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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
The instant application having Application No. 18/415,007 has claims 1-6 and 8-21 pending filed on 01/17/2024; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 17, 2026, in response to PTO Office Action dated December 03, 2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
After considering the applicant’s argument for the claims 8-14 (dated 02/17/2026), the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained as the claim limitations meets the three-prong test (MPEP § 2181). The claims limitation(s) for the independent claim 8 “A computing system comprising: a memory; a processor configured to; …” do not modify the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Refer MPEP § 2181 II (B) “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112 (d) Rejection of claim 13
After considering the applicant’s argument for the claim 13 (dated 02/17/2026), the Claim 13 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is maintained as the claim limitations after amendment fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. As per the amended claim 13, the claim recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein to detect the partition size exception, the processor is further configured to generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key”. The parent claim 8 already states “… generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key …”. Thus, the claim 13 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim 8 upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 103 Rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-21
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/2026 with respect to the claims 1-6 and 8-21 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
The claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component in claims 8-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function or written description of the function “… for writing a portion of data to a first distributed database storage container associated with an initial partition key within a distributed database system …maintaining the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key … wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key … generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key “. There is no support in the specifications for the use of the wordings “initial partition key”. The word “initial” may mean different things depending upon the context of the usage of the word. Since there is no written support of “initial partition key” in the specifications, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ”.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-14 and 16-21
The dependent claims 2-6, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as they are dependent on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 directly or indirectly respectively and are thus rejected for the reasons specified supra for the independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS-Subject to subsection (e), a claim in
dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As per claim 13, the claim recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein to detect the partition size exception, the processor is further configured to generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key”. The parent claim 8 already states “… generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key …”. The claim 13 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim 8 upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur Rohitashva (US PGPUB 20200233721) in view of Richerdson et al (US PGPUB 20240256183) and in further view of Gupta et al (US PGPUB 20190370042) and Tipton et al (US PGPUB 20180150422).
As per claim 1:
Mathur teaches:
“A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising” (Paragraph [0004] (operations for the disclosed inventive systems, apparatus and methods for partitioning a database))
“for writing a portion of data to a first distributed database storage container associated with an initial partition key within a distributed database system” (Paragraph [0024] and Paragraph [0032] (a row may be assigned to the data container at the time of a write, the data container mapping criteria may be evaluated for a database table entry write request and the metadata partition lookup entries are applied to identify a container for one or more database entries))
“generating a new linked partition key based upon, at least in part, a previous linked partition key” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0080] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key (link), at a storage location within the container indicated by the partition key and the appropriate partition key for a given database entry may be stored in the partition key column where the partition key may be chosen for association with the container ID (a previous linked partition key)))
“allocating a second distributed database storage container that is associated with the new linked partition key” (Paragraph [0032] and Paragraph [0034] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key, at a storage location within the container, the new partition key may then map to a container identifier, which may be used by the database to point to a storage location for the database entry))
“servicing the write request, wherein the servicing comprises” (Paragraph [0028] (on-demand database services from Service Provider and write requests to the database can include))
“and writing the portion of data to the second distributed database storage container” (Paragraph [0053] and Paragraph [0142]( a partition key may be used by the database to identify the container and/or subcontainer which the database entry is stored and where the database described herein may be implemented as distributed databases or collections of distributed databases)).
Mathur does not EXPLICITLY teaches: detecting, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request; maintaining the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Richardson teaches:
“detecting, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0204], Paragraph [0279] and Paragraph [0393] (where one or more virtual controllers may be configured to receive and handle storage operations, including processing write requests and storing corresponding write data into one or more storage, determining that the amount of available storage has become so constrained that the storage system is on the verge of running out of storage and then it must stop processing new incoming requests for the pod or must complete them with an error or exception)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Richardson and apply them on teachings of Mathur for the computer-implemented method “detecting, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request”. One would be motivated as the storage systems may alone, or in combination with other computing resources, serves as a network edge platform that combines compute resources, storage resources, networking resources, cloud technologies, network virtualization technologies and enabled by a combination of containers and virtual machines, the network edge platform may rely on controllers and schedulers that are no longer geographically co-located (Richardsaon, Paragraph [0174]).
Mathur and Richardson do not EXPLICITLY teach: maintaining the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Gupta teaches:
“maintaining the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0086] (maintaining a first set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the data, the first set of metadata stored in the first storage mechanism (first distributed database storage container)))
“wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0040] and Paragraph [0086] (the second storage mechanism is used to generate a metadata storage container to store a second set of metadata associated with the first set of metadata (the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database) and maintaining a second set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the first set of metadata, the second set of metadata stored in a second storage mechanism that comprises a distributed metadata storage facility that stores metadata across multiple storage locations)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Gupta and apply them on teachings of Mathur and Richardson for the computer-implemented method “maintaining the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key”. One would be motivated as the stored data might be partitioned and distributed across the storage pool1 in a set of data storage that have a caching system to facilitate data access performance and data availability while the metadata might be held in a distributed metadata store that is organized for data consistency and fault tolerance (Gupta, Paragraph [0028]).
Mathur, Richardson and Gupta do not EXPLICITLY teach: generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Tipton teaches:
“generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0031] and Paragraph [0064] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage such as random access memory (RAM), physical caches (such as processor caches), or any other type of data store that can temporarily store data and hidden containers may be reserved on a portion of data storage for repositioning containers))
“and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0031] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage (the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request) that can temporarily store data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tipton and apply them on teachings of Mathur, Richardson and Gupta for the computer-implemented method “generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request”. One would be motivated as these hidden containers provide extra space for repositioning containers and new containers may be brought in, filled and de-staged to slower data storage (Tipton, Paragraph [0064]).
As per claim 2:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 above.
Mathur further teaches:
“processing a read operation associated with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0089] (the storage container identifier may be determined by using the partition key to query the partition lookup table)).
As per claim 3:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2 above.
Mathur further teaches:
“wherein processing the read operation includes processing the initial partition key and any linked partition keys from a partition table entry for the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0086] (the partition rule entry retrieved from the partition rule table includes a rule that identifies a partition key to use for the database entry based on one or more values, as an object may be associated with multiple partitions (any linked partition keys from the partition table entry for the partition key), more than one partition rule may be retrieved)).
As per claim 4:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 above.
Richardson further teaches:
“wherein each storage container has a fixed storage capacity” (Paragraph [0279] (in a traditional storage system, the amount of storage is fixed)).
As per claim 5:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 above.
Richardson further teaches:
“maintaining a cached partition table by caching at least a portion of a partition table on an instance of the distributed database system” (Paragraph [0275] (each cloud computing instance is responsible for retrieving, from the cloud-based object storage and each of the cloud computing instances can retrieve data from the cloud-based object storage in parallel, the caching layer may be restored 100 times faster as compared to an embodiment where the monitoring module only creates replacement cloud computing instances)).
As per claim 6:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5 above.
Mathur further teaches:
“in response to generating a new linked partition key, sending a cache update notification to another instance of the distributed database system to invalidate their respective cached partition table” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0090] (data storage locations are updated for the one or more database entries based on the identified storage locations where a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key (in response to generating a new linked partition key) and storing the database entry may then involve transmitting a storage message to the machine responsible for the identified container (notification to another instance of the distributed database system))).
As per claim 8:
Mathur teaches:
“A computing system comprising” (Paragraph [0004] (operations for the disclosed inventive systems, apparatus and methods for partitioning a database))
“a memory” (Paragraph [0146] (memory system))
“a processor configured to” (Paragraph [0170] (includes a processor))
“for writing a portion of data to a first distributed database storage container associated with an initial partition key within a distributed database system” (Paragraph [0024] and Paragraph [0032] (a row may be assigned to the data container at the time of a write, the data container mapping criteria may be evaluated for a database table entry write request and the metadata partition lookup entries are applied to identify a container for one or more database entries))
“generate a new linked partition key based upon, at least in part, a previous linked partition key” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0080] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key (link), at a storage location within the container indicated by the partition key and the appropriate partition key for a given database entry may be stored in the partition key column where the partition key may be chosen for association with the container ID (a previous linked partition key)))
“allocate a second distributed database storage container that is associated with the new linked partition key” (Paragraph [0032] and Paragraph [0034] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key, at a storage location within the container, the new partition key may then map to a container identifier, which may be used by the database to point to a storage location for the database entry))
“service the write request, wherein to service the write request, the processor is configured to” (Paragraph [0028] (on-demand database services from Service Provider and write requests to the database can include))
“and write the portion of data to the second distributed database storage container” (Paragraph [0053] and Paragraph [0142]( a partition key may be used by the database to identify the container and/or subcontainer which the database entry is stored and where the database described herein may be implemented as distributed databases or collections of distributed databases)).
Mathur does not EXPLICITLY teaches: detect, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request; maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and remove the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Richardson teaches:
“detect, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0204], Paragraph [0279] and Paragraph [0393] (where one or more virtual controllers may be configured to receive and handle storage operations, including processing write requests and storing corresponding write data into one or more storage, determining that the amount of available storage has become so constrained that the storage system is on the verge of running out of storage and then it must stop processing new incoming requests for the pod or must complete them with an error or exception)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Richardson and apply them on teachings of Mathur for the computing system “detect, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request”. One would be motivated as the storage systems may alone, or in combination with other computing resources, serves as a network edge platform that combines compute resources, storage resources, networking resources, cloud technologies, network virtualization technologies and enabled by a combination of containers and virtual machines, the network edge platform may rely on controllers and schedulers that are no longer geographically co-located (Richardsaon, Paragraph [0174]).
Mathur and Richardson do not EXPLICITLY teach: maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and remove the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Gupta teaches:
“maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0086] (maintaining a first set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the data, the first set of metadata stored in the first storage mechanism (first distributed database storage container)))
“wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0040] and Paragraph [0086] (the second storage mechanism is used to generate a metadata storage container to store a second set of metadata associated with the first set of metadata (the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database) and maintaining a second set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the first set of metadata, the second set of metadata stored in a second storage mechanism that comprises a distributed metadata storage facility that stores metadata across multiple storage locations)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Gupta and apply them on teachings of Mathur and Richardson for the computing system maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key”. One would be motivated as the stored data might be partitioned and distributed across the storage pool1 in a set of data storage that have a caching system to facilitate data access performance and data availability while the metadata might be held in a distributed metadata store that is organized for data consistency and fault tolerance (Gupta, Paragraph [0028]).
Mathur, Richardson and Gupta do not EXPLICITLY teach: generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and remove the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Tipton teaches:
“generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0031] and Paragraph [0064] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage such as random access memory (RAM), physical caches (such as processor caches), or any other type of data store that can temporarily store data and hidden containers may be reserved on a portion of data storage for repositioning containers))
“and remove the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0031] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage (the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request) that can temporarily store data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tipton and apply them on teachings of Mathur, Richardson and Gupta for the computing system “generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and remove the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request”. One would be motivated as these hidden containers provide extra space for repositioning containers and new containers may be brought in, filled and de-staged to slower data storage (Tipton, Paragraph [0064]).
As per claim 9, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 8 and the claim 2 above.
As per claim 10, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 9 and the claim 3 above.
As per claim 11, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 8 and the claim 4 above.
As per claim 12, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 8 and the claim 6 above.
As per claim 13:
Mathur, Richardson, Gupta and Tipton teach the computer system of claim 8 above.
Tipton further teaches:
“generate a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0031] and Paragraph [0064] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage such as random access memory (RAM), physical caches (such as processor caches), or any other type of data store that can temporarily store data and hidden containers may be reserved on a portion of data storage for repositioning containers)).
As per claim 14, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 8 and the claim 5 above.
As per claim 15:
Mathur teaches:
“A computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising” (Paragraph [0170] (the processor may perform operations where Instructions for performing such operations may be embodied in the on one or more non-transitory computer readable media or on some other storage device includes))
“for writing a portion of data to a first distributed database storage container associated with an initial partition key within a distributed database system” (Paragraph [0024] and Paragraph [0032] (a row may be assigned to the data container at the time of a write, the data container mapping criteria may be evaluated for a database table entry write request and the metadata partition lookup entries are applied to identify a container for one or more database entries))
“generating a new linked partition key based upon, at least in part, a previous linked partition key” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0080] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key (link), at a storage location within the container indicated by the partition key and the appropriate partition key for a given database entry may be stored in the partition key column where the partition key may be chosen for association with the container ID (a previous linked partition key)))
“allocating a second a distributed database storage container associated with the new linked partition key” (Paragraph [0032] and Paragraph [0034] (when a partition key is set for a new database entry, the database may store the new database entry, along with the partition key, at a storage location within the container, the new partition key may then map to a container identifier, which may be used by the database to point to a storage location for the database entry))
“and servicing the write request, wherein the servicing comprises” (Paragraph [0028] (on-demand database services from Service Provider and write requests to the database can include))
“writing the portion of data to the second distributed database storage container” (Paragraph [0053] and Paragraph [0142]( a partition key may be used by the database to identify the container and/or subcontainer which the database entry is stored and where the database described herein may be implemented as distributed databases or collections of distributed databases)).
Mathur does not EXPLICITLY teaches: detecting, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request; maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Richardson teaches:
“detecting, at runtime and during execution of a write request, a partition size exception associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0204], Paragraph [0279] and Paragraph [0393] (where one or more virtual controllers may be configured to receive and handle storage operations, including processing write requests and storing corresponding write data into one or more storage, determining that the amount of available storage has become so constrained that the storage system is on the verge of running out of storage and then it must stop processing new incoming requests for the pod or must complete them with an error or exception)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Richardson and apply them on teachings of Mathur for the computer program product “processing a partition size exception associated with a write request”. One would be motivated as the storage systems may alone, or in combination with other computing resources, serves as a network edge platform that combines compute resources, storage resources, networking resources, cloud technologies, network virtualization technologies and enabled by a combination of containers and virtual machines, the network edge platform may rely on controllers and schedulers that are no longer geographically co-located (Richardsaon, Paragraph [0174]).
Mathur and Richardson do not EXPLICITLY teach: maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key; generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request
However, in an analogous art, Gupta teaches:
“maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0086] (maintaining a first set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the data, the first set of metadata stored in the first storage mechanism (first distributed database storage container)))
“wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0040] and Paragraph [0086] (the second storage mechanism is used to generate a metadata storage container to store a second set of metadata associated with the first set of metadata (the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database) and maintaining a second set of metadata that identifies a storage location for the first set of metadata, the second set of metadata stored in a second storage mechanism that comprises a distributed metadata storage facility that stores metadata across multiple storage locations)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Gupta and apply them on teachings of Mathur and Richardson for the computer program product “maintain the first distributed database storage container with the initial partition key; wherein the new linked partition key is linked to the initial partition key in a partition key data structure providing access to the second distributed database storage container via the initial partition key”. One would be motivated as the stored data might be partitioned and distributed across the storage pool1 in a set of data storage that have a caching system to facilitate data access performance and data availability while the metadata might be held in a distributed metadata store that is organized for data consistency and fault tolerance (Gupta, Paragraph [0028]).
Mathur, Richardson and Gupta do not EXPLICITLY teach: generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request.
However, in an analogous art, Tipton teaches:
“generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key” (Paragraph [0031] and Paragraph [0064] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage such as random access memory (RAM), physical caches (such as processor caches), or any other type of data store that can temporarily store data and hidden containers may be reserved on a portion of data storage for repositioning containers))
“and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request” (Paragraph [0031] (the portions of data storage may also include temporary storage (the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request) that can temporarily store data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tipton and apply them on teachings of Mathur, Richardson and Gupta for the computer program product “generating a temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request to the first distributed database storage container associated with the initial partition key; and removing the temporary hidden placeholder associated with the write request”. One would be motivated as these hidden containers provide extra space for repositioning containers and new containers may be brought in, filled and de-staged to slower data storage (Tipton, Paragraph [0064]).
As per claim 16, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 2 above.
As per claim 17, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 16 and the claim 3 above.
As per claim 18, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 4 above.
As per claim 19, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 5 above.
As per claim 20, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 19 and the claim 6 above.
As per claim 21:
Mathur, Richardson and Tipton teach the computer implemented method of claim 1 above.
Mathur further teaches:
“processing a partition table entry for the initial partition key from a partition table” (Paragraph [0031] (a metadata repository may store a variety of information to facilitate the partitioning of a database table and metadata entry, referred to herein as a partition entry, maps a partition key to a container identifier, which the database may use to identify a logical storage location for database entries associated with the partition key)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rice et al, (US PGPUB 20180357264), techniques are disclosed for implementing a unified partitioning scheme within distributed database systems to allow a table to be horizontally partitioned and those partitions stored on and serviced by a storage group. A storage group is a subset of storage manager (SM) nodes, and each SM node is configured to persist database data in durable storage. The distributed database system assigns each storage group to a subset of SM nodes. The distributed database system can address each storage group using a symbolic mapping that allows transactions to identify a particular storage group, and to direct read and write operations to a subset of SM nodes servicing that storage group.
Klots et al, (US PGPUB 20160253402), a method and apparatus for adaptive data repartitioning and adaptive data replication is provided. A data set stored in a distributed data processing system is partitioned by a first partitioning key. A live workload comprising a plurality of data processing commands is processed. While processing the live workload, statistical properties of the live workload are maintained. Based on the statistical properties of the live workload with respect to the data set, it is determined to replicate and/or repartition the data set by a second partitioning key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights