DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 16 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 11/11/2025, for the after final office action mailed on 10/29/2025.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraph numbers, or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2025 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2020/0250100 A1) hereinafter Khan, in further view of Tang (US-PGPUB-NO: 2009/0265717 A1) and Chadzelek et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2011/0040826 A1) hereinafter Chadzelek.
As per claim 1, Khan teaches a system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device that includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations (see Khan paragraph [0321], “In an embodiment, a computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more storage media storing a set of instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of any of these operations, methods, process flows, etc. Note that, although separate embodiments are discussed herein, any combination of embodiments and/or partial embodiments discussed herein may be combined to form further embodiments”) comprising: detecting, based on a selection from a client device, an update to a property of an instance of a software application (see Khan paragraph [0031], “Versioning data representing object state/data changes, as generated by the cache services in response to write actions or CUD operations and maintained outside the database system, can be used to determine and ensure that any cached version or value of a cached data object that is returned to a cache service consumer in response to a read request for the cached data object is up to date and consistent with or the same as a data object directly constructed from the up-to-date underlying data persisted/stored in the primary data sources in the database system”), the instance being a data structure comprising the property, and the property being a readable attribute of the data structure (see Khan paragraph [0041], “The existing/staled version/value of the cached data object has TTL expired (hence has become staled) but still within an extended TTL time period with the cached data object not invalidated by state changes”); identifying a match between the update to the property and a predefined aspect (see Khan paragraph [0035], “If the cached data object is still within the grace period (or an extended TTL time period), the cache services can use versioning data as collected with an object state/data change invalidation strategy to determine whether the cached data object is invalidated because of any write action or CUD operation performed on underlying data or data entities that gives rise to the cached data object. If the cached data object is determined to be not invalidated, then the cached data object can still be served by the cache services to the cache service consumers.”, examiner is interpreting the grace period as the predefined aspect area and the data change to the cached data object as the update to the property); in response to identifying the match (see Kahn paragraph [0041], “The existing/staled version/value of the cached data object has TTL expired (hence has become staled) but still within an extended TTL time period with the cached data object not invalidated by state changes”); automatically executing an asynchronous caching function to store, in a cache, the stateful information (see Khan paragraph [0127], “For example, in step 218 (denoted as “asyncCacheLoad( )”, which may be implemented as a cache service method or API call to be invoked by “getGlobalCache( )” in step 206) of FIG. 2B, the ASYNC cache loader (142) sends a request to the message handler (126) for the purpose of causing asynchronous cache refresh operations to be performed for the data object. The request may be sent or communicated to the ASYNC cache message handler (126) in a (e.g., private, etc.) REST API call 254 with a cache value provider (class or class object) instance constructed by the ASYNC cache loader (142) as input. The REST API call (254) triggers the ASYNC cache message handler (126) or the cache message enqueuer (136) therein to perform message enqueuing operations and returns immediately without blocking the application thread invoking the REST API call (254)”).
Khan does not explicitly teach the predefined aspect indicating that execution criteria for an asynchronous caching function comprises updates to the data structure, and the asynchronous caching function being written using aspect-oriented programming. However, Tang teaches the predefined aspect indicating that execution criteria for an asynchronous caching function comprises updates to the data structure (see Tang [Table 0001], “class Transaction { public void executeAction ( ) { // User's code to execute action. ... // after the action is being executed, we log the action. AsyncAspectThread asyncAspect = new AsyncAspectThread( ); // Initialize the aspect data. ... // retrieve the service contexts and establish on the newly created aspect thread. Service Context[ ] contexts = retrieveServiceContexts( ); asynAspect.push(contexts); // run the aspect asynchronously asyncAspect.start( ); } }” and the asynchronous caching function being written using aspect-oriented programming (see Tang paragraph [0022], “Embodiments consistent with underlying principals of the present invention may provide an aspect construct, or concept. For instance, an exemplary aspect designation may include "AsyncServerAspect". The AsyncServerAspect may include an aspect that is executed asynchronously and is capable of establishing the service context. When an aspect is programmatically specified or otherwise associated with AsyncServerAspect in an application container, the execution of the aspect may be invoked asynchronously in a different thread.”), wherein the asynchronous caching function being written using the aspect-oriented programming enables the asynchronous function to execute separately from and in parallel to the software application (see Tang paragraph [0022], “As such, embodiments may invoke aspect execution asynchronously with a thread other than what is executing in the application container. Service contexts may be transferred, propagated or otherwise communicated to the asynchronous thread so that the thread may utilize the services provided by the application container. Embodiments consistent with the invention may thus provide service context support for the asynchronous aspect”).
