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 .
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helt et al. (US 20200401602 A1) in view of Hoffmann et al. (US Patent No. 11120047 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Helt discloses a method of managing an active-active database system ([Abstract]: In embodiments, the ability to have two separate Db2 Mirror pair environments… is presented; [0054]: For example, with reference to FIG. 1A, IASP 33 115 and IASP 125 are in an active-active mirroring state at Site 1 101), the method comprising:
accessing the database system by a processing device (Fig. 2; [0038]:Via the Network Interface 225, the System Node 110 can be communicatively coupled with one or more other devices; [0030]: Thus a change made by a user on System A to IASP 33 115, is immediately replicated on IASP 33 125 stored on System B. Both copies of IASP 33 are in an active state, which means they are available to be changed), the database system storing a collection of data records ([0030]: The database is an independent auxiliary storage pool, or IASP, which is a collection of disk units that can be brought online or taken offline and kept independent of the rest of the data on a storage system),
wherein the database system stores a first copy of the data records at a first node, and a second copy of the data records at a second node (Fig. 1A; [0030]: At Site 1 101, one copy of IASP 33 115 is stored on System A 110, and a second copy of IASP 33 125 is stored on System B 120);
receiving a first set of operations at the first node, the first set of operations stored at the first node as a first set of local operations, a copy of the first set of operations transmitted to the second node and stored as a first set of remote operations (Figs 1B,. 5; [0063]-[0068]: The operation includes initiating, at a first node of a pair of nodes in a mirroring environment, a dual vary off operation of a database, a copy of the database being stored on each of the first node of the pair of nodes and a second node of the pair of nodes, the operation to be performed in tandem with the second node… the second location remote from the first, the IASP in an active-active state on the two nodes of the first Db2 mirroring environment);
receiving a second set of operations at the second node, the second set of operations stored at the second node as a second set of local operations, a copy of the second set of operations transmitted to the first node and stored as a second set of remote operations (Fig. 5; [0063]: The operation further includes, at the first node, informing the copy of the database stored on the first node of the dual vary off operation, and informing an operating system of the dual vary off operation);
However, Halt does not explicitly teach “determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations; comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point; comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations; comparing operations occurring after the comparison point; and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Hoffman teaches
determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations ([Col. 8, lines 32-35]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency);
comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Start with the source and target databases (file(s) and/or table(s)) in a known synchronized state… Validate the initial correctness of the table or file… to compare the file);
comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared);
comparing operations occurring after the comparison point [Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Establish an end boundary to the comparison, which also serves as a start boundary for the next comparison); and
determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing. ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Helt to incorporate the teachings of Hoffmann to include comparing operations occurring before and after the comparison point, and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing.
The motivation for doing so would be to continuously compare the changes to the databases, as recognized by Hoffmann ([Col. 8, lines 1-10] of Hoffmann: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 1.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the processing device includes a first comparison module stored locally with the first copy and a second comparison module stored locally with the second copy ([Col. 8, lines 1-3]: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 2.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first comparison module negotiates with the second comparison module to select the comparison point based on a sequence of the first set of operations and a sequence of the second operations ([Col. 8, lines 11-44]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 3.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first module negotiates with the second module to provide sufficient time to prepare the first module and the second module to perform a comparison ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Thus, when data replication is used, there is a latency (the data replication latency) between when a change is added to the source Change Log and when it is added to the target Change Log. This delay should be taken into account if the Change Logs are to be compared).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 2.
Hoffmann further teaches transmit all subsequent operations occurring after the selected operations from the second node to the first node, and manage the order of execution of each of the subsequent operations by the first module ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 1.
Hoffmann further teaches further comprising logging the old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by the one or more subsequent operations, and logging the old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 1.
Helt further teaches, further comprising adding a flag to each data record of the first copy and the second copy that is updated by the one or more subsequent operations ([0009]: In some embodiments, switching the at least one IASP offline at the pair of nodes of the first mirroring environment further includes varying off a copy of the at least one IASP offline separately… This advantageously allows the last copy to be varied off to continue to accept changes, and thus it may be placed in “tracked” mode during this time).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the method of claim 1.
Helt further teaches wherein the first comparison and the second comparison are performed independently ([0030]: As shown in FIG. 1, the mirroring environment may be the “Db2 Mirror” solution provided by IBM Corporation. Stored on each of System A 110 and System B 120, respectively, is a copy of a database. The database is an independent auxiliary storage pool, or IASP, which is a collection of disk units that can be brought online or taken offline and kept independent of the rest of the data on a storage system).
