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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/20/2024 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are pending in this office action. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 12/20/2024.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to amended features in claims 11, 3-4, 11, and 13-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The references listed in the IDS filed 07/03/2025, and 10/29/2025 has been considered. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
6. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pound et al. (US Patent No. 9,990,392 B2, hereinafter “Pound”) in view of Ebiyama (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0140160 A1, hereinafter “Ebiyama”).
As to claim 1, Pound teaches the claimed limitations:
“An electronic device comprising: a memory storing a database, a journal file for the database, and instructions” as this decoupling of query processing from memory management transaction processing allows system to achieve the processing benefits of an MPP database system, while having access to real-time streams of data being written to storage cluster (column 1, lines 51-56).
“a processor electrically connected with the memory; wherein the instructions are configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: record a result of processing a transaction in the journal file through a first thread of a process associated with the database” as an MPP execution cluster (MPEC) performs transaction processing on data from storage cluster, the transaction processing performed by MPEC is decoupled from the memory management functions associated with write transactions as performed by storage cluster. This decoupling of query processing from memory management transaction processing allows system to achieve the processing benefits of an MPP database system, while having access to real-time streams of data being written to storage cluster (column 1, lines 45-55).
“identify a size of the journal file through the first thread; in a first case when the identified size of the journal file is greater than or equal to a first threshold size” as prior to writing the data modifications to storage cluster, a node may request a lock from transaction broker. Transaction broker may manage the states of data of storage cluster, providing locks for writing data, checking for conflicts, and providing data timestamps. Transaction broker may check lock table to see whether any data conflicts exist for the data to be written. A data conflict may include determining if the data to be written had changed between timestamp and the time when request for a lock is made. Or another conflict may occur if the data is locked because another write transaction is modifying the data, if such a data conflict is identified, no lock may be provided and the write transaction may be aborted. Lock table may track the status or states of various data versions available in storage cluster, lock table may identify the status (e.g., identify available the size) as to which data is being written to by an ongoing transaction. Then, based on this data transaction broker may prevent data undergoing a first write transaction from being locked and written to simultaneously by a second write transaction (e.g., in a second case (column 4, lines 25-52).
“and is smaller than a second threshold size that is greater than the first threshold size” as if no conflict is detected, transaction broker may grant a lock on the data to the requesting node for the write transaction and update lock table. While data is locked however, other compute nodes may access or read the data. In addition to providing a lock, transaction broker may provide compute nodes with a sequence number from sequencer to write the data. Sequencer may be a counter, such as an atomic counter, that increments or otherwise adjusts its count each time a sequence number is produced. The sequence number may correspond to a log position in distributed log, and ensure that multiple write transactions do not conflict with one another while writing or modifying data of storage cluster (column 4, lines 52-67). If a compute node determines that it needs different data, or that the local timestamp of hosted data is prior to the read timestamp (or beyond a threshold of staleness associated with transaction), the compute node may request a data update. In requesting a data update, the compute node may query distributed log to determine if the hosted data version has been updated since the local timestamp (column 6, lines 39-54).
“perform a lock for the database during a reference time through the first thread; transfer the result of processing the transaction recorded in the journal file to the database through the first thread; in a second case when the identified size of the journal file is greater than or equal to the second threshold size, increase the reference time by a set time” as lock table may track the status or states of various data versions available in storage cluster, lock table may identify the status as to which data is being written to by an ongoing transaction, based on this data transaction broker may prevent data undergoing a first write transaction from being locked and written to simultaneously by a second write transaction. When the first write transaction has completed, the lock may be released and assigned to another write transaction, and timestamp may be updated to indicate the new data that has been written to storage. If no conflict is detected, transaction broker may grant a lock on the data to the requesting node for the write transaction and update lock table. While data is locked however, other compute nodes may access or read the data. In addition to providing a lock, transaction broker may provide compute nodes with a sequence number from sequencer to write the data. Sequencer may be a counter, such as an atomic counter, that increments or otherwise adjusts its count each time a sequence number is produced. The sequence number may correspond to a log position in distributed log, and ensure that multiple write transactions do not conflict with one another while writing or modifying data of storage cluster. Compute nodes may then simultaneously write data to multiple storage nodes for efficient write throughput corresponding to the log entry or sequence number (column 4, lines 56-0067).
Pound does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: record the number of failures in response to failure of the perform the lock for the database; and increase the reference time by a set time, when the number of the failures is greater than or equal to a reference failure number”.