Khan and Tang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan’s teaching of providing cache services in a multitenant computing system with Tang’s teaching of container context information propagation in an aspect-oriented environment to incorporate the use the information to allocate new objects in order to prevent slowdown of data retrieval, see Tang paragraph [0042], “The aspect 36 may include a plain Java class that encapsulates any number of advices and pointcut definitions. An advice is a method that is called when a particular join point is executed, i.e., the behavior that is triggered when a method is called. An advice may be thought of as the code that does the interception, or as an event handler. The pointcut expression matches a particular join point. The join point comprises a point in the control flow of a program. A join point includes where the main program and the aspect meet. Crosscutting facilitated by such aspects improves the relatively isolated blocks of code that can slow the execution of conventional object-oriented programming code. Aspect-oriented features in accordance with embodiments of the invention thus provide additional flexibility to accommodate changes in requirements.”
Khan modified with Tang do not explicitly teach determining stateful information for the instance based on the selection from the client device and in response to determining the stateful information. However, Chadzelek teaches determining stateful information for the instance based on the selection from the client device (see Chadzelek paragraph [0027], “In a stateful mode, information associated with the interaction between the hosted application 114 and an interacting client 135 (or its client application 144) is stored at the server 102, or another location closely associated with the hosted application 114 such that state and session information is readily kept during the execution of the hosted application 114”) and in response to determining the stateful information (see Chadzelek paragraph [0029], “In these situations, the state-type determination module 105 may determine that because one or more of the components within the hosted application 114 cannot be statelessly executed, the hosted application 114 as a whole should be executed in a stateful manner”.
Khan, Tang and Chadzelek are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan’s teaching of providing cache services in a multitenant computing system and Tang’s teaching of container context information propagation in an aspect-oriented environment with Chadzelek’s teaching of executing stateless applications in a stateful manner to incorporate stateful information being cached in order to speed up processing requests when requested by a client, see Chadzelek paragraph [0004], “For example, processing of requests may be slowed due to the application's need to be restarted and reinitialized upon receipt of each request, as each request contains a specific state in which the application should be prior to processing the request. Next, there can be a constant exchange to ensure that the application and associated client maintain the ever-changing state information that would otherwise be stored and maintained at the server”.
As per claim 2, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek teaches wherein the stateful information is first stateful information (see Chadzelek paragraph [0030], “In still another example, the hosted application 114 may attempt to cover for the possibility of either a stateless or stateful execution when generating the previous response, including the information necessary for stateless execution with the response to the client 135 while also storing the information locally, such as in a set of cached state information 126 in memory 117”), and wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: subsequent to the selection from the client device (see Khan paragraph [0068], “For data objects cached in both the L1 and L2 caches, application servers or application threads operating with or managing the L1 caches may interact with one or more cache service consumers and invoke the cache services (118) (e.g., methods/interfaces/services implemented in the shared and/or core layers (102 and/or 104), etc.) to provide cached version of the data objects from the L1 caches instead of from the L2 cache (or the CaaS (106))”), determining that a transaction comprising the instance is active for the software application, and in response to determining that the transaction is active (see Khan paragraph [0087], “Once successfully read by the application thread, the cached version of the data object may be added to the L1 cache so that subsequent read requests handled by the application server or the virtual machine may be satisfied or met from the L1 cache if a set of conditions (e.g., within a time-to-live or TTL period, within an extended TTL period if the cached data object has not been invalidated, etc.) is met.”); automatically executing the asynchronous caching function to store, in the cache (see Khan paragraph [0080], “Example (cached) data objects may include, but are not necessarily limited to only, any of: a cache-only data object, a cached copy of a persisted/stored data object of a primary data source, a cached copy of an organization-specific entity/object, a data object instantiated or derived at runtime from data field values stored/persisted in underlying physical database tables of a primary data source, a cached copy of one or more rows with column values of a set of one or more database table columns, a set of one or more data fields, a class or class object built with underlying persisted/stored data (or data entities) in a single primary data source or multiple primary data sources, and so forth.”), second stateful information associated with execution of a first action of the transaction (see Chadzelek paragraph [0032], “However, in some embodiments, the state information generation module 108 will analyze and generate state information on the hosted application 114 after processing each request, and integrate that information into the response prior to the response being returned to the client 135 or client application 144. By generating and including the state information for each response, the client 135, in each subsequent request, is given the ability to provide information sufficient to allow the hosted application 114 to run in a stateless manner, regardless of whether the hosted application 114 is actually executed”).
As per claim 3, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek teaches wherein the update is a first update and wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting a second update associated with the instance of the software application, wherein the second update is generated during execution of the first action of the transaction (see Khan paragraph [0081], “The cached version of the data object that is served out to the cache service consumer from cache may be an up-to-date value of the data object as presently stored in the L1 and/or L2 caches. In some operational scenarios, the (e.g., reference, original, etc.) up-to-date value of the data object is persisted in and/or retrieved from the primary data source (108). In some operational scenarios, the (e.g., reference, original, etc.) up-to-date value of the data object is a cache-only value of the data object whose value is not persisted/stored in a (e.g., any, etc.) primary data source”); determining that the second update matches the predefined aspect (see Khan paragraph [0035], “If the cached data object is still within the grace period (or an extended TTL time period), the cache services can use versioning data as collected with an object state/data change invalidation strategy to determine whether the cached data object is invalidated because of any write action or CUD operation performed on underlying data or data entities that gives rise to the cached data object. If the cached data object is determined to be not invalidated, then the cached data object can still be served by the cache services to the cache service consumers.”, examiner is interpreting the grace period as the predefined aspect area and the data change to the cached data object as the update to the property); and in response to determining that the second update matches the predefined aspect (see Khan paragraph [0041], “The existing/staled version/value of the cached data object has TTL expired (hence has become staled) but still within an extended TTL time period with the cached data object not invalidated by state changes”), determine the second stateful information (see Chadzelek paragraph [0032], “However, in some embodiments, the state information generation module 108 will analyze and generate state information on the hosted application 114 after processing each request, and integrate that information into the response prior to the response being returned to the client 135 or client application 144. By generating and including the state information for each response, the client 135, in each subsequent request, is given the ability to provide information sufficient to allow the hosted application 114 to run in a stateless manner, regardless of whether the hosted application 114 is actually executed”).
As per claim 4, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek teaches wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: executing a second action of the transaction based at least in part on the second stateful information stored in the cache (see Chadzelek paragraph [0032], “By generating and including the state information for each response, the client 135, in each subsequent request, is given the ability to provide information sufficient to allow the hosted application 114 to run in a stateless manner, regardless of whether the hosted application 114 is actually executed”).
As per claim 8, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek teaches wherein the predefined aspect comprises a set of entity classes, wherein each entity class of the set of entity classes is associated with one or more instances, and wherein the operation of identifying the match between the update to the property and the predefined aspect comprises: determining that the instance is associated with an entity class of the set of entity classes (see Khan paragraph [0132], “As a part of dequeuing/servicing the asynchronous cache refresh request, the cache message dequeuer (140) can use the cache value provider associated with the data object to carry out the ASYNC operations to build the data object in cache asynchronously by making API calls, which may include but are not necessarily limited to, any of: object query language API calls, database connect API calls for executing callable statements, database statements, query statements, etc. The value provider associated with the data object may be implemented as an instance of a class, an object, a specific implementation of a class interface, a specific implementation of an abstract class, etc”).
As per claims 9-12, these are the method claims to system claims 1-4, respectively, Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claims 16-19, these are the non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Khan paragraph [0258], “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire”) claims to system claims 1-4, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2020/0250100 A1), Tang (US-PGPUB-NO: 2009/0265717 A1) and Chadzelek (US-PGPUB-NO: 2011/0040826 A1), in further view of Bradbury et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0378911 A1) hereinafter Bradbury.
As per claim 5, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek does not explicitly teach wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting a caching failure of the asynchronous caching function; and in response to detecting the caching failure, aborting the transaction. However, Bradbury wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting a caching failure of the asynchronous caching function (see Bradbury paragraph [0105], “Similarly, when a transaction seeks to upgrade a line from shared to modified (on a first write), the transaction issues an exclusive load request, which is also used to detect conflicts. If a receiving cache has the line non-speculatively, then the line is invalidated, and in certain cases a cache-to-cache transfer (M or E states) is issued. But, if the line is R 132 or W 138, a conflict is detected”); and in response to detecting the caching failure, aborting the transaction (see Bradbury paragraph [0108], “Abort: When a transaction rolls back, the original version of each cache line in the undo log must be restored, a process called “unrolling” or “applying” the log. This is done during tm_discard( ) and must be atomic with regard to other transactions”).
Khan, Tang, Chadzelek and Bradbury are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan’s teaching of providing cache services in a multitenant computing system , Tang’s teaching of container context information propagation in an aspect-oriented environment and Chadzelek’s teaching of executing stateless applications in a stateful manner with Bradbury’s teaching of allowing non-cachable loads within a transaction to incorporate detecting faults in transactions being cached in order to prevent any issues when a transaction is active, see Bradbury paragraph [0108], “Specifically, the write-set must still be used to detect conflicts: this transaction has the only correct version of lines in its undo log, and requesting transactions must wait for the correct version to be restored from that log. Such a log can be applied using a hardware state machine or software abort handler”.
