DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed on 8/20/2025/2025, in which claims 1, 11, and 17 was amended, and claims 1 – 20 was presented for examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see Remarks below).
Remarks
5.1 As per rejection of claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant’s argues in substance in pages 7 – 8 that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendment does not overcome the rejection because the claims still directed to comparing of schema by iteratively analyzing each column type of the database table. The process as previously explained was not different from mentally or physically comparing an article or an item based on their storage structure. Using a computer to perform this function amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claims are not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
5.2 Applicant argues in substance in pages 10 – 12 that neither Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) nor Sinha (US 2011/0119288 A1) discloses wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the combine teaching of Bleistein et al (US 2005/0050099 A1), Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406), and Babkin et al (US 2009/0037769 A1) specifically disclose each and every features of amended claim 1, including the feature of wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types (Kenji Kawai: pg.17 lines 2 – 25 and pg.18 lines 4 – 10).
Kenji Kawai discloses the process of modifying current relational database schema with changes made to an object model. The schema of the current database is compared with other databases to identify the changes (see pg.2 Lines 30 – 31). The schema comparison process begins by comparing each table listed in the table list of the current database with the table list of the other databases by determining whether similar tables are available in both databases. The comparison beginning a loop by analyzing each column of both tables. The column analyzing involves determining whether the datatype, logical-Length, column name for each table are similar for each database schema (pg.17 lines 2 – 25 and pg.18 lines 4 – 10).
5.3 Thus the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
receiving, to an interface module of a relational database management system
a data file for writing to a relational database from a client device (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper).
extracting, by a transaction processing module of the RDMS, a file type and data from the data file the data extracted to a table (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, a schema associated with the data in the table using the file type (Mental Process performed in the mind (i.e. judgement)).
determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, whether there is a schema change between the data in the table and the relational database by comparing the schema to existing schema in the relational database (Mental Process performed in the mind (i.e. judgement)).
wherein the determination that there is a schema change is based on the comparing the schema to the existing schemas (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper).
and writing, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the data to the relational database (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper).
wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types determining if a corresponding column in the relational database has matching schema (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
responsive to a determination that there is a schema change, applying, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the schema change to the relational database, so as to adapt a schema of the relational database to the schema associated with the data (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
extracting, by a transaction processing module of the RDMS, a file type and data from the data file the data extracted to a table (the step is directed to obtaining information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, a schema associated with the data in the table using the file type (the step is directed to comparing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types
determining if a corresponding column in the relational database has matching schema (the step is directed to comparing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
responsive to a determination that there is a schema change, applying, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the schema change to the relational database, so as to adapt a schema of the relational database to the schema associated with the data (the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
receiving, to an interface module of a relational database management system
a data file for writing to a relational database from a client device (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
extracting, by a transaction processing module of the RDMS, a file type and data from the data file the data extracted to a table (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
and writing, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the data to the relational database (the step is directed to providing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving, comparing, and providing information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the table (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the table” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate and compare the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a column in a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the column in the table (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a column in a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the column in the table” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate and provide the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the column in the table is created in a data type associated with the data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the column in the table is created in a data type associated with the data” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate and provide the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the plurality of available column types include a type timestamp (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the plurality of available column types include a type timestamp” are no more than using a generic computer to determine the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
a first column type to be sequentially eliminated is type timestamp (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “a first column type to be sequentially eliminated is type timestamp” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein a second column type to be sequentially eliminated is the integer type and wherein the data has only numeric characters (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein a second column type to be sequentially eliminated is the integer type and wherein the data has only numeric characters” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein a third column type to be sequentially eliminated is a type floating point and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and a single decimal point (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein a third column type to be sequentially eliminated is a type floating point and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and a single decimal point” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein a fourth column type is sequentially determined to be a string and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and more than one decimal point (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein a fourth column type is sequentially determined to be a string and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and more than one decimal point” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
responsive to the determination that there is a schema change, generating, by the RDMS, an event that represents the schema change (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “responsive to the determination that there is a schema change, generating, by the RDMS, an event that represents the schema change” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 – 16 recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 11 – 15 and 16 are system claim correspond to method claims 1 – 5 and 6 – 8 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 – 5 and 6 – 8 are applied to claims 11 – 15 and 16.
Claims 17 – 20 recites a anon-transitory machine-readable medium, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter, As per other analysis, claim 17 – 20 are system claim correspond to method claims 1 – 4 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 – 4 are applied to claims 17 - 20.
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.
7. Claims 1 – 4, 11 – 14 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleistein et al (US 2005/0050099 A1), in view of Babkin et al (US 2009/0037769 A1), and further in view of Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406).
As per claim 1, Bleistein et al (US 2005/0050099 A1) discloses,
A method comprising: receiving, to an interface module of a relational database management system (RDMS) (claim 43; “a graphical user interface connected to said information database and configured so that said key field information is input by said customer by said graphical user interface”).
a data file for writing to a relational database from a client device (para.[0026]; “assume the client is interested in ( and therefore desires to track and store in a database) the name of the customer or trading partner (TP), the shipping address, the
purchase order number, the product identifier, and quantity”, para.[0028]; “client preferably enters several map instances 22 (i.e., pieces of key field information), each one having a set of key field information corresponding to key field data that is desired to be extracted from particular documents having different templates”, and para.[0049]; “information database 14 may comprise tables to store the information, such as key field information, that is captured by the client GUI”).
extracting, by a transaction processing module of the RDMS, a file type and data from the data file (para.[0005]; “extracting data may comprise: receiving a data file from a data source, the data file having metadata comprising at least one of file name, sender identification information, receiver identification information, transaction type, and file format” and para.[0027]; “the key field data will be extracted from the formatted data file based on the key field information in the map instance”).
the data extracted to a table (para.[0003]; extract important information, such as
purchase order number (or invoice number or remittance number, etc.), product identifier information ….. This information is then sent to a database for storage”, para.[0005]; “extracting key field data, corresponding to the key field information, from the first document based on the second document; and sending the key field data to a second information database”, and para.[0049]; “information database 14 may comprise tables to store the information, such as key field information, that is captured by the client GUI”).
Bleistein does not specifically disclose determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, a schema associated with the data in the table using the file type, determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, whether there is a schema change between the data in the table and the relational database by comparing the schema to existing schema in the relational database, wherein the determination that there is a schema change is based on the comparing the schema to the existing schemas, and writing, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the data to the relational database.
However, Babkin et al (US 2009/0037769 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, a schema associated with the data in the table using the file type (para.[0030]; “In some embodiments, the database transaction module 202 compares a new database schema to an existing database schema”, NOTE: the process of comparing inherently includes identifying and analyzing the schema of each database”).
determining, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, whether there is a schema change between the data in the table and the relational database by comparing the schema to existing schema in the relational database (para.[0013]; “database transaction module compares a new database schema to an existing database schema, identifies differences between the new schema and the existing schema”).
wherein the determination that there is a schema change is based on the comparing the schema to the existing schemas (para.[0030]; “compares a new database schema to an existing database schema”).
and writing, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the data to the relational database (para.[0030]; “transaction module 202 compares a new database schema to an existing database schema, identifies the differences between the new schema and the existing schema, and applies the identified differences to a database 206 in a single transaction”, where applies the changes is interpreted as “writing the data to a relational database” as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate data extraction for data sources to database of the system of Bleistein into database comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify key difference between the data in the existing data schema and the extracted data schema, thereby enabling data schema update in order to provide up-to-date information to the user.
Neither Bleistein nor Babkin specifically disclose wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types, determining if a corresponding column in the relational database has matching schema, responsive to a determination that there is a schema change, applying, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the schema change to the relational database, so as to adapt a schema of the relational database to the schema associated with the data.
However, Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein comparing includes, iteratively for each column of the table, scanning the data in the column, deducing a column type of the column by sequentially eliminating one column type at a time from a plurality of available column types (pg.17 lines 2 – 25; “compare two database schemas ……… the computer begins a loop wherein each table listed in the tableList for the current schema is compared to an entry in the corresponding tableList of the proposed schema …… the schema comparison routine determines whether the table in the current schema is found in the proposed schema ….. If the table is found in the proposed schema, the comparison routine begins a 20 loop that analyzes each column in the columnList defined for a particular table” and pg.18 lines 4 – 10; “all the changes to be made to the database tables are stored until the current and proposed schema have been fully compared. At that time, the changes to tables in the database are made. If a column is found in both a table in the current schema and a table in the proposed schema, the computer system determines whether the dataType, logicalLength, nullAllowed, columnName, dataLength, and scale properties are the same for the column in the current schema as in the proposed schema”).
determining if a corresponding column in the relational database has matching schema (pg.2 lines 2 – 25; “the schema comparison routine determines whether the table in the current schema is found in the proposed schema ….. If the table is found in the proposed schema, the comparison routine begins a 20 loop that analyzes each column in the columnList defined for a particular table”).
responsive to a determination that there is a schema change, applying, by the transaction processing module of the RDMS, the schema change to the relational database, so as to adapt a schema of the relational database to the schema associated with the data (pg.2A lines 17 – 20; “automatically modifying the relational database based on the comparison of the current relational database schema and the proposed relational database schema without additional input from the user other than the modifications to the object model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai into database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify type of data changes in database, thereby enabling speeding update of the require while improving system performance.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the table (pg.8 lines 3 – 5; “Multi-valued components are stored in separate tables within the relational database. Therefore, the addition cf the multi-v~ed component "Majoro.N," to the Student object 110 will cause a table 114 to be created”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai into database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify type of data changes in database, thereby enabling speeding update of the require while improving system performance.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
wherein the applying the schema change to the relational database includes creating a column in a table in the relational database, and wherein the writing the data to the relational database includes ingesting the data into the column in the table (pg.12 lines 1 – 5; “If a user changes the maximum cardinality of the Major component from one to N, thereby indicating that a student may have more than one major, the table 172 is reformatted. In particular, the column labeled "Major" is removed from the table 172 and a new table 176 iS: created to store multiple entrieS- of a student's major. The table 176 includes three columns”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai into database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify type of data changes in database, thereby enabling speeding update of the require while improving system performance.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
wherein the column in the table is created in a data type associated with the data (pg.13 lines 13 – 15; “data structure includes a definition of each table in the database as well as definitions of each of the columns within the table”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai into database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify type of data changes in database, thereby enabling speeding update of the require while improving system performance.
Claims 11 – 14 are system claim corresponding to method claims 1 – 4 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 4 respectively above.
Claims 17 - 20 are non-transitory machine readable medium claim corresponding to method claims 1 - 4 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 - 4 respectively above.
8. Claims 5 – 10 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleistein et al (US 2005/0050099 A1), in view of Babkin et al (US 2009/0037769 A1), in view of Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406), and further in view of Sinha (US 2011/0119288 A1).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Bleistein et al (US 2005/0050099 A1), Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406), and Babkin et al (US 2009/0037769 A1) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of available column types include a type timestamp, a type integer, a type floating point, and a type string .
However, Sinha (US 2011/0119288 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the plurality of available column types include a type timestamp, a type integer, a type floating point, and a type string (para.[0039], Table 1; “Timestamp”, “Operation”, “Target Type”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
a first column type to be sequentially eliminated is type timestamp (a loop wherein each table listed in the tableList for the current schema is compared to an entry in the corresponding tableList of the proposed schema …… the schema comparison routine determines whether the table in the current schema is found in the proposed schema”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
discloses,
wherein a second column type to be sequentially eliminated is the integer type and wherein the data has only numeric characters (pg.1 line 16; “Each table has one or more columns that define the types of data that are stored” and pg.17 lines 9 – 10; “each table listed in the tableList for the current schema is compared to an entry in the corresponding tableList of the proposed schema”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
wherein a third column type to be sequentially eliminated is a type floating point and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and a single decimal point (pg.18 lines 8 – 10; “determines whether the dataType, logicalLength, nulWlowed, columnNarne, dataLength, and scale properties are the same for the column in the current schema as in the proposed schema”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
wherein a fourth column type is sequentially determined to be a string and wherein the data has only numeric symbols and more than one decimal point (Pg.18 lines 8 – 10; “determines whether the dataType, logicalLength, nulWlowed, columnNarne, dataLength, and scale properties are the same for the column in the current schema as in the proposed schema”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Kenji Kawai (WO 97/03406) discloses,
further comprising, responsive to the determination that there is a schema change, generating, by the RDMS, an event that represents the schema change (pg.18 lines 4 – 6; “all the changes to be made to the database tables are stored until the current and proposed schema have been fully compared”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate schema changes detection by column type comparison of the system of Sinha into schema column by column comparison of the system of Kenji Kawai and database schema comparison by transaction module of the system of Babkin to identify changes between database schema in order to properly store the updated data.
Claims 15 and 16 are system claim corresponding to method claims 5 and 6 - 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 – 8 respectively above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
12/9/2025