Regarding Claim 9, Helt discloses a system for managing an active-active database system ([Abstract]: In embodiments, the ability to have two separate Db2 Mirror pair environments… is presented; [0054]: For example, with reference to FIG. 1A, IASP 33 115 and IASP 125 are in an active-active mirroring state at Site 1 101),
the system comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to a memory, the processor configured to perform ([0012]: According to a second embodiment of the present disclosure, a system is provided. The system includes one or more computer processors, and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation):
accessing the database system by a processing device (Fig. 2; [0038]:Via the Network Interface 225, the System Node 110 can be communicatively coupled with one or more other devices; [0030]: Thus a change made by a user on System A to IASP 33 115, is immediately replicated on IASP 33 125 stored on System B. Both copies of IASP 33 are in an active state, which means they are available to be changed), the database system storing a collection of data records ([0030]: The database is an independent auxiliary storage pool, or IASP, which is a collection of disk units that can be brought online or taken offline and kept independent of the rest of the data on a storage system),
wherein the database system stores a first copy of the data records at a first node, and a second copy of the data records at a second node (Fig. 1A; [0030]: At Site 1 101, one copy of IASP 33 115 is stored on System A 110, and a second copy of IASP 33 125 is stored on System B 120);
receiving a first set of operations at the first node, the first set of operations stored at the first node as a first set of local operations, a copy of the first set of operations transmitted to the second node and stored as a first set of remote operations (Figs 1B,. 5; [0063]-[0068]: The operation includes initiating, at a first node of a pair of nodes in a mirroring environment, a dual vary off operation of a database, a copy of the database being stored on each of the first node of the pair of nodes and a second node of the pair of nodes, the operation to be performed in tandem with the second node… the second location remote from the first, the IASP in an active-active state on the two nodes of the first Db2 mirroring environment);
receiving a second set of operations at the second node, the second set of operations stored at the second node as a second set of local operations, a copy of the second set of operations transmitted to the first node and stored as a second set of remote operations (Fig. 5; [0063]: The operation further includes, at the first node, informing the copy of the database stored on the first node of the dual vary off operation, and informing an operating system of the dual vary off operation);
However, Halt does not explicitly teach “determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations; comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point; comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations; comparing operations occurring after the comparison point; and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Hoffman teaches
determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations ([Col. 8, lines 32-35]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency);
comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Start with the source and target databases (file(s) and/or table(s)) in a known synchronized state… Validate the initial correctness of the table or file… to compare the file);
comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations; ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared);
comparing operations occurring after the comparison point [Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Establish an end boundary to the comparison, which also serves as a start boundary for the next comparison); and
determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing. ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Helt to incorporate the teachings of Hoffmann to include comparing operations occurring before and after the comparison point, and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing.
The motivation for doing so would be to continuously compare the changes to the databases, as recognized by Hoffmann ([Col. 8, lines 1-10] of Hoffmann: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the system of claim 9.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the processing device includes a first comparison module stored locally with the first copy and a second comparison module stored locally with the second copy ([Col. 8, lines 1-3]: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the system of claim 10.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first comparison module negotiates with the second comparison module to select the comparison point based on a sequence of the first set of operations and a sequence of the second operations ([Col. 8, lines 11-44]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the system of claim 11.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first module negotiates with the second module to provide sufficient time to prepare the first module and the second module to perform a comparison ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Thus, when data replication is used, there is a latency (the data replication latency) between when a change is added to the source Change Log and when it is added to the target Change Log. This delay should be taken into account if the Change Logs are to be compared).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the system of claim 10.
Hoffmann further teaches transmit all subsequent operations occurring after the selected operations from the second node to the first node, and manage the order of execution of each of the subsequent operations by the first module ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the system of claim 9.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the processing is configured to further perform: logging the old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by the one or more subsequent operations, and logging the old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Regarding Claim 15, Helt discloses a computer program product for managing an active-active database comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising ([0012]: According to a second embodiment of the present disclosure, a system is provided. The system includes one or more computer processors, and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation; [0054]: For example, with reference to FIG. 1A, IASP 33 115 and IASP 125 are in an active-active mirroring state at Site 1 101):
accessing the database system by a processing device (Fig. 2; [0038]:Via the Network Interface 225, the System Node 110 can be communicatively coupled with one or more other devices; [0030]: Thus a change made by a user on System A to IASP 33 115, is immediately replicated on IASP 33 125 stored on System B. Both copies of IASP 33 are in an active state, which means they are available to be changed), the database system storing a collection of data records ([0030]: The database is an independent auxiliary storage pool, or IASP, which is a collection of disk units that can be brought online or taken offline and kept independent of the rest of the data on a storage system),
wherein the database system stores a first copy of the data records at a first node, and a second copy of the data records at a second node (Fig. 1A; [0030]: At Site 1 101, one copy of IASP 33 115 is stored on System A 110, and a second copy of IASP 33 125 is stored on System B 120);
receiving a first set of operations at the first node, the first set of operations stored at the first node as a first set of local operations, a copy of the first set of operations transmitted to the second node and stored as a first set of remote operations (Figs 1B,. 5; [0063]-[0068]: The operation includes initiating, at a first node of a pair of nodes in a mirroring environment, a dual vary off operation of a database, a copy of the database being stored on each of the first node of the pair of nodes and a second node of the pair of nodes, the operation to be performed in tandem with the second node… the second location remote from the first, the IASP in an active-active state on the two nodes of the first Db2 mirroring environment);
receiving a second set of operations at the second node, the second set of operations stored at the second node as a second set of local operations, a copy of the second set of operations transmitted to the first node and stored as a second set of remote operations (Fig. 5; [0063]: The operation further includes, at the first node, informing the copy of the database stored on the first node of the dual vary off operation, and informing an operating system of the dual vary off operation);
However, Halt does not explicitly teach “determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations; comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point; comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations; comparing operations occurring after the comparison point; and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Hoffman teaches
determining a comparison point by selecting an operation from each of the first set of operations and the second set of operations ([Col. 8, lines 32-35]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency);
comparing the first copy of the data records to the second copy of the data records, wherein the comparing includes: comparing values of data records of the first copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point, to values of data records of the second copy that are not changed by operations subsequent to the comparison point ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Start with the source and target databases (file(s) and/or table(s)) in a known synchronized state… Validate the initial correctness of the table or file… to compare the file);
comparing old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations, to old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations; ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared);
comparing operations occurring after the comparison point [Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Establish an end boundary to the comparison, which also serves as a start boundary for the next comparison); and
determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing. ([Col. 8, lines 21-44]: Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Helt to incorporate the teachings of Hoffmann to include comparing operations occurring before and after the comparison point, and determining whether the first and second nodes are consistent based on the comparing.
The motivation for doing so would be to continuously compare the changes to the databases, as recognized by Hoffmann ([Col. 8, lines 1-10] of Hoffmann: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the computer program product of claim 15.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the processing device includes a first comparison module stored locally with the first copy and a second comparison module stored locally with the second copy ([Col. 8, lines 1-3]: This invention presents a solution that uses the Change Logs generated, typically by the database managers, on both systems to continuously compare the changes to the tables).
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the computer program product of claim 16.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first comparison module negotiates with the second comparison module to select the comparison point based on a sequence of the first set of operations and a sequence of the second operations ([Col. 8, lines 11-44]: Establish a starting boundary in the Change Log for both the source and target system such that the target change log correlates with the same point in the source change log offset by replication latency).
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the computer program product of claim 17.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the first module negotiates with the second module to provide sufficient time to prepare the first module and the second module to perform a comparison ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Thus, when data replication is used, there is a latency (the data replication latency) between when a change is added to the source Change Log and when it is added to the target Change Log. This delay should be taken into account if the Change Logs are to be compared).
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the computer program product of claim 16.
Hoffmann further teaches transmit all subsequent operations occurring after the selected operations from the second node to the first node, and manage the order of execution of each of the subsequent operations by the first module ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teachings of Helt and Hoffmann disclose the computer program product of claim 15.
Hoffmann further teaches wherein the method further includes logging the old data values of data records of the first copy that are updated by the one or more subsequent operations, and logging the old data values of data records of the second copy that are updated by one or more subsequent operations ([Col. 11, lines 8-44]: Monitor the Change Logs on both systems, extracting change information for each file being continuously compared… Validate that data in their respective Change Logs has caused the same modifications to the source and target databases… using the Change Logs to continuously validate that two databases are synchronized).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY D. HICKS whose telephone number is (571)272-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/S.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168