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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 24 February 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 24 February 2026:
a. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 10 and 20 are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection presented hereon, as detailed below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,937 B2 in view of Raptis, Ditmos (“Saga Transactions: what's old is new again.” A Curious Mind (online blog). Published 27 Aug 2019. Accessed 11 May 2026 from https://dimosr.github.io/saga-transactions, hereinafter referred to as Raptis).
Although the claims are not identical, claim 1 of the reference patent recites most of the features of examined claim 10, including an update to a particular row (claimed “update command that targets a particular data item”) and obtaining a lock that covers the particular row (claimed obtaining, for the local transactoin, a lock that covers the particualr data item). Although claim 1 of the reference patent does not recite any saga or saga-exclusive lock, Raptis teaches an update command that is part of a local transaciton of a particular saga (Raptis pp. 3-6) and a saga-exlusive lock that blocks transactions that are not part of the particular sage while allowing transactions that are part of the particular saga (Raptis pp. 6-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 of the reference patent to include the teachings of Raptis because the use of semantic locks provides a useful technique for concurrency control of saga transactions, preventing data anomalies (see Raptis p. 7). Examined claim 20 recites features analogous to those of claim 10, and for the same reasons set forth above, examined claim 20 is patentably indistinct from reference claim 1 as modified by Raptis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,874,822 B1, hereinafter referred to as Singh) in view of Raptis, Ditmos (“Saga Transactions: what's old is new again.” A Curious Mind (online blog). Published 27 Aug 2019. Accessed 11 May 2026 from https://dimosr.github.io/saga-transactions, hereinafter referred to as Raptis).
As to claim 10, Singh teaches a method comprising:
processing, at a database server, an update command that targets a particular data item (see Singh col. 11 L34-52: new order to be created in orders database);
wherein the update command is part of a local transaction of a particular saga (see Singh col. 11 L34-52: saga comprised of local transactions);
wherein processing the update command includes obtaining, for the local transaction, a lock that covers the particular data item (see Singh col. 16 L21-31: obtaining locks for a transaction; and see Singh col. 17 L2-12: the locks are acquired for all data items that participate in a transaction); and
while the lock is held by the local transaction:
based on the lock, blocking transactions that are not part of the particular saga from updating the particular data item (see Singh col. 16 L21-31: obtaining locks for a transaction; and see Singh col. 17 L2-12: the locks are acquired for all data items that participate in a transaction); and
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (see Singh col. 28 L30-44 and Fig. 15: computer system 1500).
Singh does not appear to explicitly disclose a saga-exclusive lock; and based on the saga-exclusive lock, allowing other transactions that are part of the particular saga to update the particular data item.
However, Raptis teaches:
a saga-exclusive lock (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data)
wherein processing the update command includes obtaining, for the local transaction, a saga- exclusive lock that covers the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data); and
while the saga-exclusive lock is held by the local transaction:
based on the saga-exclusive lock, blocking transactions that are not part of the particular saga from updating the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data); and
based on the saga-exclusive lock, allowing other transactions that are part of the particular saga to update the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, allowing transactions that are part of the saga to access the data).
Singh and Raptis both relate to transaction concurrency control for saga-based transactions (see Singh col. 11 L34-52; and see Raptis pp. 5-7). Singh teaches the use of locks for transaction concurrency control, as set forth above, but Singh does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of saga-exclusive locks that allow transactions within a saga to update a data item. Raptis teaches saga-exclusive locks, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh with the teachings of Raptis because the use of semantic locks provides a useful technique for concurrency control of saga transactions, preventing data anomalies (see Raptis p. 7).
As to claim 20, Singh teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices (see Singh col. 28 L30-67 and Fig. 15: computer system 1500 having memory 1520 storing instructions for processor(s) 1510), cause:
processing, at a database server, an update command that targets a particular data item (see Singh col. 11 L34-52: new order to be created in orders database);
wherein the update command is part of a local transaction of a particular saga (see Singh col. 11 L34-52: saga comprised of local transactions);
wherein processing the update command includes obtaining, for the local transaction, a lock that covers the particular data item (see Singh col. 16 L21-31: obtaining locks for a transaction; and see Singh col. 17 L2-12: the locks are acquired for all data items that participate in a transaction); and
while the lock is held by the local transaction:
based on the lock, blocking transactions that are not part of the particular saga from updating the particular data item (see Singh col. 16 L21-31: obtaining locks for a transaction; and see Singh col. 17 L2-12: the locks are acquired for all data items that participate in a transaction).
Singh does not appear to explicitly disclose a saga-exclusive lock; and based on the saga-exclusive lock, allowing other transactions that are part of the particular saga to update the particular data item.
However, Raptis teaches:
a saga-exclusive lock (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data)
wherein processing the update command includes obtaining, for the local transaction, a saga- exclusive lock that covers the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data); and
while the saga-exclusive lock is held by the local transaction:
based on the saga-exclusive lock, blocking transactions that are not part of the particular saga from updating the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, preventing transactions from other sagas from making use of the data); and
based on the saga-exclusive lock, allowing other transactions that are part of the particular saga to update the particular data item (see Raptis pp. 6-7: a semantic lock is used to lock data for exclusive use by a particular saga, allowing transactions that are part of the saga to access the data).
Singh and Raptis both relate to transaction concurrency control for saga-based transactions (see Singh col. 11 L34-52; and see Raptis pp. 5-7). Singh teaches the use of locks for transaction concurrency control, as set forth above, but Singh does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of saga-exclusive locks that allow transactions within a saga to update a data item. Raptis teaches saga-exclusive locks, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh with the teachings of Raptis because the use of semantic locks provides a useful technique for concurrency control of saga transactions, preventing data anomalies (see Raptis p. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are allowed.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 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 can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights