DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, Sivasubramanian et. al. (“Sivasubramanian”, Pub. No. 2010/0251242), Tekade et al. (“Tekade”, Pub. No. 2016/0077925), and Yueh et al. (“Yueh”, Pub. No. US 2018/0181469).
Instant Application
Pat. No. 10,817,157
Claim 1.
A non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor cause the processor to:
-present a dashboard to receive a user request to provision a database:
-in response to receiving the user request, present one or more user interfaces to: receive a first input of a database name for the database;
-receive a second input comprising a selection of a level of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) from a plurality of levels of the SLA to protect the database; and
-receive a third input of a protection schedule comprising a first frequency of capturing a snapshot and at least one time period for capturing the snapshot; and
-in response to receiving the first input, the second input, and the third input, display a status of provisioning the database on the dashboard, the status of provisioning the database indicating a progress of creation of the database.
Claim 1.
A system comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions in a virtual computing system; and a processor executing the computer-readable instructions to:
present a dashboard to receive a user input in a graphical user interlace (GUI) to provision a source database;
-upon receiving the user input, present options in a first user interface of the GUI to receive a first selection of a database engine type;
-upon receiving the first selection of the database engine type, present a plurality of selectable options to be selected via at least one user interface of the GUI, the plurality of selectable options comprising at least a plurality of: a second selection of a first profile for creating a source database virtual machine;
-a third selection of a second profile for creating the source database;
-a fourth selection of a Service Level Agreement (“SLA”); and
-a fifth selection of a frequency of capturing a snapshot and transactional log;
-upon receiving the selections of the database engine type and the at least plurality of the first profile, the second profile, the SLA, and the frequency of capturing the snapshot and transactional log, create the source database and associate the created source database with the source database virtual machine; and display a status of the created source database on the dashboard.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, claims 1-19 of Pat. No. 10/817,157 contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application except for some obvious variations. However, the obvious variations were taught by Sivasubramanian , Tekade and Yueh cited in the rejection below. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Sivasubramanian, Tekade and Yueh in the invention of 10/817,157 to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows, and/or in order to allow creation of databases based various point in time copies associated with a source database, doing so would enhance efficiency by enabling reconstruction of the databases according to these different points in time.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,320,978, Sivasubramanian et. al. (“Sivasubramanian”, Pub. No. 2010/0251242), Tekade et al. (“Tekade”, Pub. No. 2016/0077925), and Yueh et al. (“Yueh”, Pub. No. US 2018/0181469).
Instant Application
Pat. No. 11,320, 978
Claim 1.
A non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor cause the processor to:
-present a dashboard to receive a user request to provision a database:
-in response to receiving the user request, present one or more user interfaces to: receive a first input of a database name for the database;
-receive a second input comprising a selection of a level of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) from a plurality of levels of the SLA to protect the database; and
-receive a third input of a protection schedule comprising a first frequency of capturing a snapshot and at least one time period for capturing the snapshot; and
-in response to receiving the first input, the second input, and the third input, display a status of provisioning the database on the dashboard, the status of provisioning the database indicating a progress of creation of the database.
Claim 1.
A system comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions in a virtual computing system; and a processor executing the computer-readable instructions to:
-display a dashboard configured to receive user selections to create a cloned source database;
-receive a first selection of a database engine type for provisioning a source database;
-receive a second selection of a source database virtual machine on which the cloned source database is to be created;
-receive a third selection of a Service Level Agreement (“SLA”) defining a duration for which the source database is to be protected after creation of the cloned source database;
-receive a fourth selection of a protection schedule comprising a first frequency of capturing snapshots and indicating which of the captured snapshots are to be used for protecting the source database during the duration;
- create the cloned source database on the source database virtual machine based on the first selection, the second selection, the third selection, and the fourth selection from the dashboard; and display a status of the cloned source database on the dashboard indicating a progress of creation of the cloned source database on the source database virtual machine.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, claims 1-19 of Pat. No. 11,320,978 contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application except for some obvious variations as in the claims. However, the obvious variations were taught by Sivasubramanian, Tekade and Yueh cited in the rejection below. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade and Yueh in the invention of 11/320,978 to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows, and/or in order to allow creation of databases based various point in time copies associated with a source database, doing so would enhance efficiency by enabling reconstruction of the databases according to these different points in time.
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, 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) 1-7, 10-16, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivasubramanian et. al. (“Sivasubramanian”, Pub. No. 2010/0251242) and Tekade et al. (“Tekade”, Pub. No. 2016/0077925).
