DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Response filed on 31 December 2025.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are in independent form.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The instant claims recite “a particular database command” and “said second database command.” It is unclear as to whether “a particular database command” and “said second database command” are to be the same as or different from reach other. Specifically, wherein the claims recite “a particular database command” but nothing is done with said “a particular database command” after receipt, it is unclear as to whether “a particular database command” was intended to be the same as “said second database command.” Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-13, 15-18, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,030,169, filed on 7 March 2017, and issued on 8 June 2021.
As per independent claims 1 and 13, Wu teaches:
A method, comprising:
a first shard server in a sharded DBMS receiving a first database command specifying sharding key value that is not mapped by a distributed sharding directory of the sharded DBMS {See Wu, column 15, lines 18-21, wherein this reads over “FIG. 6 is a high-level flowchart illustrating various methods and techniques to split a shard, according to some embodiments. Note that FIG. 6 shows an example split operation that performs a local split of a shard.”};
in response to receiving said first database command, adding a particular entry to said distributed sharding directory that maps said sharding key value to a first shard identifier {See Wu, column 15, lines 28-38, wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, once a subset of shards is selected to be split, a local split operation may be performed wherein a first portion of a shard remains stored in a node hosting the shard and a second portion of the shard is caused to be stored in a second node. In order to perform such a split operation, in some embodiments, at 602 a split key value within a key range of a shard that is to be split is determined. For example, a shard may represent data with key values spanning a key value range and a value within the range, for example in some embodiments, a midpoint within the range, may be selected as a split key value”};
after adding said particular entry to said distributed sharding directory:
receiving a second database command referencing said sharding key value {See Wu, column 13, lines 15-19, wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, a request routing service, such as request routing 400, may consult a directory, such as directory 410, in response to receiving a read or write request to determine an appropriate shard and/or node to consult to perform the requested read or write operation.”}; and
based on said particular entry and said sharding key value referenced in said second database command, routing said second database command to a particular shard server of said sharded DBMS that corresponds to said first shard identifier {See Wu, column 13, lines 15-19, wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, a request routing service, such as request routing 400, may consult a directory, such as directory 410, in response to receiving a read or write request to determine an appropriate shard and/or node to consult to perform the requested read or write operation.”}.
As per dependent claims 3 and 15, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein said first database command references a partition identifier, wherein adding a particular entry includes determining that said particular entry should map said sharding key value to said first shard identifier based on said partition identifier {See Wu, column 15, lines 49-53, wherein this reads over “At 606, a directory is updated to indicate which key values are associated with which shards. For example, a directory may be updated to indicate that key values previously associated with shard 1 are now associated with shard 1A.”}.
As per dependent claims 4 and 16, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein said first database command is a data manipulation statement {See Su, column 13, lines 36-42, wherein this reads over “In one embodiment, database management 440 may handle requests to access the data (e.g., to insert, modify, add, or delete data as well as requests to query for data by generating query execution plans to determine which shards of a database may need to be evaluated or searched in order to service the query).”}.
As per dependent claims 5 and 17, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, further including:
said first shard server receiving a particular database command specifying a particular sharding key value that is mapped by a particular entry in said distributed sharding directory to a particular shard identifier, said particular database command specifying a change to a record in a sharded database object stored in said sharded DBMS {See Wu, column 13, lines 27-42, wherein this reads over “Processing nodes 430 may implement database management 440, in one embodiment. Database management 440 may create, update, define, query, and/or otherwise administer databases, in one embodiment. For instance, database management 440 may maintain a database according to a database model (e.g., a relational or non-relational database model). In one embodiment, database management 440 may allow a client to manage data definitions (e.g., Data Definition Language (DDL) requests to describe column definitions, requests to add item attributes, etc.). In one embodiment, database management 440 may handle requests to access the data (e.g., to insert, modify, add, or delete data as well as requests to query for data by generating query execution plans to determine which shards of a database may need to be evaluated or searched in order to service the query)”}; and
in response to receiving said particular database command, modifying said particular entry to map said particular sharding key value to a different shard identifier {See Wu, column 13, lines 20-26, wherein this reads over “Furthermore, in some embodiments, a resource manager or control plane, such as control plane 420, may update a directory, such as directory 410, in response to a re-sharding operation being performed. For example, a directory may be updated to indicate newly added shards, to indicate which pieces of data are associated with different shards, and to indicate storage locations of different shards.”}.
As per dependent claims 6 and 18, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein adding a particular entry includes determining that said particular entry should map said sharding key value to said first shard identifier based on one or more native assignment rules defined for a sharded table {See Wu, column 5, lines 32-38, wherein this reads over “FIG. 2A is a high-level flowchart illustrating a re-sharding operation that includes determining a number of shards to be split based on the Fibonacci sequence, according to some embodiments. At 202 an overall number of shards included in a set of shards for which a re-sharding operation is being performed is determined. For example, resource manager 112 may determine that set 104 includes three shards (e.g. shards 1, 2, and 3).”}.
As per dependent claims 10 and 22, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein: a particular client computer of said particular shard server is connected via a network with said particular shard server; and wherein said particular client computer stores a particular copy of said distributed sharding directory {See Wu, column 3, line 63 – column 4, line 5, wherein this reads over “Provider network 102 includes nodes 1, 2, and 3 that are included in set 104. Each of nodes 1, 2, and 3, stores a respective shard, for example shards 1, 2, and 3. Nodes 1, 2, and 3, also include processing capacity, for example compute portions 108, and memory, such as storage portions 110. In some embodiments, each of nodes 1, 2, and 3 may be separate computing devices, such as separate servers. In some embodiments, nodes 1, 2, and 3 may be virtual nodes comprising shared computing and storage resources allocated to a customer as a virtual machine.”}.
