DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/01/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new reference of Shveidel).
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, it is unclear as to what is being referred to by the phrase “that document”.
Claim 5, recites the limitation "the second data of the second operation log" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear and indefinite due to the lack of clear antecedent basis for these elements.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porzio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0181241 A1) in view of TANIGUCHI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0006930 A1), further in view of Shveidel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026744 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Porzio teaches a method, comprising:
reading, by an agent of a data management system (DMS) at a host of a non-relational database, data of an operation log into a first queue within working memory of the host (paragraph [0017], the system may include a host system which may be couple with the memory system; also see paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; also see paragraph [0038]),
wherein the data of the operation log is indicative of one or more modified documents in a first collection of the non-relational database (paragraph [0035], the memory system may couple with, and may receive command (e.g., read commands, write commands) from, the host system; also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue),
and wherein the first queue is associated with a plurality of collections of the non-relational database, the plurality of collections comprising the first collection (paragraph [0020], the memory system controller may also coupled to perform operations such as reading data, writing data, erasing data, or refreshing data at a memory device; also see paragraph [0032], to update some data within a block while retaining data within the block, the memory may copy the data to be retained to a new block and write the updated data to one or more remaining pages of the new block; also see Fig. 3C).
Porzio does not explicitly disclose: moving, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the first queue to a second queue within the working memory of the host based at least in part on the operation log being indicative of the one or more modified documents in the first collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the first collection.
TANIGUCHI teaches: moving, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the first queue to a second queue within the working memory of the host based at least in part on the operation log being indicative of the one or more modified documents in the first collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the first collection (paragraph [0063], determines whether or not an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue; if an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue, set the update log transmission request as a transmission target; move the update log transmission request to the fourth queue; in combination with the teaching of Porzio, paragraph [0035], the memory system may couple with, and may receive command (e.g., read commands, write commands) from, the host system; also see paragraph [0042], the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2;also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; noted, staging queue is interpreted as “a second queue”; also see paragraph [0038], the memory system controller may allocate a portion of local memory as a staging area to temporarily store new change log entries prior to adding the new entry to the change log, it teaches as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include moving, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the first queue to a second queue within the working memory of the host based at least in part on the operation log being indicative of the one or more modified documents in the first collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the first collection into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include moving, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the first queue to a second queue within the working memory of the host based at least in part on the operation log being indicative of the one or more modified documents in the first collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the first collection, which contributing to flexible recovery operation (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0087]).
Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI do not explicitly disclose:
inserting a marker document into a designated collection when a snapshot of the non-relational database is initiated; detecting, by the agent, a second operation log corresponding to the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection; writing, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the second queue to a first location within a local disk memory of the host based at least in part on the detecting the second operation log.
Shveidel teaches:
inserting a marker document into a designated collection when a snapshot of the non-relational database is initiated (paragraph [0003], generating a snapshot of a volume in a storage system; generating a snapshot marker and adding the snapshot marker to a transaction log of the storage system);
detecting, by the agent, a second operation log corresponding to the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection (paragraph [0003], scanning the transaction log to identify one or more records that have been added to the transaction log before the snapshot marker);
writing, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the second queue to a first location within a local disk memory of the host based at least in part on the detecting the second operation log (paragraph [0003], marking each of the identified records as splitflush record; flushing any record that is stored in transaction log by (a) detecting whether the record is marked as splitflush record (b) when the record is marked as splitflush record, copying the record both to a data store and to the snapshot; noted, “copying” is interpreted as “writing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include inserting a marker document into a designated collection when a snapshot of the non-relational database is initiated; detecting, by the agent, a second operation log corresponding to the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection; writing, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the second queue to a first location within a local disk memory of the host based at least in part on the detecting the second operation log into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include inserting a marker document into a designated collection when a snapshot of the non-relational database is initiated; detecting, by the agent, a second operation log corresponding to the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection; writing, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the second queue to a first location within a local disk memory of the host based at least in part on the detecting the second operation log to prevent the storage system from wasting resources on recording into the snapshot data that is already obsolete (Shveidel, paragraph [0039], line 13-14).
Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel further teach: moving, by the agent, the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to a remote storage environment accessible to the DMS (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0084], transmits data stored in either the first transmission buffer or the second transmission buffer to the secondary system via the transfer path; also see paragraph [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach determining, by the agent, a generation of the operation log for addition to an operation log collection of the non-relational database, wherein reading the data of the operation log into the first queue is based at least in part on determining the generation of the operation log (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2; also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; also see paragraph [0038], the memory system controller may allocate a portion of local memory as a staging area to temporarily store new change log entries prior to adding the new entry to the change log).
Regarding claim 3, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 2, further teach wherein reading the data of the operation log into the first queue occurs prior to the addition of the operation log to the operation log collection (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2; also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; also see paragraph [0038], the memory system controller may allocate a portion of local memory as a staging area to temporarily store new change log entries prior to adding the new entry to the change log).
Regarding claim 4, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach determining, based at least in part on reading the data of the operation log into the first queue, that the operation log is associated with the first collection (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue).
Regarding claim 5, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach reading, by the agent, second data of a third operation log into the first queue, wherein the second data of the second operation log is indicative of one or more second modified documents in the first collection (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
moving, by the agent, the second data of the third operation log from the first queue to the second queue based at least in part on the third operation log being indicative of the one or more second modified documents in the first collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the first collection (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0063], determines whether or not an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue; if an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue, set the update log transmission request as a transmission target; move the update log transmission request to the fourth queue; in combination with the teaching of Porzio, paragraph [0035], the memory system may couple with, and may receive command (e.g., read commands, write commands) from, the host system; also see paragraph [0042], the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2;also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
writing, by the agent, the data of the third operation log from the second queue to the first location within the local disk memory (Shveidel, paragraph [0003], marking each of the identified records as splitflush record; flushing any record that is stored in transaction log by (a) detecting whether the record is marked as splitflush record (b) when the record is marked as splitflush record, copying the record both to a data store and to the snapshot; noted, “copying” is interpreted as “writing”);
and moving, by the agent, the second data of the third operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0084], transmits data stored in either the first transmission buffer or the second transmission buffer to the secondary system via the transfer path; also see paragraph [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Swart teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach reading, by the agent, second data of a third operation log into the first queue, wherein the second data of the third operation log is indicative of one or more second modified documents in a second collection of the non-relational database, the plurality of collections comprising the second collection (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
moving, by the agent, the second data of the third operation log from the first queue to a third queue within the working memory of the host based at least in part on the third operation log being indicative of the one or more second modified documents in the second collection and based at least in part on the third queue being associated with the second collection (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0063], determines whether or not an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue; if an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue, set the update log transmission request as a transmission target; move the update log transmission request to the fourth queue; in combination with the teaching of Porzio, paragraph [0035], the memory system may couple with, and may receive command (e.g., read commands, write commands) from, the host system; also see paragraph [0042], the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2;also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
writing, by the agent, the second data of the third operation log from the third queue to a second location within the local disk memory (Shveidel, paragraph [0003], marking each of the identified records as splitflush record; flushing any record that is stored in transaction log by (a) detecting whether the record is marked as splitflush record (b) when the record is marked as splitflush record, copying the record both to a data store and to the snapshot; noted, “copying” is interpreted as “writing”);
and moving, by the agent, the second data of the third operation log from the second location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0084], transmits data stored in either the first transmission buffer or the second transmission buffer to the secondary system via the transfer path; also see paragraph [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach reading, by the agent, second data of a third operation log into the first queue, wherein the second data of the third operation log is indicative of one or more second modified documents in a second collection of the non-relational database, the plurality of collections comprising the second collection (Porzio, paragraph [0042], the stage compression mode may include a backend entry queue, a stage entry queue, and a change log during a pre-insertion period and during a post-insertion period, with an insertion indicating changes made to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
moving, by the agent and subsequent to writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location, the second data of the third operation log from the first queue to the second queue based at least in part on the third operation log being indicative of the one or more second modified documents in the second collection and based at least in part on the second queue being associated with the second collection, wherein the second queue becomes associated with the second collection after the data of the operation log is written from the second queue to the first location within the local disk memory of the host (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0063], determines whether or not an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue; if an update log transmission request is stored in the first queue, set the update log transmission request as a transmission target; move the update log transmission request to the fourth queue; in combination with the teaching of Porzio, paragraph [0035], the memory system may couple with, and may receive command (e.g., read commands, write commands) from, the host system; also see paragraph [0042], the backend entry queue may store an example of a backend entry that may include a TUA and PBA for inclusion in the change log; as the memory system performs an access operation (e.g., a write operation, an erase operation, an unmap operation), information may be generated to be added to the change log; the backend entry stored by the backend entry queue which stores the address “30, and the PBA, which stores the die of “0”, the plane of “0”, the page of “1”, and the offset of “2;also see paragraph [0045], the memory system may push the received command to the backend entry queue; the backend entry queue may push the backend entry to the staged entry queue for staging; also see Fig. 8 of reference TANIGUCHI);
writing, by the agent, the second data of the second operation log from the second queue to a second location within the local disk memory (Shveidel, paragraph [0003], marking each of the identified records as splitflush record; flushing any record that is stored in transaction log by (a) detecting whether the record is marked as splitflush record (b) when the record is marked as splitflush record, copying the record both to a data store and to the snapshot; noted, “copying” is interpreted as “writing”);
and moving, by the agent, the second data of the second operation log from the second location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment (TANIGUCHI, paragraph [0084], transmits data stored in either the first transmission buffer or the second transmission buffer to the secondary system via the transfer path; also see paragraph [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach receiving, at the second queue, second data of a third operation log associated with a second collection, wherein the plurality of collections comprises the second collection, and wherein writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location is based at least in part on reception at the second queue of the second data of the third operation log (Shveidel, paragraph [0003], marking each of the identified records as splitflush record; flushing any record that is stored in transaction log by (a) detecting whether the record is marked as splitflush record (b) when the record is marked as splitflush record, copying the record both to a data store and to the snapshot; noted, “copying” is interpreted as “writing”).