As per claim 6, Khan modified with Tang, Chadzelek and Bradbury teaches wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting an execution failure of at least one action of the transaction (see Bradbury paragraph [0108], “Specifically, the write-set must still be used to detect conflicts”); and in response to detecting the execution failure, removing the second stateful information from the cache (see Bradbury paragraph [0108], “this transaction has the only correct version of lines in its undo log, and requesting transactions must wait for the correct version to be restored from that log. Such a log can be applied using a hardware state machine or software abort handler”).
As per claims 13 and 14, these are the method claims to system claims 5 and 6, respectively, Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 20, this is the non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Khan paragraph [0258], “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire”) claim to system claim 5. Therefore, is it rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2020/0250100 A1), Tang (US-PGPUB-NO: 2009/0265717 A1) and Chadzelek (US-PGPUB-NO: 2011/0040826 A1), in further view of Hua et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2024/0256367 A1) hereinafter Hua.
As per claim 7, Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek teaches wherein the update is a first update and the stateful information is first stateful information, and wherein the memory device further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: detecting a third update associated with the instance of the software application (see Khan paragraph [0081], “The cached version of the data object that is served out to the cache service consumer from cache may be an up-to-date value of the data object as presently stored in the L1 and/or L2 caches. In some operational scenarios, the (e.g., reference, original, etc.) up-to-date value of the data object is persisted in and/or retrieved from the primary data source (108). In some operational scenarios, the (e.g., reference, original, etc.) up-to-date value of the data object is a cache-only value of the data object whose value is not persisted/stored in a (e.g., any, etc.) primary data source”); and in response to determining that third update does not match the predefined aspect and that the transaction is active, automatically executing the asynchronous caching function to store, in the cache, second stateful information associated with execution of a first action of the transaction (see Khan paragraph [0127], “For example, in step 218 (denoted as “asyncCacheLoad( )”, which may be implemented as a cache service method or API call to be invoked by “getGlobalCache( )” in step 206) of FIG. 2B, the ASYNC cache loader (142) sends a request to the message handler (126) for the purpose of causing asynchronous cache refresh operations to be performed for the data object. The request may be sent or communicated to the ASYNC cache message handler (126) in a (e.g., private, etc.) REST API call 254 with a cache value provider (class or class object) instance constructed by the ASYNC cache loader (142) as input. The REST API call (254) triggers the ASYNC cache message handler (126) or the cache message enqueuer (136) therein to perform message enqueuing operations and returns immediately without blocking the application thread invoking the REST API call (254)”).
Khan modified with Tang and Chadzelek does not explicitly teach determining that the third update does not match the predefined aspect and determining that a transaction comprising the instance is active for the software application. However, Hua teaches determining that the third update does not match the predefined aspect and determining that a transaction comprising the instance is active for the software application (see Hua paragraph [0047], “Method 400 may perform operation 416 during which it may be determined whether or not the cache includes the requested data object. Accordingly, the cache may be queried based on one or more identifiers associated with the requested data object, and it may be determined whether or not a match is identified and a result is returned. If it is determined that a match exists, and the cache does include the requested data object, the requested data object may be returned during operation 418. As similarly discussed above, a retrieval controller may return the result to the client device”).
Khan, Tang, Chadzelek and Hua are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan’s teaching of providing cache services in a multitenant computing system, Tang’s teaching of container context information propagation in an aspect-oriented environment and Chadzelek’s teaching of executing stateless applications in a stateful manner with Hua’s teaching of using synchronous and asynchronous application programming interface with cloud-based platform to incorporate determining whether a match is identified between requested data objects for better data object management and improve latencies, see Hua paragraph [0050], “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a method for application program interface management, performed in accordance with one or more implementations. As similarly discussed above, usage of APIs may be configured such that asynchronous and synchronous calls are managed to enhance and improve latencies associated with content retrieval for an application process flow”.
As per claim 15, this is the method claim to system claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lackritz et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2023/0410212 A1) teaches matching validation by obtaining a candidate match between a target entity and a candidate application user.
Benke et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2021/0318938 A1) teaches updating stateful system in server cluster.
Modai et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2021/0117403 A1) teaches stateless data processing.
Kumar et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2017/0249310 A1) teaches managing a cache service layer of an online solution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENIN PAULINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1734. The examiner can normally be reached Week 1: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm Week 2: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm and Fri 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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.
/LENIN PAULINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197 /BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197