Ebiyama teaches a transaction analyzer that determines whether or not a transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate and specifies, on a data storage device, data that is to be accessed by the transaction; a lock manager that causes, if the transaction acquires a lock to operate, this transaction to acquire the lock; and a transaction executor that executes this transaction on the condition that another transaction other than this transaction has not acquired the lock, and updates, based on the execution result, the data that is to be accessed (abstract). A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium has recorded thereon a program including an instruction for causing a computer to execute the steps analyzing an execution target transaction to determine whether or not the execution target transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate, and specifying, on a database (paragraph 0015). If an execution target transaction that operates without acquiring a lock and was input from the client has failed due to an exclusion violation, the transaction executor will retry the processing predetermined number of times. Then, the exclusive control method setter records, when the execution target transaction that operates without acquiring a lock has failed due to an exclusion violation, the number of retries of the execution target transaction that were performed and an average execution time period thereof (paragraph 0138). Alternatively, the exclusive control method setter may change the exclusive control method if an evaluation value calculated based on the number of retries and the average execution time period is a predetermined value or greater (paragraphs 0146-0147). Furthermore, parameters for use in changing the exclusive control method include the number of retries and an average execution time period. First, an increase in the number of retries means that the transaction has failed frequently due to exclusion violations. Therefore, it can be determined that the transaction that acquires a lock to operate is preferably executed if the number of retries is great. Furthermore, if the number of retries is not great but the execution time period of the transaction is long, the transaction is likely to fail due to an exclusion violation also in the future, and thus it is possible to determine that the transaction that acquires a lock to operate is preferably executed. In view of this point of view, the number of retries and an average execution time period are used as the parameters (paragraph 0148). A processor (paragraph 0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pound and Ebiyama before him/her, to modify Pound increase the reference time by a set time, when the number of the failures is greater than or equal to a reference failure number because that would
provide a transaction processing including: a transaction analyzer that analyzes an execution target transaction to determine whether or not the execution target transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate as taught by Ebiyama (paragraph 0013).
As to Claim 3, Pound does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: identify the size of the journal file, in response to failure of the perform the lock for the database; and record the number of failures, based on the identified size of the journal file being greater than or equal to a third threshold size greater than the first threshold size and less than the second threshold size”.
Ebiyama teaches (abstract), (paragraph 0138, 0146-0148, 0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pound and Ebiyama before him/her, to modify Pound record the number of failures, based on the identified size of the journal file because that would provide a transaction processing including: a transaction analyzer that analyzes an execution target transaction to determine whether or not the execution target transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate as taught by Ebiyama (paragraph 0013).
As to Claim 4, Pound does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to initialize the reference time, based on a transfer of the result of processing the transaction to the database, the result of processing the transaction being recorded in the journal file”.
Ebiyama teaches (abstract), (paragraph 0138, 0146-0148, 0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pound and Ebiyama before him/her, to modify Pound initialize the reference time, based on a transfer of the result of processing the transaction to the database because that would provide a transaction processing including: a transaction analyzer that analyzes an execution target transaction to determine whether or not the execution target transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate as taught by Ebiyama (paragraph 0013).
As to Claim 6, Pound teaches the claimed limitations:
“the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: identify whether there is another transaction other than the transaction; and perform a lock for the database during a reference time through the first thread, based on the identified result of whether there is another transaction other than the transaction” as (column 3, lines 46-50), (column 4, lines 4, lines 32-34).
As to Claim 7, Pound does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “ wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to transfer the result of processing the transaction to the database through the first thread, such that a size of the journal file is less than or equal to a specified size, and wherein the result of processing the transaction is recorded in the journal file”.
Ebiyama teaches (abstract), (paragraph 0138, 0146-0148, 0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pound and Ebiyama before him/her, to modify Pound record the number of failures, based on the identified size of the journal file because that would provide a transaction processing including: a transaction analyzer that analyzes an execution target transaction to determine whether or not the execution target transaction is a transaction that acquires a lock to operate as taught by Ebiyama (paragraph 0013).
As to Claim 8, Pound teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: increase the reference time by a set time and increase the number of failures by a set number, based on a failure of an attempt to perform the lock for the database during the reference time; and perform a lock for the database through a second thread distinguished from the first thread, based on the number of the failures, which is greater than or equal to a reference failure number” as (column 4, lines 37-38).
Ebiyama teaches (abstract), (paragraph 0138, 0146-0148, 0172).
As to Claim 9, Pound teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: transfer the result of processing the transaction to the database through the second thread, based on a success of the lock for the journal file, the result of processing the transaction being recorded in the journal file; and release the lock for the database through the second thread” as column 4, lines 6-11).
As to Claim 10, Pound teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the transaction is a write transaction” as (column 1, lines 57-59).
As to claims 11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 1, 3-4, 6-10. In addition, Pound teaches stem, method and computer program product embodiments, and combinations and thereof, for distributed transaction processing in massively parallel processing databases (column 1, lines 39-46). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 3-4, 6-10.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285 or email address james.hwa@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, for more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
02/28/2026
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156