Per claim 1, Sivasubramanian teaches a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor cause the processor to:
present a dashboard to receive a user request to provision a database ([0027]…An example "create database" workflow for a customer might include tasks such as provisioning a data store instance, allocating a volume of off-instance persistent storage, attaching the persistent storage volume to the data store instance, then allocating and attaching a DNS address or other address, port, interface, or identifier which the customer can use to access or otherwise connect to the data instance. [0045]…FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a display 500, here a page rendered in a browser application, that can allow a user to make calls into the control plane (i.e. dashboard)…select an action to be perform 504 “provision” and/or “Create” a repository):
in response to receiving the user request, present one or more user interfaces to: receive a first input of a database name for the database ([0045]. fig. 5; specify a repository for the action 502: “Repository name” ); and
in response to receiving one or more inputs, display a status of provisioning the database on the dashboard, the status of provisioning the database indicating a progress of creation of the database ([0027]…An example "create database" workflow for a customer might includes tasks such as provisioning a data store instance, allocating a volume of off-instance persistent storage, attaching the persistent storage volume to the data store instance, then allocating and attaching a DNS address or other address, port, interface, or identifier which the customer can use to access or otherwise connect to the data instance [0039]…The customer could also utilize a "DescribeDatabase" or similar API to poll on the status of the repository to determine the state of the repository, such as whether the repository state is provisioned. [0049]…Once the request has been submitted, the control plane can asynchronously execute the request to provision the repository. A "DescribeDatabases" or similar API can be used to determine the status of the request. While provisioning is still in progress, the status will show as "Pending Creation," for example, and can be changed to a state such as "Created" once the provisioning has been completed. At this point, the customer can have all the information necessary for connecting to the repository.).
Sivasubramanian further teaches backup a repository, a framework can handle backing up both the data files and any associated log files and backing up data in accordance with one embodiment suspends data operations until s[n]apshots are taken of the appropriate data volumes, and the log files a similarly copied into an appropriate location. For example, an Admin tier can wait for the backup window before initiating a backup procedure, see [0075] and [0076].
Sivasubramanian does not specifically teach receive a second input comprising a selection of a level of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) from a plurality of levels of the SLA to protect the database and receive a third input of a protection schedule comprising a first frequency of capturing a snapshot and at least one time period for capturing the snapshot.
However, Tekade teaches teach receive a second input comprising a selection of a level of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) from a plurality of levels of the SLA to protect the database and receive a third input of a protection schedule comprising a first frequency of capturing a snapshot and at least one time period for capturing the snapshot (fig. 6; [0037]… Some embodiments allow a Virtual Data Pipeline (VDP) to protect a database and its log in a single Service Level Agreement (SLA), which may contain different policies (i.e. different levels) to backup database files and log files on different schedules. [0046]… Snapshot policy of dbSnap of 601 as an example, it has a name field 603, with a priority level 604. This Snapshot policy states that a database backup will run every day 605 with exception setting 606 and operating window start time 607 and end time 608. The backup will run every 24 hours specified by 609, and the backup image is retained for number of day specified by 610. This user interface for configuring an SLA 600 also provides Advanced option settings. Selection list Enable Database Log Backup 612 can enable the integrated log backup with database (referred to herein as LogSmart); the RPO field 613 specifies log backup runs every 30 minutes when database log backup is enabled. For example, using SLA template in FIG. 6, both database and log backup can be retained for 7 days).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Per claim 2, the modified Sivasubramanian teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to receive a fourth input for a database engine via the one or more user interfaces (Sivasubramanian , fig. 5, “Database engine”: MySQL. [0045]… specify options for the action 506, such as a database engine to be use).
Per claim 3, the modified Sivasubramanian The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, wherein the one or more user interfaces to receive the first input, the second input, and the third input are presented after the one or more user interfaces to receive the fourth input is received (Sivasubramanian, [0045]…FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a display 500, here a page rendered in a browser application, that can allow a user to make calls into the control plane. As illustrated, the interface can include options that allow the user to enter information needed to perform a control action on the data plane. For example, the interface page can include options to specify a repository for the action 502, select an action to be performed 504, and specify options for the action 506, such as a database engine to be use or capacity to be requested, as well as version information 508 or other such options. Tekade, fig. 6; [0037]… Some embodiments allow a Virtual Data Pipeline (VDP) to protect a database and its log in a single Service Level Agreement (SLA), which may contain different policies (i.e. different levels) to backup database files and log files on different schedules. [0046]… Snapshot policy of dbSnap of 601 as an example, it has a name field 603, with a priority level 604. This Snapshot policy states that a database backup will run every day 605 with exception setting 606 and operating window start time 607 and end time 608. The backup will run every 24 hours specified by 609, and the backup image is retained for number of day specified by 610. This user interface for configuring an SLA 600 also provides Advanced option settings. Selection list Enable Database Log Backup 612 can enable the integrated log backup with database (referred to herein as LogSmart); the RPO field 613 specifies log backup runs every 30 minutes when database log backup is enabled. For example, using SLA template in FIG. 6, both database and log backup can be retained for 7 days).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Per claim 4, the modified Sivasubramanian teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the third input further comprises a second frequency of capturing a transactional log (Tekade, fig. 6; [0037]… Some embodiments allow a Virtual Data Pipeline (VDP) to protect a database and its log in a single Service Level Agreement (SLA), which may contain different policies (i.e. different levels) to backup database files and log files on different schedules. [0043] when a database is protected with weekly full database backup on Sunday, and daily incremental database backup on weekdays, log backup is done very two hours. If an incident happens on Thursday 9 am, and needs a restore from backups, one has to locate Sunday's database backup (full), restore it, locate incremental database backups from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, restore all three incremental backups, locate log backup of Thursday morning from 00:00 hr to 09:00 hr, and apply all available logs to 9 am before recovering the database before the incident time. [0046]… Snapshot policy of dbSnap of 601 as an example, it has a name field 603, with a priority level 604. This Snapshot policy states that a database backup will run every day 605 with exception setting 606 and operating window start time 607 and end time 608. The backup will run every 24 hours specified by 609, and the backup image is retained for number of day specified by 610. This user interface for configuring an SLA 600 also provides Advanced option settings. Selection list Enable Database Log Backup 612 can enable the integrated log backup with database (referred to herein as LogSmart); the RPO field 613 specifies log backup runs every 30 minutes when database log backup is enabled. For example, using SLA template in FIG. 6, both database and log backup can be retained for 7 days).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Per claim 5, the modified Sivasubramanian teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the at least one time period comprises one or more of a time of day for capturing a daily snapshot, a dav of a week for capturing a weekly snapshot, a day of a month for capturing a monthly snapshot, or a group of months for capturing a quarterly snapshot (Tekade, fig. 6; [0037]… Some embodiments allow a Virtual Data Pipeline (VDP) to protect a database and its log in a single Service Level Agreement (SLA), which may contain different policies (i.e. different levels) to backup database files and log files on different schedules. [0043] when a database is protected with weekly full database backup on Sunday, and daily incremental database backup on weekdays, log backup is done very two hours. [0046]… Snapshot policy of dbSnap of 601 as an example, it has a name field 603, with a priority level 604. This Snapshot policy states that a database backup will run every day 605 with exception setting 606 and operating window start time 607 and end time 608. The backup will run every 24 hours specified by 609, and the backup image is retained for number of day specified by 610. This user interface for configuring an SLA 600 also provides Advanced option settings. Selection list Enable Database Log Backup 612 can enable the integrated log backup with database (referred to herein as LogSmart); the RPO field 613 specifies log backup runs every 30 minutes when database log backup is enabled. For example, using SLA template in FIG. 6, both database and log backup can be retained for 7 days.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Per claim 6, the modified Sivasubramanian teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of levels of the SLA defines a first duration for a continuous protection of the database, a second duration for protecting the database using a daily snapshot, a third duration for protecting the database using a weekly snapshot, a fourth duration for protecting the database using a monthly snapshot, and a fifth duration for protecting the database using a quarterly snapshot (Tekade, fig. 6; [0037]… Some embodiments allow a Virtual Data Pipeline (VDP) to protect a database and its log in a single Service Level Agreement (SLA), which may contain different policies (i.e. different levels) to backup database files and log files on different schedules. [0043] when a database is protected with weekly full database backup on Sunday, and daily incremental database backup on weekdays, log backup is done very two hours. [0046]… Snapshot policy of dbSnap of 601 as an example, it has a name field 603, with a priority level 604. This Snapshot policy states that a database backup will run every day 605 with exception setting 606 and operating window start time 607 and end time 608. The backup will run every 24 hours specified by 609, and the backup image is retained for number of day specified by 610. This user interface for configuring an SLA 600 also provides Advanced option settings. Selection list Enable Database Log Backup 612 can enable the integrated log backup with database (referred to herein as LogSmart); the RPO field 613 specifies log backup runs every 30 minutes when database log backup is enabled. For example, using SLA template in FIG. 6, both database and log backup can be retained for 7 days. It is noted that the user can set a duration 610 to 90 days, 180 days etc., to capture a monthly and a quarterly snapshots). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Per claim 7. The modified Sivasubramanian teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein in addition to provisioning the database, the dashboard provides an option to create a cloned database (Tekade, [0062]… A backup image is selected for cloning based on point-in-time requirement in step 1101 by looking at the backup time and log recovery range of the backup image. A point-in-time requirement can include the time where production database needs a clone. [0068]… This cloning or branching capability of VDP can provide instant availability of cloned database regardless the size of the database being cloned or branched. Instant availability includes providing access to a cloned database instantly after the clone from production database backup completes.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tekade in the invention of Sivasubramanian to include different policies to backup database files and log files on different schedules, because doing so would allow protection of databases and/or transactional applications using separated-yet-coupled data and log backup streams with improved performance, space efficiency, clear and/or easy cloning/branching/restoring/etc. workflows.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7 respectively.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7 respectively.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17-18, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivasubramanian et. al. (“Sivasubramanian”, Pub. No. 20100251242) and Tekade et al. (“Tekade”, Pub. No. 2016/0077925), and Yueh et al. (“Yueh”, Pub. No. US 2018/0181469).
