Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 13 January 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended according to Applicant’s amendments. No claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101 -
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 8-16, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 103 -
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 16-18, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Aluf-Medina (US 2010/0191764 A1) in view of Periyagaram.
Of Note: Applicant argues Stimson is silent about the partitioned table referring to a memory partition in another portion of the memory and silent about a first table partition and a second table partition referring to the same memory partition in a separate portion of the memory. However, Examiner maintains Stimson, except for Applicant’s specific argument, teaches the remainder of that which it was originally cited for.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluf-Medina (US 2010/0191764 A1, hereinafter Aluf-Medina) in view of Periyagaram et al (US 2021/0303523 A1, hereinafter Periyagaram).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, taking claim 1 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina discloses a computer-implemented method for managing memory partitions in a computing system comprising (See Aluf-Medina, [0047] In the implementation of the present invention, portions of memory need to be apportioned to serve as containers, each of which is of a particular size. The structure of the memory store and each container is identified during the memory molding process through creation of a template design. A container may be structured using many different template designs, and different containers may employ different template designs. The template for containers may include logical partitioning of each container into n child-containers of any size, provided the total size does not exceed that of their parent container):
generating a first entry for a first partition table stored in a first slot in a first portion of memory
(See Aluf-Medina, Fig. 4, disclosing shared memory 500 corresponding to a first portion of memory, the memory divided into n containers including Container 1 in a first “slot” in memory 500, where Container 1 corresponds to a first partition table, Container 1/table having entries including data and associated pointer and [0062] FIG. 4 shows an illustrative example of the implementation of the present invention in which the fields of a record may be stored in different containers. Additional templates, although not shown as Figures, could also be developed and used based upon particular applications. In the example in FIG. 4, at least some portion of shared memory 500 is containerized. Although a portion of memory 500 may be used for a database in the present application, other portions of memory 500 may still be used in unrelated applications. When containerized, a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table. Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored) wherein:
the first partition table is associated with a first instance of a software application (See Aluf-Medina, [0062], “a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table.”),
the first entry refers to a first memory partition in a second portion of memory (See Aluf-Medina, [0062], “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”), and
determining that a first data block referenced by the first memory partition is shared with a second instance of the software application (See Aluf-Medina, [0062], “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”); and
generating a second entry for a second partition table stored in a second slot in the second portion of memory (See Aluf-Medina, FIG. 4, disclosing Container 2/Table B having multiple entries and [0062], “at least some portion of shared memory 500 is containerized. Although a portion of memory 500 may be used for a database in the present application, other portions of memory 500 may still be used in unrelated applications. When containerized, a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table. Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”), wherein:
the second partition table is associated with a second instance of the software application, and the second entry refers to the first memory partition (See Aluf-Medina, [0062], “a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table...The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”).
Aluf-Medina does not disclose the first memory partition includes a first memory extent.
However, Periyagaram discloses the first memory partition includes a memory extent (See Periyagaram, [0246], disclosing block containers configured to store data in blocks of any suitable size, [0250]-[0252], block containers implemented as logical extents pointing to a single range of stored data or a collection of references to stored data).
Aluf-Medina and Periyagaram are analogous art directed to improved memory management methods. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the application partition tables of Aluf-Medina with the extents of Periyagaram as storage system performance can be improved by effectively allowing inexpensive duplication of large collections of content within and across block containers (See Periyagaram, [0255]).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 19, taking claim 2 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram further discloses generating a third entry in the first partition table, wherein the third entry is associated with a second memory partition that includes a second memory extent (See (See Aluf-Medina, FIG. 4 disclosing multiple entries in Container 1 (Table A) including at least a third entry and where certain entries point to other related locations, and [0062] “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer”, or in other words, pointing to/associated with a second memory partition and Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing the stored data in the form of extents);
determining that a second data block referenced by the second memory partition is not shared
with the second instance of the software application (See Aluf-Medina, FIG. 4 disclosing multiple entries in Container 1 (Table A) including certain entries which do not point to other related locations in Table B, and [0062] “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer… The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”, or in other words, in some circumstances not shared and Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing the stored data in the form of extents); and
generating a fourth entry in the second partition table, wherein the fourth entry is associated with a third memory partition that includes a third memory extent that references the second data block (See Aluf-Medina, FIG. 4 disclosing multiple entries in Container 2 (Table B) including at least a plurality of entries including a fourth entry and where certain entries reference other related locations, and [0062] “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer…The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”, or in other words, references other locations/data and Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing the stored data in the form of extents); and
generating a fourth entry in the second partition table, wherein the fourth entry is associated with a third memory partition that includes a third memory extent that references the second data block (See Aluf-Medina, FIG. 4 disclosing multiple entries in Container 2 (Table B) including at least a plurality of entries including a fourth entry and where certain entries reference other related locations, and [0062] “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer…The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored”, or in other words, references other locations/data and Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing the stored data in the form of extents).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, taking claim 3 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 2 as described hereinabove. Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram further discloses wherein the third memory partition further references a fourth memory extent (See Alum-Medina, FIG. 4 disclosing multiple entries in Container 1 (Table A) including at least a third entry and where certain entries point to other related locations, and [0062] “Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer”, or in other words, references another/fourth location, and Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing stored data in multiple extents).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, taking claim 3 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 3 as described hereinabove. Periyagaram further discloses wherein the fourth memory extent is not contiguous with the third memory extent (See Periyagaram [0250]-[0252] disclosing the stored data in the form of multiple extents and where extents may include a list of pointers to logical block addresses, other logical extents, or to a combination of logical block addresses and other logical extents, or in other words, in certain instances, non-contiguous extents).
