0028] and Figures 1B and 1C. Data is ingested, transformed, and moved through various tables and components downstream until it reaches a target destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bhushan by the teachings of Kaspa because both references are directed towards replicating data from a source to a target database. Kaspa merely adds to Bhushan additional user interface elements that gives a user greater awareness and control of the replication process, which will improve user responsiveness and ability to manage any issues that arise in the replication process.
Bortnikov teaches:
wherein the second hash map includes an inconsistency detection timer (see paragraph [0095] and paragraphs [0086]-[0095] generally. Bortnikov shows a transaction manager comprising a hash map that it uses for conflict detection. As noted in paragraph [0095], Bortnikov may detect when a transaction is slow to commit); and
determining, using the inconsistency detection timer, that the logical record is in a non-commit state for more than a time interval (see paragraph [0095]. The transaction manager, which works with the hash map, may determine that a thread is slow to commit);
detecting a data discrepancy between the obtained logical record and the moved logical record based on the determination that the logical record is in the non-commit state for more than the time interval (see paragraph [0095]. Upon detecting the data discrepancy based on the slow transaction, the system may assign a helping thread to perform the commit steps. As noted in paragraphs [0085]-[0095], the commit steps involve data discrepancy detections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bhushan by the teachings of Bortnikov because Bortnikov merely adds to Bhushan the ability to perform scalable conflict detection when managing transactions, which will improve system throughput and ensure data integrity (see Bortnikov paragraph [0001]).
As to claim 2, Bhushan as modified teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
sending the generated alert to a user via a communications system (see Bhushan paragraph [0058]).
As to claim 3, Bhushan as modified by Kaspa teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying a stage within the replication pipeline at which the data discrepancy occurs (see Kaspa paragraphs [0027] and [0029]-[0030]. Kaspa shows that a node, or component, of the pipeline may be identified as the source of the problem); and
identifying a root cause of the data discrepancy (see Kaspa paragraphs [0029]-[0030]. Kaspa shows that recommendations may be provided to a user to specifically resolve any source of an anomaly).
As to claim 4, Bhushan teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the identifying of the root cause of the data discrepancy includes identifying the root cause without impacting performance measurements of the live data replication process and without impacting a completion of the live data replication process (see Kaspa paragraphs [0027] and [0029]-[0030]. The identification of the root cause does not impact performance measurements in Kaspa and may occur in real-time).
As to claim 5, Bhushan as modified by Kaspa teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the identifying of the root cause of the data discrepancy includes identifying the root cause without performing a data comparison between the source database and the target database (see Kaspa paragraphs [0027] and [0029]-[0030]. No data comparison is performed between the source database and target database is Kaspa. Additionally, as noted in Bhushan paragraphs [0071]-[0072], no comparison between the source and target table data is used to identify a discrepancy).
As to claim 7, Bhushan teaches the computer system of claim 1,
wherein the second hash map further includes entries having respective log positions and respective states, each state of the respective states including a state identifier and a state name (see Bhushan Figure 4 and paragraph [0042]).
As to claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 9 and 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 10 and 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
As to claims 11 and 18, see the rejection of claim 4.
As to claims 12 and 19, see the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 20201/0051021) in view of Kaspa et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0374442), in view of Bortnikov et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0220617), and further in view of Rodriguez et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0357330).
As to claim 6, Bhushan teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the
the first hash map includes entries having respective log positions and respective log entry identifiers, and
each log entry identifier of the respective log entry identifiers primary key values (see Bhushan paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and Figure 4, elements 406 and 412, which show the contents of a hashmap)
…
Bhushan does not explicitly teach:
a record type, and a transaction identifier, and
the record type indicating an insert, an update, or a delete operation,
Rodriguez teaches:
a record type, and a transaction identifier (see Rodriguez paragraph [0081]), and
the record type indicating an insert, an update, or a delete operation (see Rodriguez paragraph [0081]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bhushan by the teachings of Rodriguez because both are directed towards indexing data using hashmaps. Rodriguez simply provides to Bhushan additional fields of data that may be referenced by a hashmap which will give Bhushan additional data with which to verify discrepancies. This will increase the ability of Bhushan to ensure that data integrity is maintained through a replication process.
As to claims 13 and 20, see the rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 of the instant application recites steps that are inextricably tied to a computer technology, and the human mind is not equipped to perform these claimed features "reading a raw record from a log entry, wherein the reading is performed during a live data replication process that includes moving logical records in a replication pipeline from a source database to a target database via one or more components ... inserting the logical record as an entry into the first hash map ... moving the logical record in the replication pipeline for reception by a next component of the one or more components ... updating metadata in sorted hashmaps".”
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 1-3 further elaborate on the idea that a claim may still be directed towards an abstract idea despite the use of a generic machine. Thus, though the claims may not be performed in a human mind, the reading, inserting, moving, and updating steps may be performed by a human with a generic computer.
Applicant argues that “The present invention provides a technical advantage by enabling real-time detection of data inconsistencies within a replication pipeline using lightweight metadata tracking, without requiring full data comparison between source and target databases. This improves reliability while minimizing performance overhead and diagnostic delay.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that any improvements need to be tied to additional elements in the claims beyond mental process steps. If these improvements are only improvements to logical processing and mental process steps, the claim may not be patent eligible. An improved mental process is still a mental process. It is noted that the steps listed in the preceding paragraphs are all data processing and analysis steps that may be performed by a human being with a generic computer.
Applicant argues that “The Applicant's disclosure describes, for example, "[i]n a data replication scenario, a data change record flows through different stages of a replication pipeline form a source database to a target database ... the data discrepancy detection approach described herein (i) is running at all times during which live data replication is occurring; (ii) does not impact performance measurements of the live data replication or a successful completion of the live data replication; and (iii) has memory and central processing unit (CPU) requirements that do not exceed defined manageable limits" See [0024] of the Specification as originally filed (emphasis added).”
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claims do not require “memory and central processing unit (CPU) requirements that do not exceed defined manageable limits.”
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed limitations from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant cites to the specification, then argues that “As shown in the Specification above, the present invention provides solutions to the technical problems:
Technical Problem: Detecting inconsistencies by comparing the entire source and target databases is computationally expensive, as it requires scanning and reconciling large volumes of data, consuming significant processing time, memory, and I/O resources, especially in large-scale systems.
Technical Solution: The claimed system addresses these problems by tracking each logical record in real time as it moves through the replication pipeline. It ensures that log positions are processed in strictly increasing order and verifies that each record does not already exist in a first hash map before inserting it, thereby preventing duplicate entries and identifying out-of-order conditions early. As the record progresses through each component, metadata is updated in sorted hashmaps to reflect its state at each stage. By analyzing this continuously updated metadata, the system detects data discrepancies while ensuring that memory and central processing unit (CPU) requirements do not exceed defined manageable limits. See [0024] of the Specification as originally filed. Further, the inserting of the logical record as an entry into the first hash map based on the above-mentioned verification leads to minimal usage of CPU resources while running continuously, ensuring no impact on replication performance and staying within manageable processing limits.”
In response to this argument it is noted that steps “ensuring that memory and central processing unit (CPU) requirements do not exceed defined manageable limits” are not claimed.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “Furthermore, the claimed system resolves the problem by maintaining metadata in a second hash map that includes an inconsistency detection timer for each logical record as the record moves through the pipeline, and triggering user alerts upon detection of a potential data discrepancy, enabling timely identification and investigation of the issue without requiring full database comparisons or inspection of logs. Accordingly, the Applicant has shown teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and how the technology is improved and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements in the technology.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that inconsistency detection based on timing are a data observation and data analysis steps, or mental process steps. A human being equipped with a generic computer using the claimed data structures would be capable of such detection and triggering of a user alert. As such, any improvement tied to these mental process steps would merely be an improved mental process. An improved mental process is still a mental process and patent ineligible.
Additionally. It is noted that the user alert is merely generated, but not provided to the user in the independent claims.
Applicant argues that “Bhushan merely describes converting first spreadsheet 402 to first hashmap 406, where each column name in a first row becomes a key in the first hashmap 406 and each data value in a second row becomes a value in the first hashmap 406. Bhushan does not describe determining that the log position of the logical record is in an increasing order relative to the log positions of the entries in a first hash map. Thus, Bhushan does not teach or suggest inserting the logical record as an entry into the first hash map based on the determining that the log position of the logical record is in the increasing order relative to the log positions of the entries in the first hash map.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Bhushan shows examples in Figure 4 and paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of entries being added in an increasing order relative to other entries in a first hashmap, such as Key2 being placed after Key1. Thus, Bhushan shows the claimed subject matter to the extent claimed.
Applicant argues that “Further, Kaspa and Rodriguez do not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Bhushan. Accordingly, the combination of Bhushan, Kaspa, and Rodriguez does not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of, "determining that a log position of the logical record is in an increasing order relative to log positions of entries in a first hash map ... inserting the logical record as an entry into the first hash map based on the determining that the log position of the logical record is in the increasing order relative to the log positions of the entries in the first hash map," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Kaspa and Rodriguez are not relied upon to teach this subject matter. Bhushan teaches it for the reasons provided above.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights