Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 01/05/2026.
Claims 1, 2 and 12 have been amended. Claims 3, 7, 13, 16 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 15,17, 18 and 20 are presented for examination.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed continuation-in-part of non-provisional Application No. 17/180,934 filed on 02/22/2021 is acknowledged by the examiner.
5. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed continuation patent application of non-provisional application 17/170,981 filed 02/09/2021.
Response to amendment/arguments
6. Applicant’s amendment with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. The rejection has been maintained. Please see the Response to 101 arguments below.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive, and thus necessitated the rejection as presented in this Office action.
Response to 101 rejection
8. Applicant’s arguments on Page 13 recites “Applicant submits that the claims are directed to a practical application of an idea - a specific improvement in database maintenance technology - and not to the abstract idea itself”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as amended limitations “the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects”; selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule according to a predefined ruleset, the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence” are all processes that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. Further limitations “creating the plurality of groups dynamically during each maintenance run”, “creating a schedule for maintenance of each of the groups in the plurality of groups wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion” are all processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components, or a programmed computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The round robin is a scheduling algorithm which is a “mathematical process”. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to create different virtual groups and send the commands to the associated groups and finally execute the commands in a round robin fashion, so that the task spreads over time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “creating the plurality of groups dynamically” is additional element that are insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering step. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 15,17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite performing maintenance of a database or group of databases having database objects.
Regarding claims 1 and 12 the limitations “assigning database objects into a plurality of groups….” is a process that, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Similarly limitations “creating a schedule for maintenance of each of the groups in the plurality of groups”, “schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion”, “selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule”, “sending commands to a group….and executing database maintenance on the selected group”, “resizing one or more of the groups…”, “creating the plurality of groups ….” all are processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to divide the database objects into same size of groups and add a schedule to process those groups. Select a particular group and execute the process based on the schedule using a scheduling algorithm and after processing if the groups are changed again resize the groups based on the size, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 2 recite “reexamining the virtual buckets at a predetermined time including determining the size of the database objects; and reconfiguring the virtual buckets if there are size differences that could affect maintenance runs.” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to divide the groups based on the number of objects/ size of the objects and then periodically checking the objects and adjusting the number of group which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 4, 14, 20 recite “further comprising the steps of: a. sending maintenance commands for each of the plurality of groups to a queue; and b. performing parallel processing of the maintenance commands to perform parallel database maintenance” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to provide the commands to the groups created, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Parallel processing of the commands by the computer does not overcome the abstract idea of processing the commands manually. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 5 recite “ further comprising the step of: resizing one or more of the groups at predetermined times to ensure that the plurality of groups are maintained at substantially the same size” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to resize/ redistribute the objects into equal size periodically/ predetermined times, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claims 6, 15 recite “tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to track the process to keep a record, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 8 recite “further comprising the step of: executing maintenance on one selected group per day” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass the user to schedule the process one group per day, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claims 9, 17 recite “further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass the user to schedule the process based on user job process, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claims 10, 18 recite “further comprising the step of: sifting or assigning multiple database objects into one or more of the plurality of groups so that the plurality of groups are substantially the same size” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass the user to assign the objects into groups based on size, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim 11 recite “further comprising the step of: spreading the execution of database maintenance over a period of days” is a processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass the user to process the data over a number of days, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims are abstract.
Response to latest rejections under 103 rejection
10. Applicant’s arguments on page 21 recites “Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references, including Else, teach or suggest the round-robin scheduling of database maintenance of virtual buckets of database objects, one bucket at a time, over a period of days….. As such none of the cited references teach or describe the round-robin database maintenance process as specifically claimed and thus the pending rejections fail to provide a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as Else et al teach, round-robin scheduling of tasks of buckets of database objects/ tasks, one bucket at a time, over a period of time.
Else does not teach, database maintenance. However, Smith et al teach, Database maintenance based on a schedule (Paragraph [0015], [0070] Abstract).
Smith et al also teaches, wherein the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Paragraph [0150] discloses each processing group has its own group identifier that uniquely identifies that processing group based on any criteria. Also see Paragraph [0168] discloses the virtual buckets do not store database objects, instead group identifier is assigned based on their size so that they are evenly distributed).
Therefore, Else et al and Smith et al teach the entire argued limitations.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Response to previous rejections under 103 dated 05/21/2025
11. Applicants arguments on page 23 regarding Claim 1 states “Mathew does not disclose a "queue managed by a database service broker" as claimed”. “In short, Mathew's "services broker" is not a database service broker queue as recited. It is an application-broker mechanism that dispatches commands to add-in modules. The Office Action's reliance on Mathew therefore does not supply the missing claim element of "sending maintenance commands ... to a queue managed by a database service broker." Kurata does not teach resuming the next group of database objects across maintenance days.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection. Regarding claim1, limitation “sending commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker”.
smith et al (Paragraph [0015] discloses, database maintenance tasks. Also see Abstract).
Mathew et al teaches, "sending commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker" (Paragraph [0029] discloses, sending all the requests queued for that scheduled time to the appropriate command queue by database service broker. (Examiner interprets database service broker as broker worker). Also see Paragraph [0041])
Therefore Mathew et al in view of Else et al teach the entire argued limitation as claimed in claim 1. Please see the rejection below.
Applicants arguments Regarding limitation “Kurata does not teach “resuming the next group of database objects across maintenance days”.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the limitation “resuming the next group of database objects across maintenance days” was in claim 7 and claim 7 is cancelled in this office action.
Response to Response to previous 103 rejection dates 05/09/2025
12. Applicants arguments on page 26 regarding Claim 1 states “No Teaching of Spreading Maintenance Over Time (Round-Robin Scheduling)”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as smith et al (Paragraph [0015] discloses, database maintenance tasks. Also see Abstract).
Else teaches, “Spreading Maintenance Over Time (Round-Robin Scheduling)” (Figs 9, 10 Paragraphs [0026], [0027] discloses, segmenting/ dividing the tasks into groups, scheduling the tasks of each group in a "round-robin" fashion so that the tasks are spread out over a time period).
Therefore smith et al in view of Else et al teach the entire argued limitation as claimed in claim 1. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
Applicants arguments on page 27 regarding Claim 1 states “No Teaching of Using a Database Service Broker Queue”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as smith et al (Paragraph [0015] discloses, database maintenance tasks. Also see Abstract).
Mathew et al teaches, "sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker" (Paragraph [0029] discloses, sending all the requests queued for that scheduled time to the appropriate command queue by database service broker. (Examiner interprets database service broker as broker worker). Also see Paragraph [0041])
Therefore Mathew et al in view of Else et al teach the entire argued limitation as claimed in claim 1. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
Applicants arguments on page 28 regarding Claim 4 states “Claim 4, which depends from Claim 1, adds the step of sending maintenance commands for each of the groups to a queue and performing parallel processing of those commands. Even assuming arguendo the general idea of parallel maintenance might be gleaned from Smith's concurrent procedures, the specific requirement of Claim 4 - queuing commands for each group for parallel execution - is not taught by the references”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as Mathew et al teaches, queuing commands for each group (Paragraph [0029] discloses, queuing the commands using stored procedures in a command queue and executes commands according with the associated command schedules).
Smith et al teaches, parallel execution (Paragraph [0147] FIG. 21 illustrates the dynamically balanced reorganization schedule generated by Step 360, Generate Executable Procedures or Processes, and processed by Step 370, Execute Reorg Jobs, of FIG. 7. Each job in the reorganization schedule is designed to execute concurrently with other jobs in the schedule. Also see Paragraph [0158] (Examiner interprets executing jobs concurrently as executing jobs parallelly).
Therefore Mathew et al and smith et al combined teach the argued limitation. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
Applicants arguments on pages 29 and 30 regarding Claim 6 states “Neither Smith nor Else, nor the additional reference Fisher (US 2017/0315845 Al), teach “tracking Unprocessed Groups to the Next Run”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as Fisher et al teaches, the claim 6 recited as “tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run” (Paragraphs [0045]- [0048] discloses, tracking the tasks in a group completed in the previous window with each of the plurality of groups and processing the unprocessed/ incomplete maintenance task in the current window (Examiner interprets tracking metadata as tracking the tasks if completed or pending/ incomplete)).
Therefore Fisher et al tech the argued limitation. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
Note: Claim 7 is cancelled in this office action
Applicants arguments on page 33 regarding Claims 8, 17 states “Neither reference addresses this combination of goals - One Selected Group per Day" (Claims 8 and 17) and "Spreading Execution Over Days" (Claim 11): Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and explicitly recites executing maintenance on "one selected group per day."…. In Tsukerman's paradigm, if a maintenance task is scheduled for a nightly window, the aim is still to complete that task in the window if possible (or else perhaps delay it to the next night). There is no suggestion in Tsukerman that one would intentionally divide a maintenance operation into, say, five parts to be run on five successive days. By contrast, the present invention's whole premise is to spread out the work over multiple days by dividing the database objects into buckets and scheduling each bucket on a different day.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Tsukerman teaches, “One Selected Group per Day” and "Spreading Execution Over Days" (Paragraph [0059] discloses, , different tasks are scheduled on different days in a given maintenance window of one week, which is executing different maintenance tasks on different days in one maintenance window).
Note: the claim does not recite “dividing the database objects into buckets and scheduling each bucket on a different day”. Therefore Tsukerman teaches, the argued limitation “One Selected Group per Day" (Claims 8 and 17) and "Spreading Execution Over Days" (Claim 11).
Therefore the rejection is maintained. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
Applicants arguments on page 34 regarding Claim 9 recites "suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day." In practical terms, this means the system can skip a scheduled maintenance run (e.g., not run on a weekend or any day maintenance is turned off) and resume later without losing its place. Tsukerman does teach that maintenance tasks are inhibited except during the defined window (so outside that window, tasks are effectively "suspended"). However, Tsukerman's disclosure of not running tasks outside the window is simply the normal operation of a maintenance window, not an explicit feature of skipping an iteration in a recurring round-robin schedule. The claimed invention, on the other hand, actively contemplates that some maintenance days may be skipped and that the schedule will continue with the next bucket when resumed. The specification makes this clear: "On days maintenance is suspended or not scheduled, those days are skipped...
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Tsukerman teaches “Suspending Maintenance for a Day” (Paragraph [0059] discloses performing maintenance tasks at different times in a given maintenance window. Examiner interprets Suspending Maintenance for a Day as not scheduling the maintenance task for a day).
Note: The claimed invention, on the other hand, actively contemplates that some maintenance days may be skipped and that the schedule will continue with the next bucket when resumed. The specification makes this clear: "On days maintenance is suspended or not scheduled, those days are skipped is not recited in the claim.
Therefore Tsukerman teaches, the argued limitation “Suspending Maintenance for a Day”.
Therefore the rejection is maintained. Please see the previous response to arguments and the rejection below.
For arguments regarding other independent claim and its dependent claims, please see the response to arguments for claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
13. Claims 1,2, 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) in view of ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1) and in further view of Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) teaches, a method for performing maintenance of a database or group of databases having database objects (Paragraph [0015] discloses maintenance of a database having database objects), the method comprising the steps of: a. assigning database objects into a plurality of groups based on size by: I. creating the plurality of groups dynamically during each maintenance run (Paragraph [0149] From the list of objects, the backend process dynamically builds an internal grid of reorganization maintenance tasks. The grid is constructed via the balancing technique, based on one or more dimensions, and is the core technology of the current invention. The grid is then materialized as series of executable jobs, based on the number of jobs for reorganization schedule 1 (i.e., creating/ building/ generating groups/ job dynamically for each maintenance/ reorganization). Also see Paragraph [0012], [0015], Abstract);
wherein the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Paragraph [0150] discloses each processing group has its own group identifier that uniquely identifies that processing group based on any criteria. Also see Paragraph [0168] discloses the virtual buckets do not store database objects, instead group identifier is assigned based on their size so that they are evenly distributed);
ii. determining the size of the database objects; iii. sifting or assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups based on the size of each of the database objects in an attempt to level the plurality of groups into groups of substantially the same size (Figs 38, 40, 42 Paragraph [0128] discloses evenly dividing database objects into jobs (i.e., segmenting the database objects into approximately same size groups and assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups. Examiner interprets segmenting as dividing. Examiner interprets evenly as substantially same size. Examiner interprets jobs as groups). Also see Paragraph [0142], [0166]);
b. creating a schedule for maintenance of each of the groups in the plurality of groups (Paragraph [0069] discloses creating a schedule/ routine for maintenance for each of the groups. Also see Paragraph [0167] Generate Copy Control Cards and Recovery Control Cards, reads the updated Copy Entry 1019 objects, for the group and schedule, and generates the necessary copy and recovery control cards, based on what vendor utility is being used.);
c. selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule; and d. executing database maintenance on the selected group (Paragraph [0070], [0071] Execute Reorg Utility Job, gets the reorg utility job scheduled and executed. Also see Paragraph [0167], [0168] The copy control cards are used as input to any copy utility, and direct the execution of the utility (i.e., selecting and executing database maintenance on the selected group/ job/ utility based on a schedule/ day and time). The recovery control cards are used in the recovery effort.).
Smith et al fails to explicitly teach, sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker, wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion such that maintenance is executed on only one scheduled group at a time; executing tasks on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period; the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence.
ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1) teaches, wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion such that maintenance is executed on only one scheduled group at a time; executing maintenance on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period (Figs. 9, 10 Paragraph [0026] For example, in case round-robin execution is preferred, the task schedulers may be configured to determine a time cycle for the task, e.g., based on the number of active processing groups and the frequency of executing the task. In case a task is scheduled for execution every 30 seconds and there are three processing groups, the time cycle is determined to be 90 seconds. This time cycle may be divided into time windows amongst the active processing groups (e.g., 30 second time windows) such that at any given time a task is owned by a single processing group that is responsible for executing that task (i.e., scheduling the tasks of each group in a "round-robin" fashion so that the tasks is spread out over a time period and executing only one group at a time). Also see Paragraph [0162]. Database maintenance based on a schedule is taught by smith et al (Paragraph [0015], [0070] Abstract).
c. selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule according to a predefined ruleset (Paragraph [0022] discloses, executing the assigned range/ group based on scheduled times), the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence (Figs, 9, 10 Paragraph [0026] discloses, round robin which has a ruleset of the groups is processing/ executing the groups sequentially and after the last/final group in the sequence is processed, the next group will start from the beginning/ first group. That is in round robin the tasks are processed/ executed in a cyclic order. Also see [0108]).
ELSE et al also further teaches, creating the plurality of groups dynamically during each maintenance run (Paragraphs [0025]- [0028] discloses, each individual task scheduler is then able to recalculate/reassign tasks if the status quo changes between two consecutive periodical retrievals (i.e., dynamically creating plurality of groups);
a. assigning database objects into a plurality of groups based on size, wherein the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Paragraph [0172] discloses, the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Examiner interprets assigning a plurality of groups in virtual buckets/ virtual segmentation/ logical segmentation as functionally equivalent to defining which nodes are active and authorized to process specific workloads within that segment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al by providing wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion; according to a predefined ruleset, the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence; and executing database maintenance on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period, as taught by ELSE et al (Paragraph [0026]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the processor farm 208 may be scaled based on demand, as taught by ELSE et al (Paragraph [0076]. Also It ensures that each task gets a fair share of the CPU, preventing starvation and making it well-suited for time-sharing systems).
Smith et al and ELSE et al fails to explicitly teach, sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker.
Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1) teaches, sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker smith et al (Paragraph [0015] discloses, database maintenance tasks. Also see Abstract).
Mathew et al teaches, "sending commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker" (Paragraph [0029] discloses, sending all the requests queued for that scheduled time to the appropriate command queue by database service broker. (Examiner interprets database service broker as broker worker). Also see Paragraph [0041]) (Maintenance commands is taught by smith et al (Paragraph [0015], Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al and ELSE et al by sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker, as taught by Mathew et al (Paragraph [0029]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, provides convenient solutions for the user to analyze and improve performance as taught by Mathew et al (Paragraph [0001], [0004]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
ELSE et al further teaches, wherein the method of claim 1 further includes the steps of: reexamining the virtual buckets at a predetermined time including determining the size of the database objects; and reconfiguring the virtual buckets if there are size differences that could affect maintenance runs (Paragraphs [0025]- [0028] discloses, each individual task scheduler is then able to recalculate/reassign tasks if the status quo changes between two consecutive periodical retrievals….if the number of processing groups reduces from three groups to two groups, the individual task schedulers may be configured to reduce the time cycle from 30 seconds to 20 seconds such that each processing group is now responsible for half the time cycle (10 seconds each. Also see Paragraph [0161]-[0162]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al further teaches, further comprising the steps of: a. sending maintenances for each of the plurality of groups to a queue (Fig. 38, 40, 42 Paragraphs [0147], [0149] From the list of objects, the backend process dynamically builds an internal grid of reorganization maintenance tasks. The grid is constructed via the balancing technique, based on one or more dimensions, and is the core technology of the current invention. The grid is then materialized as series of executable jobs, based on the number of jobs for reorganization schedule 1 (i.e., sending and executing the commands for each group/ job based on the maintenance task schedule/ procedure). Also see Paragraphs [0012], [0015]);
and b. performing parallel processing of the maintenance commands to perform parallel database maintenance (Paragraph [0147] FIG. 21 illustrates the dynamically balanced reorganization schedule generated by Step 360, Generate Executable Procedures or Processes, and processed by Step 370, Execute Reorg Jobs, of FIG. 7. Each job in the reorganization schedule is designed to execute concurrently with other jobs in the schedule. Also see Paragraph [0158]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
ELSE et al further teaches, further comprising the step of: resizing one or more of the groups at predetermined times to ensure that the plurality of groups are maintained at substantially the same size (Paragraph [0027] discloses, recalculating/ reassessing/ resizing one or more processing groups at predetermined times so that the groups are maintained to be of same size. Also see Paragraph [0161]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al further teaches, further comprising the step of: sifting or assigning multiple database objects into one or more of the plurality of groups so that the plurality of groups are substantially the same size (Figs 38, 40, 42 Paragraph [0128] discloses evenly dividing database objects into jobs (i.e., segmenting the database objects into approximately same size groups and assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups. Examiner interprets segmenting as dividing. Examiner interprets evenly as substantially same size. Examiner interprets jobs as groups). Also see Paragraph [0142], [0166])).
ELSE et al also further teaches, sifting or assigning multiple database objects into one or more of the plurality of groups so that the plurality of groups are substantially the same size (Paragraph [0161] discloses, assigning the database objects into one or more plurality of groups are equally utilized/ distributed based on number of tasks).
14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) in view of ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1), Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1) and in further view of Fisher; Bradford A.( US 20170315845 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al fails to explicitly teach, further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run.
Fisher; Bradford A.( US 20170315845 A1) teaches, further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run (Paragraphs [0045]- [0048] discloses tracking the tasks in a group completed in the previous window with each of the plurality of groups and processing the unprocessed/ incomplete maintenance task in the current window. (Examiner interprets tracking metadata as tracking the tasks if completed or pending/ incomplete)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al by providing further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run, as taught by Fisher et al (Paragraphs [0045]-[0048]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would provide a data processing system to solve a problem where all the maintenance tasks cannot be performed within a given time window and the data processing system of the embodiment enables omitting the tasks that cannot be performed in the given time window and still allowing at least some maintenance tasks, which do fit the time window, to be selected and completed as taught by Fisher et al (Paragraph [0017]).
15. Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1), Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1) and in further view of Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al fails to explicitly teach, further comprising the step of: executing maintenance on one selected group per day.
Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1) teaches, executing maintenance on one selected group per day (Paragraph [0059] several tasks may be scheduled to run in any given maintenance window. Such tasks might be offset from one another (e.g., scheduling a first task on one night and scheduling a second task on a different night, with task running during the same recurring maintenance window, and/or scheduling a one task for 1:00AM and another for 2:00AM, during a maintenance window that runs from 12:00AM to 3:00AM). In other embodiments, a maintenance window may be dedicated to a particular task, either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., by not scheduling any other tasks during that window).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al, Fisher et al and Kurata et al by executing maintenance on one selected group per day, as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0059]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so a dedicated facility for defining a maintenance window 305, and/or a resource manager 315 and/or job scheduler 310 might be automatically configured to behave consistently with the maintenance window as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0049], [0059]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al fails to explicitly teach, further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day
Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1) teaches, further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day (Paragraph [0059] tasks might be offset from one another (e.g., scheduling a first task on one night and scheduling a second task on a different night, with task running during the same recurring maintenance window)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al by further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day, as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0059]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so a dedicated facility for defining a maintenance window 305, and/or a resource manager 315 and/or job scheduler 310 might be automatically configured to behave consistently with the maintenance window as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0049], [0059]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al teaches, the method of claim 1.
Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al fails to explicitly teach, further comprising the step of: spreading the execution of database maintenance over a period of days (Paragraph
Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1) teaches, further comprising the step of: spreading the execution of database maintenance over a period of days (Paragraph [0059] tasks might be offset from one another (e.g., scheduling a first task on one night and scheduling a second task on a different night, with task running during the same recurring maintenance window) (i.e., spreading the execution of database maintenance over a period of days as the maintenance needs to be run on a weekly basis).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al by further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day, as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0059]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so a dedicated facility for defining a maintenance window 305, and/or a resource manager 315 and/or job scheduler 310 might be automatically configured to behave consistently with the maintenance window as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0049], [0059]).
Regarding independent claim 12, Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) teaches, a method for performing maintenance of a database or group of databases having database objects (Paragraph [0015] discloses maintenance of a database having database objects), the method comprising the steps of: a. assigning database objects into a plurality of groups or buckets based on size by: i. creating the plurality of groups dynamically during each maintenance run (Paragraph [0149] From the list of objects, the backend process dynamically builds an internal grid of reorganization maintenance tasks. The grid is constructed via the balancing technique, based on one or more dimensions, and is the core technology of the current invention. The grid is then materialized as series of executable jobs, based on the number of jobs for reorganization schedule 1 (i.e., creating/ building/ generating groups/ job dynamically for each maintenance/ reorganization). Also see Paragraph [0012], [0015], Abstract);
wherein the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Paragraph [0150] discloses each processing group has its own group identifier that uniquely identifies that processing group based on any criteria. Also see Paragraph [0168] discloses the virtual buckets do not store database objects, instead group identifier is assigned based on their size so that they are evenly distributed);
ii. determining the size of the database objects; iii. sifting or assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups based on the size of each of the database objects in an attempt to level the plurality of groups into groups of substantially the same size (Figs 38, 40, 42 Paragraph [0128] discloses evenly dividing database objects into jobs (i.e., segmenting the database objects into approximately same size groups and assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups. Examiner interprets segmenting as dividing. Examiner interprets evenly as substantially same size. Examiner interprets jobs as groups). Also see Paragraph [0142], [0166]);
b. creating a schedule for maintenance of each of the groups in the plurality of groups (Paragraph [0069] discloses creating a schedule/ routine for maintenance for each of the groups. Also see Paragraph [0167] Generate Copy Control Cards and Recovery Control Cards, reads the updated Copy Entry 1019 objects, for the group and schedule, and generates the necessary copy and recovery control cards, based on what vendor utility is being used.);
c. selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule; d. sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker, and executing database maintenance on the selected group (Paragraph [0070], [0071] Execute Reorg Utility Job, gets the reorg utility job scheduled and executed. Also see Paragraph [0167], [0168] The copy control cards are used as input to any copy utility, and direct the execution of the utility (i.e., selecting and executing database maintenance on the selected group/ job/ utility based on a schedule/ day and time). The recovery control cards are used in the recovery effort.).
Smith et al fails to explicitly teach, database maintenance on the plurality of groups is spread out over a period of days and wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion such that maintenance is executed on only one scheduled group at a time; according to a predefined ruleset, the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence d. sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker; and executing database maintenance on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period; e. periodically checking and resizing one or more of the groups to ensure that the plurality of groups are maintained at substantially the same size and wherein the groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects; f. reexamining the virtual buckets at a predetermined time including determining the size of the database objects; and g. reconfiguring the virtual buckets if there are size differences that could affect maintenance runs.
ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1) teaches, b. creating a schedule for maintenance of each of the groups in the plurality of groups so that database maintenance on the plurality of groups is spread out over a period of days and wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion such that maintenance is executed on only one scheduled group at a time; and executing database maintenance on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period (Figs. 9, 10 Paragraph [0026] For example, in case round-robin execution is preferred, the task schedulers may be configured to determine a time cycle for the task, e.g., based on the number of active processing groups and the frequency of executing the task. In case a task is scheduled for execution every 30 seconds and there are three processing groups, the time cycle is determined to be 90 seconds. This time cycle may be divided into time windows amongst the active processing groups (e.g., 30 second time windows) such that at any given time a task is owned by a single processing group that is responsible for executing that task (i.e., scheduling the tasks of each group in a "round-robin" fashion so that the tasks is spread out over a time period). Also see Paragraph [0162]. Database maintenance is taught by smith et al (Paragraph [0015], Abstract);
c. selecting a particular group to execute maintenance based on the schedule according to a predefined ruleset (Paragraph [0022] discloses, executing the assigned range/ group based on scheduled times), the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence (Figs, 9, 10 Paragraph [0026] discloses, round robin which has a ruleset of the groups is processing/ executing the groups sequentially and after the last/final group in the sequence is processed, the next group will start from the beginning/ first group. That is in round robin the tasks are processed/ executed in a cyclic order. Also see [0108]).
e. periodically checking and resizing one or more of the groups to ensure that the plurality of groups are maintained at substantially the same size and wherein the groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects; f. reexamining the virtual buckets at a predetermined time including determining the size of the database objects; and g. reconfiguring the virtual buckets if there are size differences that could affect maintenance runs (Paragraphs [0025]- [0028] discloses, each individual task scheduler is then able to recalculate/reassign tasks if the status quo changes between two consecutive periodical retrievals….if the number of processing groups reduces from three groups to two groups, the individual task schedulers may be configured to reduce the time cycle from 30 seconds to 20 seconds such that each processing group is now responsible for half the time cycle (10 seconds each. Also see Paragraph [0161]-[0162]).
ELSE et also teaches, a. assigning database objects into a plurality of groups based on size, wherein the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Paragraph [0172] discloses, the plurality of groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects (Examiner interprets assigning a plurality of groups in buckets/ as functionally equivalent to defining which nodes are active and authorized to process specific workloads within that segment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al by providing database maintenance on the plurality of groups is spread out over a period of days and wherein the schedule calls for maintenance of each of the groups in an alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion; according to a predefined ruleset, the ruleset including conditions to select a first group if the plurality of groups are new to scheduling, or to select a next group in the round-robin sequence if the plurality of groups are not new to scheduling, and wherein if a last processed group was the final group in the sequence, the next group is wrapped around to a beginning of the sequence and executing database maintenance on the selected group in the alternating sequence or "round-robin" fashion so that the database maintenance is spread out over a time period; e. periodically checking and resizing one or more of the groups to ensure that the plurality of groups are maintained at substantially the same size and wherein the groups are virtual buckets that do not store the database objects; f. reexamining the virtual buckets at a predetermined time including determining the size of the database objects; and g. reconfiguring the virtual buckets if there are size differences that could affect maintenance runs as taught by ELSE et al (Paragraph [0025]-[0028]).
Smith et al and ELSE et al fails to explicitly teach, d. sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker.
Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1) teaches, sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker (Paragraph [0029] discloses sending all the requests queued for that scheduled time to the appropriate command queue by database service broker. Examiner interprets database service broker as broker worker. Also see Paragraph [0041] (Maintenance commands is taught by smith et al (Paragraph [0015], Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al and ELSE et al by sending maintenance commands for the selected group to a queue managed by a database service broker, as taught by Mathew et al (Paragraph [0041]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, provides convenient solutions for the user to analyze and improve performance as taught by Mathew et al (Paragraph [0001], [0004]).
Smith et al, ELSE et al and Mathew et al fails to explicitly teach, the database maintenance is spread out over a time period.
Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1) teaches, the database maintenance is spread out over a time period (Paragraph [0059] tasks might be offset from one another (e.g., scheduling a first task on one night and scheduling a second task on a different night, with task running during the same recurring maintenance window) (i.e., spreading the execution of database maintenance over a period of days as the maintenance needs to be run on a weekly basis).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al and ELSE et al by further comprising the step of: suspending the maintenance of the plurality of groups for at least one day, as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0059]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so a dedicated facility for defining a maintenance window 305, and/or a resource manager 315 and/or job scheduler 310 might be automatically configured to behave consistently with the maintenance window as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0049], [0059]).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al teach, the method of claim 12.
Smith et al further teaches, further comprising the step of: a. sending maintenance commands for each of the plurality of groups to a queue (Fig. 38, 40, 42 Paragraphs [0147], [0149] From the list of objects, the backend process dynamically builds an internal grid of reorganization maintenance tasks. The grid is constructed via the balancing technique, based on one or more dimensions, and is the core technology of the current invention. The grid is then materialized as series of executable jobs, based on the number of jobs for reorganization schedule 1 (i.e., sending and executing the commands for each group/ job based on the maintenance task schedule/ procedure). Also see Paragraphs [0012], [0015]);
and b. performing parallel processing of the maintenance commands to perform parallel database maintenance (Paragraph [0147] FIG. 21 illustrates the dynamically balanced reorganization schedule generated by Step 360, Generate Executable Procedures or Processes, and processed by Step 370, Execute Reorg Jobs, of FIG. 7. Each job in the reorganization schedule is designed to execute concurrently with other jobs in the schedule. Also see Paragraph [0158]).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al teach, the method of claim 12.
Tsukerman et al further teaches, further comprising the step of: executing maintenance on one selected group per day (Paragraph [0059] several tasks may be scheduled to run in any given maintenance window. Such tasks might be offset from one another (e.g., scheduling a first task on one night and scheduling a second task on a different night, with task running during the same recurring maintenance window, and/or scheduling a one task for 1:00AM and another for 2:00AM, during a maintenance window that runs from 12:00AM to 3:00AM). In other embodiments, a maintenance window may be dedicated to a particular task, either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., by not scheduling any other tasks during that window).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al by executing maintenance on one selected group per day, as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0059]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so a dedicated facility for defining a maintenance window 305, and/or a resource manager 315 and/or job scheduler 310 might be automatically configured to behave consistently with the maintenance window as taught by Tsukerman et al (Paragraph [0049], [0059]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al teach, the method of claim 12.
Smith et al further teaches, further comprising the step of: sifting or assigning multiple database objects into one or more of the plurality of groups so that the plurality of groups are substantially the same size (Figs 38, 40, 42 Paragraph [0128] discloses evenly dividing database objects into jobs (i.e., segmenting the database objects into approximately same size groups and assigning each of the database objects into one of the plurality of groups. Examiner interprets segmenting as dividing. Examiner interprets evenly as substantially same size. Examiner interprets jobs as groups). Also see Paragraph [0142], [0166])).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al teach, the method of claim 12.
Smith et al further teaches, further comprising the steps of: a. sending maintenance commands for each of the plurality of groups to a queue (Fig. 38, 40, 42 Paragraphs [0147], [0149] From the list of objects, the backend process dynamically builds an internal grid of reorganization maintenance tasks. The grid is constructed via the balancing technique, based on one or more dimensions, and is the core technology of the current invention. The grid is then materialized as series of executable jobs, based on the number of jobs for reorganization schedule 1 (i.e., sending and executing the commands for each group/ job based on the maintenance task schedule/ procedure). Also see Paragraphs [0012], [0015]);
and b. performing parallel processing of the maintenance commands to perform parallel database maintenance (Paragraph [0147] FIG. 21 illustrates the dynamically balanced reorganization schedule generated by Step 360, Generate Executable Procedures or Processes, and processed by Step 370, Execute Reorg Jobs, of FIG. 7. Each job in the reorganization schedule is designed to execute concurrently with other jobs in the schedule. Also see Paragraph [0158]).
16. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Rick A. (US 20050223046 A1) in view of ELSE; ALEXANDER (US 20200104170 A1), Mathew; Ashvin J. (US 20090083740 A1), Tsukerman; Alex (US 20060026212 A1) and in further view of Fisher; Bradford A.( US 20170315845 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al teach, the method of claim 12.
Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al fails to explicitly teach, further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run.
Fisher; Bradford A.( US 20170315845 A1) teaches, further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run (Paragraphs [0045]- [0048] discloses tracking the tasks in a group completed in the previous window with each of the plurality of groups and processing the unprocessed/ incomplete maintenance task in the current window. (Examiner interprets tracking metadata as tracking the tasks if completed or pending/ incomplete)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Smith et al, ELSE et al, Mathew et al and Tsukerman et al by providing further comprising the steps of: tracking meta data associated with each of the plurality of groups and ensuring that a next unprocessed group is processed on a next maintenance run, as taught by Fisher et al (Paragraphs [0045]-[0048]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so would provide a data processing system to solve a problem where all the maintenance tasks cannot be performed within a given time window and the data processing system of the embodiment enables omitting the tasks that cannot be performed in the given time window and still allowing at least some maintenance tasks, which do fit the time window, to be selected and completed as taught by Fisher et al (Paragraph [0017]).
Closest Prior Art
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Vos, Melody (US 20020087587 A1) teaches, [0099] This component (not shown) may provide a facility for logically grouping database objects together. A definition may include a set of rules which, when applied to the DBMS catalog, results in a list of Database objects. The rules that define the logical grouping of objects may be given a name (e.g., the application name) and stored in the Object Advisor Repository 646. Object Advisor may use Application Definitions to implement policies regarding Utility Automation.
18. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163