Per claim 8, the modified Sivasubramanian taches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the processor further executes computer-readable instructions to: receive another user request via the dashboard to create a cloned database of the database upon provisioning; present one or more additional user interfaces to: receive a fourth input of a date from a series of dates; and receive a fifth input indicative of creating the cloned database either at a point in time or using an available snapshot; and in response to receiving the fourth input and the fifth input, display a status of cloning the database on the dashboard, the status of cloning the database indicating a progress of creation of the cloned database.
However, Yueh teaches receive another user request via the dashboard to create a cloned database of the database upon provisioning, present one or more additional user interfaces to: receive a fourth input of a date from a series of dates, and receive a fifth input indicative of creating the cloned database either at a point in time or using an available snapshot, and in response to receiving the fourth input and the fifth input, display a status of cloning the database on the dashboard, the status of cloning the database indicating a progress of creation of the cloned database (figs. 4-6; [0057]… based on the input received by the database storage system 100 in the steps described above the database storage system 100 creates the VDB. The created VDB is based on a snapshot and transaction logs associated with the point-in-time value selected by the user. [0060]… In response to the user selecting a particular source database 410, the user interface provides information describing the source database including its status, size, name etc. as well as information describing the various point-in-time copies 430 stored on the database storage system 100l. [0061]…the user interface shown in FIG. 4 allows the user to provision 450 a new virtual database based on a selected source database or to export a physical copy 460 of the selected source database. For example, if the source database 410 is a virtual database, a physical copy of the database is materialized and stored on a target machine. The user interface shown in FIG. 4 allows a user to select the target machine 440 associated with the virtual database or the physical copy of the database. The target machine 440 can be a virtual database system 130 for accessing the virtual database being created. [0063]…FIG. 5 shows a user interface for allowing a user to select a particular point in time associated with the source database for creating a virtual database based on the selected point in time, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The point-in-time copies of the source database can be taken based on a schedule, for example, once a day. [0064]… The user may be provided a slider 530 for allowing the selection of a particular time point on the time line 520. Alternatively, the user interface can provide the user with any geometric shape that can be used for representing various time points, for example, a curved line or a thin rectangle or ellipse. The user can select a particular time point by using a slider 530 or by clicking or double clicking at a particular position in the geometric shape. FIG 5 shows status such as “Estimated Provision Time: 1 min” ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Yueh in the invention of the modified Sivasubramanian to in order to allow creation of databases based various point in time copies associated with a source database, doing so would enhance efficiency by enabling reconstruction of the databases according to these different points in time.
Per claim 9, the modified Sivasubramanian the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the series of dates provide a visual representation indicative of a level of protection available for a particular date of the series of dates (Yueh, figs. 4-6; [0057]… based on the input received by the database storage system 100 in the steps described above the database storage system 100 creates the VDB. The created VDB is based on a snapshot and transaction logs associated with the point-in-time value selected by the user. [0060]… In response to the user selecting a particular source database 410, the user interface provides information describing the source database including its status, size, name etc. as well as information describing the various point-in-time copies 430 stored on the database storage system 100l. [0061]…the user interface shown in FIG. 4 allows the user to provision 450 a new virtual database based on a selected source database or to export a physical copy 460 of the selected source database. For example, if the source database 410 is a virtual database, a physical copy of the database is materialized and stored on a target machine. The user interface shown in FIG. 4 allows a user to select the target machine 440 associated with the virtual database or the physical copy of the database. The target machine 440 can be a virtual database system 130 for accessing the virtual database being created. [0063]…FIG. 5 shows a user interface for allowing a user to select a particular point in time associated with the source database for creating a virtual database based on the selected point in time, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The point-in-time copies of the source database can be taken based on a schedule, for example, once a day. [0064]… The user may be provided a slider 530 for allowing the selection of a particular time point on the time line 520. Alternatively, the user interface can provide the user with any geometric shape that can be used for representing various time points, for example, a curved line or a thin rectangle or ellipse. The user can select a particular time point by using a slider 530 or by clicking or double clicking at a particular position in the geometric shape. FIG 5 shows status such as “Estimated Provision Time: 1 min” ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Yueh in the invention of the modified Sivasubramanian to in order to allow creation of databases based various point in time copies associated with a source database, doing so would enhance efficiency by enabling reconstruction of the databases according to these different points in time.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-9 respectively.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-9 respectively.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-4073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM - 3:30PM.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/THANH T VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights