DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 9/10/2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are amended.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 18 are pending.
35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 14.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitina et al (US 20190147079, prior art part of IDS dated 10/4/2024, hereinafter Nikitina), in view of Chkodrov et al (US 20190243913, hereinafter Chkodrov).
As per claim 1, Nikitina discloses: A computer-implemented method for publishing an event to at least one data stream, the method comprising:
receiving an operation to be performed on a domain table; (Nikitina [0023]: “Performance of the multi-system operation begins at step 100, at which a request to perform a multi-system operation (MSO1) is received”.)
performing the operation on the domain table; populating an event log table with event data, the event data being based on the operation performed on the domain table; (Nikitina [0025]: “When the first transaction TX1 commits, commit records for the first transaction are stored in a first commit log 212 of the first database system 206. Consequently, upon commit of the first transaction TX1, all changes made by the first transaction (including both those made to the multi-system operation table MSOT1 and those made to other tables (e.g. table 210)) will be reflected in commit records that are all assigned the same transaction identifier TX1-id. Specifically, the commit records for the first transaction TX1 will contain the before and after values of all data items changed by the first transaction TX1.”)
and publishing, in response to the populating of the event log table, an event to a target stream, the event being based on the event data. (Nikitina [0084]: “each of systems 2-N analyzes all of the events in event stream 217 (either directly or by reading event log 218) to find events that would require actions to be taken by their respective service applications. Rather than have each service application examine all such events, the event stream 271 (or event log 218) may be managed by a publish/subscribe system, where streaming module 124 “publishes” event records to the event log 218, and each of the service applications subscribes to the event records that are associated with operation types that involve the service.”.)
Nikitina did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the event data comprises a publication identifier identifying whether or not the event has been published to the target stream;
However, Chkodrov teaches:
wherein the event data comprises a publication identifier identifying whether or not the event has been published to the target stream; (Chkodrov [0045])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chkodrov into that of Nikitina in order to have the event data comprises a publication identifier identifying whether or not the event has been published to the target stream. Chkodrov [0051] teaches that doing so would ensure data being stored in database, available with individual client status updated and reflected in the event stream, thus such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the operation on the domain table and populating the event log table with the event data occur simultaneously, optionally wherein the two steps occur with atomicity. (Nikitina [0025].)
As per claim 3, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event data comprises a status identifier, and wherein, at the point of populating the event log table, the status identifier identifies that the event is pending publication. (Nikitina [0065].)
As per claim 4, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving confirmation that the event has been published to the at least one stream. (Nikitina [0066].)
As per claim 5, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 4, further comprising: updating the status identifier in the event log table to identify that the event has completed publication. (Nikitina [0066].)
As per claim 6, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event data further comprises a target stream identifier, and wherein publishing the event to the target stream comprises: determining, based on the target stream identifier, the target stream to which to publish the event. (Nikitina [0084].)
As per claim 7, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the target stream identifier comprises an event type identifier, and wherein determining the target stream to which to publish the event comprises: determining an event type of the event from the event type identifier; and determining a target stream associated with the event type, optionally retrieving the target stream from a lookup table. (Nikitina [0084].)
As per claim 9, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event data further comprises at least one of: a timestamp corresponding to when the event was logged; a timestamp corresponding to when the event was published; an originator identifier, identifying the source of the event; a payload identifier, identifying the event payload; a version identifier, identifying the event version; and a retry identifier, identifying a number of attempts to publish the event. (Nikitina [0062] – [0067].)
As per claim 10, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event is published to at least two target streams, and wherein the status identifier in the event log table is updated to identify that the event has completed publication when confirmation of publication to all streams is received. (Chkodrov [0045])
As per claim 13, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the domain table and event log table are stored in a first domain, and wherein the target stream publishes the event to a second domain, distinct from the first domain. (Nikitina figure 2A.)
As per claim 15, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second operation to be performed on the domain table; repeating the steps of claim 1 for the second operation. (Nikitina [0023], [0025] and [0084].)
As per claim 17, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
A data processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 1. (Nikitina figure 4.)
As per claim 18, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov further teach:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to carry out the method of claim 1. (Nikitina [0132] - [0133].)
Claim(s) 8, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitina and Chkodrov, and in view of Waltz et al (US 20190372924, hereinafter Waltz).
As per claim 8, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov did not teach:
The method of claim 7, wherein if the event data comprises no event type identifier or if no target stream can be determined to be associated with the event type, the method is aborted.
However, Waltz teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein if the event data comprises no event type identifier or if no target stream can be determined to be associated with the event type, the method is aborted. (Waltz [0113] – [0114])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waltz into that of Nikitina and Chkodrov in order to abort the method if the event data comprises no event type identifier or if no target stream can be determined to be associated with the event type. Although Nikitina did not explicitly teach the event and the outcome of “if the event data comprises no event type identifier or if no target stream can be determined to be associated with the event type”, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that what is claimed is merely an obvious outcome of the event publication, as demonstrated by Waltz [0113] – [0114], such combination merely claims the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 11, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov did not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying that publishing the event to the target stream has failed; and retrying the publishing step at least once, optionally three times, wherein retrying steps are halted if the event successfully publishes.
However, Waltz teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying that publishing the event to the target stream has failed; and retrying the publishing step at least once, optionally three times, wherein retrying steps are halted if the event successfully publishes. (Waltz [0113] – [0114])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waltz into that of Nikitina in order to identify that publishing the event to the target stream has failed; and retrying the publishing step at least once, optionally three times, wherein retrying steps are halted if the event successfully publishes. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that what is claimed is merely a commonly known and obvious steps for error correction in the event stream, as demonstrated by Waltz [0113] – [0114], such combination merely claims the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 16, the combination of Nikitina and Chkodrov did not teach:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining that publishing the event based on one or both of the first and second operations failed to be performed successfully; and at a configurable interval, retrying each publishing that is determined to have failed.
However, Waltz teaches:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining that publishing the event based on one or both of the first and second operations failed to be performed successfully; and at a configurable interval, retrying each publishing that is determined to have failed. (Waltz [0113] – [0114])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waltz into that of Nikitina and Chkodrov in order to determine that publishing the event based on one or both of the first and second operations failed to be performed successfully; and at a configurable interval, retrying each publishing that is determined to have failed. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that what is claimed is merely a commonly known and obvious steps for error correction in the event stream, as demonstrated by Waltz [0113] – [0114], such combination merely claims the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments, filed 9/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new grounds of rejection, see appropriate sections above for details.
Examiner notes that applicants argued that claims 9 and 10 are allowable because they were not rejected in the office action dated 6/11/2026. The examiner agrees with the applicant as the omission of rejections of claims 9 and 10 are mistakes made by the examiner, however, they are not allowable because of the reasons listed in the art rejection section above. This office action is not made final accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