As per dependent claims 11 and 23, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein routing said second database command includes said particular client computer routing said second database command by at least looking up said sharding key value in the particular copy of the distributed sharding dictionary to determine that said sharding key value is mapped to said first sharded identifier {See Wu, column 13, lines 4-26, wherein this reads over “In some embodiments, a database service, such as database service 310, may further include a directory, such as directory 410. A directory may store information indicating what data is associated with each shard of a set of shards, such as shards 470 and/or 490. For example, in some embodiments pieces of data may have associated key values and a directory may indicate which key values are associated with different ones of the shards. Also, in some embodiments, a directory may store information indicating storage locations of respective shards. For example, a directory may indicate which shards are stored in which nodes of a multi-node system. In some embodiments, a request routing service, such as request routing 400, may consult a directory, such as directory 410, in response to receiving a read or write request to determine an appropriate shard and/or node to consult to perform the requested read or write operation. Furthermore, in some embodiments, a resource manager or control plane, such as control plane 420, may update a directory, such as directory 410, in response to a re-sharding operation being performed. For example, a directory may be updated to indicate newly added shards, to indicate which pieces of data are associated with different shards, and to indicate storage locations of different shards”}.
As per dependent claims 12 and 24, Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sharding key value is a sharding key of a database object, wherein the database object is partitioned into a plurality of partitions, each partition of said plurality of partitions being contained within a respective chunk of a plurality of chunks, each chunk of said plurality of chunks being hosted on a respective shard server of said sharded DBMS, wherein the method comprises: performing a split, move, or merge operation on a particular partition of said plurality of partitions; modifying said distributed sharding directory to reflect said operation {See Wu, column 15, lines 49-55, wherein this reads over “At 606, a directory is updated to indicate which key values are associated with which shards. For example, a directory may be updated to indicate that key values previously associated with shard 1 are now associated with shard 1A. At 608, data associated with key values assigned to a new shard resulting from a split operation is moved to a new node”}.
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) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Chang et al, USPGPUB No. 2013/0060742, filed on 2 September 2011, and published on 7 March 2013.
As per dependent claims 2 and 14, Wu, in combination with Chang, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sharding key value is a key of a database object comprising a collection of records, wherein the database object is one of:
a relational table comprising rows as records {See Chang, [0099], wherein this reads over “FIG. 4 illustrates an example transaction table 400 for three transactions that wrote the database values to the rows shown in FIG. 3.”; and [0100], wherein this reads over “In embodiments where the database system 105 is configured in a shared nothing architecture, the transaction table can be distributed, sharded, and replicated.”}; and
a collection of documents comprising documents as records, each document of said collection conforming to a hierarchical markup language.
The prior art of Wu fails to disclose the aforementioned features of the instant claim. Chang is directed to multi-row transactions. Specifically, Chang discloses “an example transaction table 400 for three transactions that wrote the database values to the rows.” See Chang, [0099]. This disclosure would read upon the claimed feature of “a table comprising rows as records.” Additionally, Chang discloses that “the transaction table can be distributed, sharded, and replicated.” See Chang, [0100]. This would provide a contextual environment related to shards for the table. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Wu with that of Chang for the predictable result of a system wherein the data objects of Wu may further include the transaction table of Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination such that the data object which is sharded may be a relational table such that the sharding is done by a group of rows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the argument that “[t]he limitation already recites a clear and definite step that would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art” and that “[t]he step positively requires receipt of a database command, which is a concept that would be understood by one of skill in the art.” See Response, page 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to adequately explain the aforementioned issue wherein it is unclear as to whether “a particular database command” and “said second database command” are to be the same as or different from reach other. Specifically, wherein the claims recite “a particular database command” but nothing is done with said “a particular database command” after receipt, it is unclear as to whether “a particular database command” was intended to be the same as “said second database command.”
Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the argument that the cited art does not disclose the feature which “requires that a sharing key value – that is unmapped at the time of the receipt of a database command that specifies the sharding key value – be mapped within a distributed sharding directory in response to a receipt of the command.” See Response, page 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a first shard server in a sharded DBMS receiving a first database command specifying sharding key value that is not mapped by a distributed sharding directory of the sharded DBMS.” The Examiner notes that the limitation of “[a] sharding key value that is not mapped by a distributed sharding directory of the sharded DBMS” is a negative limitation. Accordingly, a prior art reference is not required to explicitly disclose the absence of a feature to meet a negative limitation. A negative limitation is met where the reference does not require the excluded feature or where the claimed exclusion is functionally immaterial to the operation disclosed. In this case, the prior art of Wu does not teach or require that sharding key values are mapped by a distributed sharding directory. Accordingly, the reference does not exclude receiving a command specifying a sharding key value that is not mapped by such a directory.
Additionally, Applicant asserts the argument that “Wu, however, fails to suggest, much less disclose, determining the split key value based on a split key value specified by a database command.” See Response, page 4. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu discloses determining a split key value based on a key value specified in a received database command. Furthermore, Wu determines how data is split or partitioned in response to a key value included in the database command. Accordingly, it is noted that determining a split key value based on a key specified by the database command meets the claim limitation.
Lastly, for the remaining dependent claims, Applicant relies upon the assertions made with regards to the independent claim above. Accordingly, the rejection of the dependent claims are maintained for the aforementioned reasons above.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/