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
This Office Action corresponds to application 18/601,916 which was filed on 3/11/2024 and is a CON of 16/042,884 filed 7/23/2018 which is a CON of 14/833,003 filed 8/21/2015.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed 11/26/2025, claims 21, 28 and 35 have been amended. No additional claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “after receiving and approving, by the first journal manager, the at least one transaction request associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database, storing an indication that transaction requests associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager of the second journal instead of the first journal manager of the first journal”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Erofeev is newly cited for this limitation and teaches, in figures 2 and 4-5 and paragraphs 57, 76, 79, and 86-88, writing committed, e.g., approved, transactions to logs, e.g., journals. Erofeev teaches that when the capacity of the first log exceeds a threshold, the transactions are written to the second log instead of the first log and exceeding the capacity threshold is interpreted as a stored indication that transaction requests associated with a first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager instead of the first. When combined with the previously cited references, this would be for the journal managers and multi-data-store database as taught by Rice and Reid. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
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) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US2016/0350392, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Rice, in view of Reid et al. (US2010/0211554, previously presented in ‘892), hereinafter Reid, and Erofeev (US2011/0295804, previously presented in ‘892).
Regarding Claim 21:
Rice teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: storing, by a first journal manager into a first journal in response to receiving a plurality of transaction requests associated with a multi-data-store database, a plurality of committed transaction entries indicating respective state changes approved by the first journal manager, wherein at least one of the transaction requests received and approved by the first journal manager is associated with a first subset of the multi-data-store database (Rice, abstract, figures 1-2b, [0025, 0055, 0062-0063], note multi-data store; note journal modules; note multiple transactions associated with the multi-data-store database; note storage manager acknowledges commits; note the storage manager (SM) nodes journal changes);
instantiating a second journal (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0039, 0043, 0055, 0062-0063], note each database node comprises a storage manager with a journal module; note instantiating the second database nodes would comprise instantiation a second journal);
storing an indication that transaction requests associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager of the second journal instead of the first journal manager of the first journal (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0025-0027, 0055, 0062-0063], note using a symbolic mapping that allows transactions to identify a particular storage group, e.g., an indication that the transaction request is to be directed to a second SM node/journal; note partition policies); and
storing, by the second journal manager into the second journal in response to receiving a particular transaction request associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database, at least a particular committed transaction entry indicating another state change approved by the second journal manager (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0055, 0062-0063], note multi-data store; note journal modules; note the storage manager (SM) nodes journal changes and acknowledges commits; note multiple SMs and journals).
While Rice teaches using multiple journals for multi-data-store databases, Rice doesn’t specifically teach indicating another state change approved by the second journal manager that is to be subsequently applied to the multi-data-store database. However, Reid is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Reid teaches:
storing, by a first journal manager into a first journal in response to receiving a plurality of transaction requests associated with a multi-data-store database, a plurality of committed transaction entries indicating respective state changes approved by the first journal manager that are to be subsequently applied to a multi-data-store database, wherein at least one of the transaction requests received and approved by the first journal manager is associated with a first subset of the multi-data-store database (Reid, [0005-0007, 0026-0028, 0043-0048], note a plurality of transaction requests associated with the data stores; note storing transaction entries in a log; note the determination as to whether a log record is committed is based on the log record and other transaction in the log, which is interepted to mean the committed transactions are approved, e.g., validated, by a journal manager; note if the servers determine the transaction is committed, e.g., validated, it uses the transactions results, e.g., state changes are subsequently applied to a multi-data-store database. When combined with the previously cited referenc3es this would be for the multi-data-store database as taught by Rice);
storing, by the second journal manager into the second journal in response to receiving a particular transaction request associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database, at least a particular committed transaction entry indicating another state change approved by the second journal manager that is to be subsequently applied to the multi-data-store database (Reid, [0005-0007, 0025-0029, 0043-0048], note storing transaction entries in a log; note the determination as to whether a log record is committed is based on the log record and other transaction in the log, which is interepted to mean the committed transactions are approved, e.g., validated, by a journal manager; note if the servers determine the transaction is committed, e.g., validated, it uses the transactions results, e.g., state changes are subsequently applied to a multi-data-store database. When combined with the previously cited reference, this would be for the second journal manager of the second database node as taught by Rice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Rice because all references are directed to data management and because Rice would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in journal data management which would improve scalability and efficiency of the system by enabling databases to be concurrently accessed and updated by multiple entities (Reid, [0001, 0029]).
While Rice as modified teaches using multiple journals for multi-data-store databases, Rice as modified doesn’t specifically teach after receiving and approving, by the first journal manager, the at least one transaction request associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database, storing an indication that transaction requests associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager of the second journal instead of the first journal manager of the first journal. However, Erofeev is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Erofeev teaches:
after receiving and approving, by the first journal manager, the at least one transaction request associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database, storing an indication that transaction requests associated with the first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager of the second journal instead of the first journal manager of the first journal (Erofeev, figures 2 and 4-5, [0057, 0076, 0079, 0086-0088], note writing committed, e.g., approved, transactions to logs, e.g., journals; note that when the capacity of the first log exceeds a threshold, the transactions are written to the second log instead of the first log; note the capacity threshold is interpreted as a stored indication that transaction requests associated with a first subset of the multi-data-store database are to be directed to a second journal manager. When combined with the previously cited references, this would be for the journal managers and multi-data-store database as taught by Rice and Reid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Erofeev because all references are directed to data management and because Erofeev would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in journal data management which would improve the efficiency and reliability of the system by using other journal files when the capacity thresholds are reached (Erofeev, [0076]).
Regarding Claim 22:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
receiving, via a programmatic interface, a fork request from a client of the multi- data-store database, wherein said instantiating the second journal is performed at least in part in response to the fork request (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0030, 0039, 0081, 0106, 0110], note SM nodes can be added to and removed from a storage group; note an administrator can add additional SM nodes to service partitions; note the system can split, e.g., fork, an existing table as desired; note an administrator can update SM assignments, which means the split/fork request may be received via a programmatic interface. Therefore, when a split/fork request adds the new partition to an SM node, the second journal is instantiated for the new partition on the SM node).
Regarding Claim 23:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
determining that a performance metric-based criterion for forking the first journal has been satisfied, wherein said instantiating the second journal is performed at least in part in response to said determining (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0030, 0043, 0106, 0110], note splitting/forking may be performed when a table partition grows beyond a particular size, which is interpreted as a performance metric-based criterion).
Regarding Claim 24:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
determining that a size of the first journal has exceeded a threshold, wherein said instantiating the second journal is performed at least in part in response to said determining (Rice, figures 1-2b, [0030, 0043, 0106, 0110], note splitting/forking may be performed when a table partition grows beyond a particular size, which is interpreted as a performance metric-based criterion) (Erofeev, [0076], note when a certain capacity, e.g., threshold, of the first log file is reached, the driver begins populating the second log file. When combined with the previously cited references, the determining the log size threshold has been reached to use a second log file teachings of Erofeev is combined with the partitioning and instating of a second journal teachings of Rice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Erofeev because all references are directed to data management and because Erofeev would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in journal data management which would improve the efficiency and reliability of the system by using other journal files when the capacity thresholds are reached (Erofeev, [0076]).
Regarding Claim 25:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
wherein the multi-data- store database comprises a plurality of records, wherein individual ones of the records comprise values of one or more attributes, the computer-implemented method further comprising: storing an indication that first subset of the multi-data-store database comprises one or more records in which a particular attribute has a particular value, such that a record in which the particular attribute has a value other than the particular value is not part of the first subset (Rice, [0002-0004, 0025], note multi-data store databases containing a plurality of records with one or more attributes; note horizontal and vertical partitioning; note storing an indication that a first subset comprises records of a particular attribute and a second for other attributes).
Regarding Claim 26:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
storing, prior to instantiating the second journal, metadata indicating that processing of transaction requests directed to the first subset of the multi- data-store database is suspended, wherein the metadata is accessible to a client-side component of the multi-data-store database, wherein the client- side component is authorized to submit transaction requests directed to the multi-data-store database (Rice, [0043, 0071], note the admin node may monitor, start, and stop databases and perform other host-local tasks; note when a SM node is unavailable the system stores an indication that alerts users. An SM node may be made unavailable at any time and therefore, may happen before the instantiating of another database node, e.g., second journal); and
updating, after the second journal has been instantiated, the metadata to indicate that processing of transaction requests directed to the first subset of the multi-data-store database has been resumed (Rice, [0043, 0071], note the admin node may monitor, start, and stop databases and perform other host-local tasks; note when at least one SM node servicing a storage group that was unavailable is brought back online, storing an indication that operations are resuming that is used to alert users. An SM node may be brought back online at any time and since the claims do not specify that the resuming of operations is based on the second journal being instantiated, it may happen after the instantiating of another database node, e.g., second journal).
Regarding Claim 27:
Rice as modified shows the method as disclosed above;
Rice as modified further teaches:
utilizing, by the second journal manager, prior to storing the particular committed transaction entry in the second journal, an optimistic concurrency control algorithm to determine whether a transaction indicated in the particular transaction request is to be committed (Rice, [0055-0056], note the database nodes use an optimistic concurrency control algorithm for committing transactions).
Claim 28 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 21 respectively, except claim 28 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 21 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 21.
Claim 29 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 22 respectively, except claim 29 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 22 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 22.
Claim 30 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 23 respectively, except claim 30 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 23 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 23.
Claim 31 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 24 respectively, except claim 31 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 24 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 24.
Claim 32 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 25 respectively, except claim 32 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 25 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 25.
Claim 33 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 26 respectively, except claim 33 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 26 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 26.
Claim 34 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 27 respectively, except claim 34 is directed to a system comprising computing devices (Rice, figure 10) while claim 27 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 27.
Claim 35 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 21 respectively, except claim 35 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 21 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 35 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 21.
Claim 36 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 22 respectively, except claim 36 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 22 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 36 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 22.
Claim 37 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 23 respectively, except claim 37 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 23 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 37 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 23.
Claim 38 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 24 respectively, except claim 38 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 24 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 38 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 24.
Claim 39 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 25 respectively, except claim 39 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 25 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 39 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 25.
Claim 40 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 26 respectively, except claim 40 is directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible storage media comprising one or more processors (Rice, figure 10) while claim 26 is directed to a method. Therefore claim 40 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barber et al. (US2017/0046377) teaches writing transaction logging for a multi-data-store database; Chablani et al. (US2016/0173599) and Lindblad et al. (US2014/0289185) teach using multiple transaction logs for a multi-data-store database;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2152 1/29/2026
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152