As per claims 16 and 20, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 17-19, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 2-4 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porzio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0181241 A1) in view of TANIGUCHI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0006930 and Shveidel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026744 A1), further in view of Koren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,665,442 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, but do not explicitly disclose: writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location and writing the second data of the third operation log from the third queue to the second location in parallel.
Koren teaches: writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location and writing the second data of the third operation log from the third queue to the second location in parallel (col. 14, line 42-50, the storage system may include a plurality of flush buffers and may utilize a plurality of channels for facilitating parallel flushing of a plurality of flush sequences; at each point during the flushing processing, the write-request dispatcher may select number of identified flush sequences to be destaged to the secondary storage; in combination of data associated with logs moving to the static memory as taught by TANIGUCHI, it teaches as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location and writing the second data of the third operation log from the third queue to the second location in parallel into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location and writing the second data of the third operation log from the third queue to the second location in parallel to support parallel multi-flushing processes (Koren, col. 14, line 46-48).
Regarding claim 12, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment and moving second data of a second operation log associated with a second collection from a third location in the local disk memory to the remote storage environment in parallel, wherein the plurality of collections comprises the second collection.
Koren teaches: moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment and moving second data of a second operation log associated with a second collection from a second location in the local disk memory to the remote storage environment in parallel, wherein the plurality of collections comprises the second collection (col. 14, line 42-50, the storage system may include a plurality of flush buffers and may utilize a plurality of channels for facilitating parallel flushing of a plurality of flush sequences; at each point during the flushing processing, the write-request dispatcher may select number of identified flush sequences to be destaged to the secondary storage; in combination of data associated with logs moving to the static memory as taught by TANIGUCHI, it teaches as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment and moving second data of a second operation log associated with a second collection from a second location in the local disk memory to the remote storage environment in parallel, wherein the plurality of collections comprises the second collection into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment and moving second data of a second operation log associated with a second collection from a second location in the local disk memory to the remote storage environment in parallel, wherein the plurality of collections comprises the second collection to support parallel multi-flushing processes (Koren, col. 14, line 46-48).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porzio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0181241 A1) in view of TANIGUCHI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0006930 and Shveidel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026744 A1), further in view of Lytle (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0328488 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: reading, by the agent, the second operation log indicative of insertion of the marker document into the designated collection, wherein writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location is based at least in part on operation log the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection indicating that the host of the non-relational database is synchronized with a second host of the non- relational database.
Lytle teaches: reading, by the agent, the second operation log indicative of insertion of the marker document into the designated collection, wherein writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location is based at least in part on operation log the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection indicating that the host of the non-relational database is synchronized with a second host of the non- relational database (paragraph [0029]-[0030], the DBMS designates an area of persistent storage as journal and maintains a current location; the transaction stores a list of writes, each comprising a location and a value; prior to applying any writes with the transaction, sequentially writes the list of writes at the current location; terminates the sequential write with a marker indicating the sequential write has been completed; the DBMS first ensures that all writes have been written to their respective locations and then writes the marker to journal indicating that the journal is empty; also see paragraph [0032]-[0032], the DBMS checks the journal and if it isn’t marked as empty, the DBMS iterates through the journal, reading each list of writes and inserting and entry in the cache for each write in each list; also see paragraph [0073]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include reading, by the agent, the second operation log indicative of insertion of the marker document into the designated collection, wherein writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location is based at least in part on operation log the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection indicating that the host of the non-relational database is synchronized with a second host of the non- relational database into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include reading, by the agent, the second operation log indicative of insertion of the marker document into the designated collection, wherein writing the data of the operation log from the second queue to the first location is based at least in part on operation log the insertion of the marker document into the designated collection indicating that the host of the non-relational database is synchronized with a second host of the non- relational database to address a need in the art for systems and methods for providing direct access to data in database management system and exposes more of the underlying management structures to the application programmer (Lytle, paragraph [0015], line 1-5).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porzio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0181241 A1) in view of TANIGUCHI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0006930 and Shveidel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026744 A1), further in view of BK et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0031830 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: obtaining, by the DMS during a first time period, a snapshot of a first directory of the remote storage environment, wherein moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment comprises moving the data to a second directory of the remote storage environment responsive to obtain the snapshot of the first dictionary.
BK teaches: obtaining, by the DMS during a first time period, a snapshot of a first directory of the remote storage environment, wherein moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment comprises moving the data to a second directory of the remote storage environment responsive to obtain the snapshot of the first dictionary ( paragraph [0025], the cache is annotated with a “Tn” and “Tm”; these are indications of time that may or may not be explicitly indicated in the cache; the time Tn is a time boundary corresponding to the write to file 107 of the data 115; the time Tm is a later time boundary corresponding to the write to file 107 of the data 125; a ache flush is triggered by a time based trigger; the time Tn can correspond to an end time for a snapshot x and the time tm can correspond to an end time for a snapshot instance x+1; detection of the time boundary Tm triggers a cache flush to distributed storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include obtaining, by the DMS during a first time period, a snapshot of a first directory of the remote storage environment, wherein moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment comprises moving the data to a second directory of the remote storage environment responsive to obtain the snapshot of the first dictionary into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include obtaining, by the DMS during a first time period, a snapshot of a first directory of the remote storage environment, wherein moving the data of the operation log from the first location within the local disk memory to the remote storage environment comprises moving the data to a second directory of the remote storage environment responsive to obtain the snapshot of the first dictionary to improve performance of the application instance(s) and reduces load on front end storage elements of a distributed storage system (BK, paragraph [0017], line 8-11).
Regarding claim 14, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 13, further teach: moving, during a second time period subsequent to the first time period, second data of a third operation log associated with a second collection from a second location in the local disk memory to the first directory of the remote storage environment responsive to obtain a second snapshot of the second directory during the second time period (BK, paragraph [0025], the cache is annotated with a “Tn” and “Tm”; these are indications of time that may or may not be explicitly indicated in the cache; the time Tn is a time boundary corresponding to the write to file 107 of the data 115; the time Tm is a later time boundary corresponding to the write to file 107 of the data 125; a ache flush is triggered by a time based trigger; the time Tn can correspond to an end time for a snapshot x and the time tm can correspond to an end time for a snapshot instance x+1; detection of the time boundary Tm triggers a cache flush to distributed storage).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porzio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0181241 A1) in view of TANIGUCHI et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0006930 and Shveidel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026744 A1), further in view of Kathuria et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0224636 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Porzio as modified by TANIGUCHI and Shveidel teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1 but do not explicitly disclose: updating, by the DMS, a snapshot of the non-relational database based at least in part on data of the operation log, wherein the DMS initiated a capture of the snapshot prior to a time at which the one or more modified documents were modified.
Kathuria teaches: updating, by the DMS, a snapshot of the non-relational database based at least in part on data of the operation log, wherein the DMS initiated a capture of the snapshot prior to a time at which the one or more modified documents were modified (paragraph [0035], incoming modification information can be related to changes to one or more data pages in a page database, and can be recognized by the backup component to trigger initial snapshot of the data pages to be modified prior to modification, which can be stored in snapshot database; the modification can then made to the data page(s) in the page database while the initial pre-modification image is stored in snapshot database; the backup component can generate subsequent snapshot copies of the data page according to predetermined schedule; page changes that occur between snapshots can be stored in a log database that comprises update events related to each data page modification; also see paragraph [0027], line 20-21, employing logged update events from the log database to make the snapshot current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include updating, by the DMS, a snapshot of the non-relational database based at least in part on data of the operation log, wherein the DMS initiated a capture of the snapshot prior to a time at which the one or more modified documents were modified into change log compression process of Porzio.
Motivation to do so would be to include updating, by the DMS, a snapshot of the non-relational database based at least in part on data of the operation log, wherein the DMS initiated a capture of the snapshot prior to a time at which the one or more modified documents were modified to provide an effective data backup solution (Kathuria, paragraph [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168