DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is in response to the application 18/193,332 filed on 10/01/2025.
Status of claims:
Claims 3 and 13 are canceled in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and 20 are amended in this Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/01/2025 (pages 9-12) have been fully considered. However, after further examination, new grounds of rejection are presented necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US PGPUB 20200218732) "Schaefer" in view of Pandey (US PGPUB 20220222224) “Pandey”.
Regarding claim 1, Schaefer teaches a system comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage ([0046]:The computing device may include a processing device (e.g., a general purpose processor), a main memory (e.g., synchronous dynamic random access memory (DRAM), read-only memory (ROM)), a static memory (e.g., flash memory and a data storage device), which may communicate with each other via a bus), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: implement a first database within a network; sync the first database with a second database within the network (([0030]: In the pre-migration database access mode, all database requests, including read (such as SQL SELECT commands) and modification requests (such as SQL INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE command) are routed to the original storage servers…[0031] The migration manager may initiate the migration process by causing the dual mode database request mapper to implement a first database access mode, in which all database read requests are routed to the original storage servers, while all database modification requests are routed to both original storage servers and destination storage servers (first database). The dual-write feature of the first database access mode makes sure that all the data on the destination storage servers is synchronized with any updates that may occur while the database content copying operation is performed. [0034] While operating in the first database access mode, the migration manager may initiate a background job to copy the database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers (sync the first database with a second database). Examiner’s note: The system is directed to a live data migration between the original and destination database wherein the destination is implemented to synchronize with data from the original database and modification requests routed to both original and destination databases); and direct first network traffic from the second database to the first database ([0036] Responsive to completing the background copying job, the migration manager may cause the dual mode database request mapper to transition to a second database access mode, in which all database read requests (first network traffic) are routed to the destination pool of storage servers (first database), while all database modification requests are still routed to both original and destination pool of storage servers); in response to determining that the first network traffic has been directed from the second database to the first database, direct a second network traffic from the second database to the first database, ([0036]: The purpose of implementing the second database access mode is to complete all the tests that may be necessary to ascertain that the entire database contents has been successfully from the original servers to the destination servers, and to further ascertain the normal performance of the destination pool of storage servers in servicing the read and update requests. Should any of the tests fail, the migration manager may initiate a fallback procedure to return to the first database access mode and to repeat the database contents copying operations. If the tests indicate the successful completion of the database contents copying job and normal operation of the destination pool of storage servers in servicing the read and update requests, the migration manager may cause the dual mode database request mapper to transition to the post-migration database access mode, in which all database requests, including read and modification (second network traffic) requests, are routed to the destination pool of storage servers. Examiner’s note: Subsequent to only the read requests routed from the original to the destination database and successful of tests and normal operation of destination , the system further routes the modification request from both databases to only the destination database. Thus, a second network traffic is routed in response to the first traffic routed to the first (destination) database), wherein the first network traffic comprises a network traffic from frontend systems ([0035]: The rate of copying the database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers may be adaptively adjusted based on the front-end (i.e., application-initiated) database access rate, in order to minimize the adverse effect of the background migration job on the frontend transaction rate. In an illustrative example, the rate of copying the database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers may be adjusted based on a schedule specifying the times of the day in which the frontend transaction rate is expected to be low. Thus, the network traffic such as read and modification requests can be from a front-end traffic).
Schaefer does not teach wherein the second network traffic comprises a network traffic from a Provisioning Gateway; and wherein directing the first network traffic to the first database is performed before directing the second network traffic to the second database based on determining the first network traffic as being from the frontend systems and the second network traffic as being from the Provisioning Gateway.
Pandey teaches the first network traffic comprises a network traffic from frontend systems and the second network traffic comprises a network traffic from a Provisioning Gateway (Fig. 6 & [0038]: The example of FIG. 3 illustrates an operating environment that includes multiple server instances operating in concert with each other. This example includes a web server 306 that operates in conjunction with an application server 300. The web server 306 may include a plurality of Java processes 304 that execute the operations of the web server… [0042] The first database 310-1 may receive connections from processes and/or kernels in the different server instances. For example, the first database 310-1 may include a connection from a process 304-3 in web server 306, a kernel 302-3 in application server 300, and a process 314-3 in web server 316… Examiner’s note: Databases can accept connections from plurality of different server instances such as web server and application server. Connections from application server and web server to the databases are equivalent to network traffics from the frontend system and from Provisioning Gateway); and wherein directing the first network traffic to the first database is performed before directing the second network traffic to the second database based on determining the first network traffic as being from the frontend systems and the second network traffic as being from the Provisioning Gateway (Fig. 4-5, 10 & [0049]: FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a redirected request for a connection to the database system 312, according to some embodiments. In this example, a job kernel 302-3 executing on application server 300 may request a new connection to the first database 310-1 at the database system 312. Instead, the request may be redirected such that a static connection 506 is established between the kernel 302-3 and the second database 310-2. Note that none of the existing connections to the first database 310-1 have been altered by virtue of the first notification sent from the server manager 402… [0062] FIG. 10 illustrates how the system can determine that connections to the first database have been moved to the second database, according to some embodiments. At this stage, the server manager 402 may have passed the first notification to the database system to ensure that no additional connections are made to the first database 310-1. Additionally, the server manager 402 may have passed the second notification to the server instances ensuring that existing static connections to the first database 310-1 are refreshed to instead connect to the second database 310-2 as soon as the owning threads finish their current jobs and enter an idle state. Before the server manager 402 may initiate the patch or update to be applied to the first database 310-1, the server manager 402 may first determine that connections to the first database 310-1 have all been terminated and/or refreshed to the second database 210-2… Examiner’s note: A redirecting connections of the application server to the database 2 is implemented first before directing the connections of the web server to the database 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Pandey teachings in the Schaefer system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate redirecting network traffics of different applications or entities in particular order taught by Pandey in the Schaefer system to enhance performance for critical applications, improve reliability, and efficient use of available bandwidth. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Schaefer further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: integrate, at least partially, a front-end system with the first database such that the front-end system is in communication with both the first database and the second database ([0034]: The migration manager may initiate a background job to copy the database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers... [0035]: The rate of copying the database contents from the original storage servers (second database) to the destination storage servers (first database) may be adaptively adjusted based on the front-end (i.e., application-initiated) database access rate, in order to minimize the adverse effect of the background migration job on the frontend transaction rate. Examiner’s note: Thus, there is a component such as the migration manager that communicates with both databases in order to perform the data copying/synchronization process).
Regarding claim 5, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 4. Schaefer further teaches upon migrating data from the second database to the first database, remove the integration of the front-end system with the second database ([0036]: If the tests indicate the successful completion of the database contents copying job and normal operation of the destination pool of storage servers in servicing the read and update requests, the migration manager (front-end system) may cause the dual mode database request mapper to transition to the post-migration database access mode, in which all database requests, including read and modification requests, are routed to the destination pool of storage servers. Examiner’s note: Thus, communications to the original database such as read and modification requests are removed and all routed to the destination database after successful completion of the database contents copying job and normal operation of the destination pool of storage servers in servicing the read and update requests).
Regarding claim 6, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 5. Schaefer further teaches upon removing the integration of the front-end system with the second database, remove the second database from the network ([0037]: In certain implementations, upon transitioning to the post-migration database access mode, the migration manager may initiate deleting the data from the original pool of storage servers (to satisfy the applicable data retention and security policy. Responsive to completing the data deletion operations, the migration database manager may cause the original pool of storage servers to be decommissioned and brought off-line (remove the second database)).
Regarding claim 7, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Schaefer further teaches wherein the first network traffic is comprised of user or application traffic at least partially configured to read, edit, or modify data on the first database or second database ([0014] Before commencing the migration process, all database requests, including read (first network traffic) and modification requests (second network traffic), such as SQL INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE command are routed to the original pool of storage servers).
Regarding claim 8, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Schaefer further teaches wherein the second network traffic is comprised of provisioning traffic configured to add, remove, edit, or modify data on the first database or second database ([0014] Before commencing the migration process, all database requests, including read (first network traffic) and modification requests (second network traffic), such as SQL INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE command are routed to the original pool of storage servers).
Regarding claim 9, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Schaefer further teaches wherein the first network traffic is further comprised of a plurality of sub-traffic ([0016]: Responsive to completing the background copying job, the migration manager may cause the dual mode database request mapper to transition to a second database access mode, in which all database read requests (first network traffic is comprised of a plurality of sub-traffic) are routed to the destination pool of storage servers, while all database modification requests are still routed to both original and destination pool of storage servers.).
Regarding claim 11, note the rejections of claim 1. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 12, note the rejections of claim 2. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 15, note the rejections of claim 5. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 16, note the rejections of claim 6. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 17, note the rejections of claim 7. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 18, note the rejections of claim 8. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 20, note the rejections of claim 1. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 22, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Schaefer further teaches migrate data from the second database to the first database prior to directing the second network traffic from the second database to the first database ([0034]: Referring again to FIG. 2, while operating in the first database access mode 220, the migration manager 145 may initiate a background job 230 to copy the database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers…[0036]: If the tests indicate the successful completion of the database contents copying job and normal operation of the destination pool of storage servers in servicing the read and update requests, the migration manager 145 may cause the dual mode database request mapper 150 to transition to the post-migration database access mode 250, in which all database requests, including read and modification requests, are routed to the destination pool of storage servers… Thus, the modification requests (second network traffic) are directed to the destination servers after the success of background copying of database contents from the original storage servers to the destination storage servers ).
Claims 4 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US PGPUB 20200218732) "Schaefer" in view of Pandey (US PGPUB 20220222224) “Pandey” and Yancey et al. (US PGPUB 20110246419) “Yancey”.
Regarding claim 4, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 2. Schaefer in view of Pandey does not explicitly teach in response to determining that the second network traffic has been directed from the second database to the first database , migrate data from the second database to the first database.
Yancey teaches in response to determining that the second network traffic has been directed from the second database to the first database , migrate data from the second database to the first database (Fig. 4-5 & [0062] In one embodiment, source database 460 may be constantly copying data in real-time to target database 470; this data replication may be handled by any of one or more conventional products and/or services, e.g., Hitachi TrueCopy Remote Replication software, EMC Symmetrix Remote Data Facility (SRDF)… [0064] FIG. 5 is a schematic illustrating one embodiment of a system for reducing down-time during a system upgrade, after cutover. In one embodiment, load balancers 440 are configured to redirect requests to a second group of application and/or web and/or API servers 480 that access target database 470 instead of source database 460. In one embodiment, the first group of application and/or web and/or API servers are re-configured to access the target database instead of the source database…Examiner’s note: The system routes requests to source database to the target database in an environment where source database constantly copying data in real-time to target database. Thus, before or after the traffic is rerouted, data is constantly migrated from the source to the target). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Yancey teachings in the Schaefer and Pandey system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate migrating data from one database to another in conjunction with rerouting of network traffic taught by Yancey in the Schaefer and Pandey system to increase data consistency in databases where network traffics are routed to. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, note the rejections of claim 4. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US PGPUB 20200218732) "Schaefer" in view of Pandey (US PGPUB 20220222224) “Pandey” and Stephan et al. (US Patent 11853273) “Stephan”.
Regarding claim 10, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 9. Schaefer in view of Pandey does not explicitly teach direct, in a sequential order, each of the plurality of sub-traffic to the first database based on one or more criteria.
Stephan teaches direct, in a sequential order, each of the plurality of sub-traffic to the first database based on one or more criteria (Col 13 line 37-67 and col 14 line 1-13: The database proxy may be used to manage the migration of many applications, such as applications A1 310, A2 312, and A3 314. In some embodiments, some applications may share common database objects in the legacy database 350…An application migration schedule may be generated based on the usage data of the applications. For example, the schedule may prioritize certain applications to be partially migrated first based on the application's usage profile. In some embodiments, depending on the migration manager's scheduling policy, an application with a higher usage level (e.g., in terms of request volume) may be migrated earlier. In some embodiments, an application with lower usage level may be migrated earlier, in order to reduce migration risk. In some embodiments, an application's rank in the schedule may be dependent on the number of database objects that it uses. In some embodiments, an overall portability index may be determined for each application to indicate the difficulty level of completely porting the application to the new database. In some embodiments, applications that are more easily ported may be scheduled to be migrated earlier. In some embodiments, migration of applications that use common database objects may be coordinated, so that the partial migration of one application does not cause error in another application. As shown, in this example, since applications A1 and A2 share common database objects, their respective migrations may be coordinated so that certain common objects are migrated for the two applications together). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Stephan teachings in the Schaefer and Pandey system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply a prioritizing mechanism on application migration taught by Stephan in the Schaefer and Pandey system so the appropriate applications can be migrated first based on the system’s or the user’s need thus the system’s performance is improved and the user’s engagement is increased. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 11. Shaefer further teaches wherein the first network traffic is further comprised of a plurality of sub-traffic ([0016]: Responsive to completing the background copying job, the migration manager may cause the dual mode database request mapper to transition to a second database access mode, in which all database read requests (first network traffic is comprised of a plurality of sub-traffic) are routed to the destination pool of storage servers, while all database modification requests are still routed to both original and destination pool of storage servers).
Schaefer in view of Pandey does not explicitly teach directing, in a sequential order, each of the plurality of sub-traffic to the first database based on one or more criteria.
Stephan teaches directing, in a sequential order, each of the plurality of sub-traffic to the first database based on one or more criteria (Col 13 line 37-67 and col 14 line 1-13: The database proxy may be used to manage the migration of many applications, such as applications A1 310, A2 312, and A3 314. In some embodiments, some applications may share common database objects in the legacy database 350…An application migration schedule may be generated based on the usage data of the applications. For example, the schedule may prioritize certain applications to be partially migrated first based on the application's usage profile. In some embodiments, depending on the migration manager's scheduling policy, an application with a higher usage level (e.g., in terms of request volume) may be migrated earlier. In some embodiments, an application with lower usage level may be migrated earlier, in order to reduce migration risk. In some embodiments, an application's rank in the schedule may be dependent on the number of database objects that it uses. In some embodiments, an overall portability index may be determined for each application to indicate the difficulty level of completely porting the application to the new database. In some embodiments, applications that are more easily ported may be scheduled to be migrated earlier. In some embodiments, migration of applications that use common database objects may be coordinated, so that the partial migration of one application does not cause error in another application. As shown, in this example, since applications A1 and A2 share common database objects, their respective migrations may be coordinated so that certain common objects are migrated for the two applications together). Please refer to claim 10 for the motivational statement.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US PGPUB 20200218732) "Schaefer" in view of Pandey (US PGPUB 20220222224) “Pandey” and Mhatre et al. (US PGPUB 20160072713) “Mhatre”.
Regarding claim 21, Schaefer in view of Pandey teaches all of limitations of claim 1. Shaefer in view of Pandey does not explicitly teach wherein the first network traffic comprises a network traffic from a Home Subscriber Service (HSS), Home Location Register (HLR), Equipment Identity Register (EIR), or Mobile Number Portability (MNP).
Mhatre teaches wherein the first network traffic comprises a network traffic from a Home Subscriber Service (HSS), Home Location Register (HLR), Equipment Identity Register (EIR), or Mobile Number Portability (MNP) ([0019]: The operations also comprise directing the source server to transmit to the target server a migration command with state information from the source server to enable migrating the active transport connection to the target server without interrupting communications occurring in the active transport connection. The operations also comprise receiving a message from the source server indicating the source server has received from the target server an acknowledgment that the migration has been completed, and updating a table to direct future traffic to the active transport connection managed by the target server… [0059] Communication system 900 can comprise a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) 940, a telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) server 930, and other network elements of an IMS network 950). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Stephan teachings in the Schaefer and Pandey system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate at least a Home Subscriber Service (HSS) as a network traffic taught by Mhatre in the Schaefer and Pandey system so the redirecting of network traffic in a HSS can be improved. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO DANG VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-5 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private 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.
/C.D.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2153 12/18/2025
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153