Regarding claim 10, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Aluf-Medina further discloses wherein, when executing a first version of the software application, the software application accesses the first memory extent via the first partition table (See Aluf-Medina, [0062] “When containerized, a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table. Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored” or in other words, each container/table for use by an application instance).
Claims 5-9, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluf-Medina (US 2010/0191764 A1, hereinafter Aluf-Medina) in view of Periyagaram et al (US 2021/0303523 A1, hereinafter Periyagaram), in view of Stimson (US 9715516 B1, hereinafter Stimson).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 20, taking claim 5 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 2 as described hereinabove. Neither Aluf-Medina nor Periyagaram further discloses determining that a software update to update a first version of the software application to a second version of the software application completed successfully; copying the second entry in the second partition table into the first entry in the first partition table; and copying the fourth entry in the second partition table into the third entry in the first partition table.
However, Stimson discloses determining that a software update to update a first version of the software application to a second version of the software application completed successfully (See Stimson, Fig. 7 and Col. 6, lines 32-41, disclosing using and keeping upgraded edition and current application live including their tables and not removing application editions until at least two editions prior to the current live application is being used); copying the second entry in the second partition table into the first entry in the first partition table; and copying the fourth entry in the second partition table into the third entry in the first partition table (See Stimson, Col. 3, lines 64-66, “automated way to dynamically alter at least a subset of tables to make them operation with of a new edition of an application” and Col. 4, lines 1-12, disclosing maintained tables having keys for editions such that only data that can be accessed is the data for the correct edition and Col. 5 lines 23-35, disclosing dividing a table into partitions, creating a backup table, and specifying how to make a duplicate of a set of data, how each duplicate is stored and masked from other editions of the application).
Aluf-Medina, Periyagaram, and Stimson are analogous are directed to improved memory management methods. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the partitioned application container table system of Aluf-Medina and Periyagaram with the edition based table updates of Stimson as application upgrades can be applied while providing an automated way to dynamically alter at least a subset of tables to make them operate with a new edition of an application (See Stimson, Col. 1, lines 59-62).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, taking claim 6 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram, further in view of Stimson disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 5 as described hereinabove. Stimson further discloses updating a partition name included in the first entry in the first partition table to identify the first instance of the software application (See Stimson, Col. 5, line 61-Col. 6, lines 5, disclosing partitioning a table, having a table name, the partition containing data for a new edition of an application); and updating a partition name included in the third entry in the first partition table to identify the first instance of the software application (See Stimson, Col. 5, line 61-Col. 6, lines 5, disclosing partitioning a table, having a table name, the partition containing data for a new edition of an application).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, taking claim 7 as exemplary, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram, further in view of Stimson disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 5 as described hereinabove. Aluf-Medina further discloses accessing memory partitions associated with the second instance of the software application via the second partition table (See Aluf-Medina, [0062] “When containerized, a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table. Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer. The pointer is potentially used to identify a corresponding location in an additional table where another portion of the same record is stored” or in other words, each container/table for use by an application instance).
Regarding claim 8, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram, further in view of Stimson disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 5 as described hereinabove. Stimson further discloses subsequent to copying the second entry in the second partition table into the first entry in the first partition table and copying the fourth entry in the second partition table into the third entry in the first partition table: accessing memory partitions associated with the second version of the software application via the first partition table (See Stimson, Fig. 7 and Col. 6, lines 32-41, disclosing using and keeping upgraded edition and current application live including partition tables and not removing application editions until at least two editions prior to the current live application is being used).
Regarding claim 9, Aluf-Medina in view of Periyagaram disclosed the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Aluf-Medina further discloses wherein memory partitions associated with a first version of the software application are accessed via the first partition table (See Aluf-Medina, [0062] disclosing “a series of n containers are created, reflecting the number of partitions in memory for use by one or more applications. Each of the n containers 501 in memory 500 represents a table. Each entry in the table is defined by a location and the location's contents include both an item and a pointer”).
Neither Aluf-Median nor Periyagaram disclose determining that a software update to update the first version of the software application to a second version of the software application did not complete successfully; and continuing to access the memory partitions associated with the first version of the software application via the first partition table.
However, Stimson discloses determining that a software update to update the first version of the software application to a second version of the software application did not complete successfully; and continuing to access the memory partitions associated with the first version of the software application via the first partition table (See Stimson, Fig. 7 and Col. 6, lines 32-41, disclosing using and keeping upgraded edition and current application live including their tables and not removing application editions until at least two editions prior to the current live application is being used, or in other words, upgrade failures can failback to first/original versions of software/applications).
Aluf-Medina, Periyagaram, and Stimson are analogous are directed to improved memory management methods. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the partitioned application container table system of Aluf-Medina and Periyagaram with the edition based table updates of Stimson as application upgrades can be applied while providing an automated way to dynamically alter at least a subset of tables to make them operate with a new edition of an application (See Stimson, Col. 1, lines 59-62).
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 EDMUND H KWONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 PT.
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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/E.H.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights