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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 03 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicants may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
Applicant argues:
Acknowledging that Bachu and Barker fail to teach objects including bucket identifiers respectively indicating buckets housing the objects and storing the data as the objects including the bucket identifiers, the Office Action argues that Milrud describes this feature. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Milrud is silent with respect to storage areas having associated storage area identifiers, and each object having an object identifier indicating the storage area housing that object. Instead, Milrud defines buckets as including "a subset of consecutively indexed fields that are processed as a group" (Milrud, [0030]). Milrud does not describe buckets housing objects, objects storing objects, or objects that include metadata indicating which bucket houses that object.
In response, the Examiner submits:
Amended Claim 12 does not appear to recite “bucket identifiers”. Claim 12 also does not appear to recite “storage areas having associated storage area identifiers, and each object having an object identifier indicating the storage area housing that object”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contrary to Applicant’s allegation above, the Milrud does disclose objects including object metadata indicating which buckets house each of the objects and (i) storing the data as the objects including the object metadata (Milrud: at least ¶0031; “five database objects are included, objects 310-314. Each of objects 310-314 includes a fixed number of available indexed fields, numbered 0-99. The indexed fields are subdivided into groups or buckets for processing. As used herein, a “bucket” refers to a subset of fields belonging to a common object” and “each of objects 310-314 additionally includes boundary index value (Boundary) 320”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “… each of the objects having an object identifier indicating which of the one or more storage areas houses that object”.
Claim 12 recites “… objects including object metadata indicating which buckets house each of the objects”.
Claim 20 recites “… each of the objects having an object identifier indicating buckets housing the objects”.
Applicant’s original specification discloses:
[0003] “Object storage provides for retention of unstructured data such that each object includes data, metadata, and at least one identifier and is independent of the other objects”,
[0028] “As explained further below with respect to FIG. 2, the object databases may be provided as one or more storage areas (also referred to as “buckets”) each holding unstructured data as objects and stored on the one or more remote servers in the first geographic region. For example, each area may have an associated identifier and associated with a subscriber to the cloud service. Similarly, each object may have an associated identifier within its corresponding area. Accordingly, the object databases may comprise unstructured databases having an object-storage architecture”.
Applicant’s original specification teaches “each object includes at least one identifier that is independent of the other objects” and “each area may have an associated identifier” and “each object may have an associated identifier within its corresponding area”.
Applicant’s original specification does not appear support the specific limitation of “each of the objects having an object identifier indicating which of the one or more storage areas houses that object” that is recited in claim 1. “Each object may have an associated identifier within its corresponding area” does not mean the identifier within corresponding area indicates “which of the one or more storage areas houses that object”.
Applicant’s original specification also does not appear support the specific limitation of “objects including object metadata indicating which buckets house each of the objects” that is recited in claim 12. “Each object may have an associated identifier (or metadata) within its corresponding area” does not mean the identifier or metadata within corresponding area or bucket indicates “which buckets house each of the objects”.
Applicant’s original specification also does not appear support the specific limitation of “each of the objects having an object identifier indicating buckets housing the objects” that is recited in claim 20. “Each object may have an associated identifier within its corresponding area” does not mean the object identifier within corresponding area or bucket indicates “buckets housing the objects”
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 depend from independent claims 1 and 12, respectively, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for the same reason(s).
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.
Claims 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,850,455 by Bachu et al. (“Bachu”) in view of US PGPUB 2013/0085998 by Barker et al. (“Barker”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2018/0218017 by Milrud et al. (“Milrud”).
As to Claim 12, Bachu teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, effectuate operations comprising:
generating, on one or more first remote servers located at a first geographic location, one or more first object databases storing data derived from a first relational database as objects (Bachu: at least Col. 1 Line 66 - Col. 2 Line 1; “a relational database backup application creates a backup copy of a relational database”; Col. 5 Lines 54-62 further disclose “backup application 226 that creates, stores, and possibly recovers a first backup copy 228 of a dataset accessed in the first database 214. Similarly, the second server 210 includes a second database application 230 that executes to access the second database 216, and also includes a second child backup application 232 that creates, stores, and possibly recovers a second backup copy 234 of a dataset accessed in the second database 216”; Col. 7 Lines 20-22 further disclose “the relational database backup application 232 creates the second backup copy 234 of the relational database 216”; Col. 3 Lines 57-61 also disclose that “one or more remote nodes (not shown) via communication interface 112. The remote node may be another computer, a server, a router, a peer device or other common network node”);
generating, on one or more second remote servers located at a second geographic location remote from the first geographic location (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 10-11 and 27-31; “stores the clone copies 238 to an external destination node” and “external destination node, such as the third server 212, may include multiple destination nodes, and the multiple destination nodes may include a disk destination node, a tape destination node, and/or a destination node that is a combination of disks and”; Col. 3 Lines 57-61 also disclose that “one or more remote nodes (not shown) via communication interface 112. The remote node may be another computer, a server, a router, a peer device or other common network node”), one or more second object databases (i) storing the data and (ii) being duplicates of the one or more first object databases (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 8-11; “backup application 236 creates clone copies 238 of the first backup copy 228 and the second backup copy 234, and stores the clone copies 238 to an external destination node”); and
in connection with the first relational database no longer being accessible, causing a second relational database to be generated on the one or more second remote servers based on the data stored by the one or more second object databases and a mapping of the objects to the data (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 24-27 & 57-59; “protect the clone copy 238 of the backup copies 228 and 234 even if the databases 214 and 216, and the backup copies 228 and 234 stored on disks associated with the servers 208 and 210 are corrupted” and “recover the clone copy 238 from the disk associated with the third server 212, and may restore the clone copy 238 to its corrupted database”).
Bachu does not explicitly disclose, but Barker discloses said second relational database to be generated on the one or more second remote servers based on the data stored by the one or more second object databases (Barker: at least ¶0033; “creating a snapshot of each database. Each snapshot is transferred to its respective target server, and block 306 creates a new database from each snapshot at its respective target server”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Barker’s feature of said second relational database to be generated on the one or more second remote servers based on the data stored by the one or more second object databases (Barker: at least ¶0033) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform database migration that “includes a minimum of downtime” (Barker: at least ¶¶0004, 0020).
Bachu and Barker do not explicitly disclose, but Milrud discloses objects including object metadata indicating which buckets house each of the objects and (i) storing the data as the objects including the object metadata (Milrud: at least ¶0031; “five database objects are included, objects 310-314. Each of objects 310-314 includes a fixed number of available indexed fields, numbered 0-99. The indexed fields are subdivided into groups or buckets for processing. As used herein, a “bucket” refers to a subset of fields belonging to a common object” and “each of objects 310-314 additionally includes boundary index value (Boundary) 320”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Milrud’s features of objects including object metadata indicating which buckets house each of the objects and (i) storing the data as the objects including the object metadata (Milrud: at least ¶0031) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu and Barker.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement multitenant database to “keep each tenant's data separate unless the data is shared” (Milrud: at least ¶0018).
Claim 20 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 12, and is similarly rejected. Milrud further also discloses the one or more storage areas each having an associated storage area identifier (Milrud: at least ¶0036; “bucket index value in a particular bucket” and “index number in bucket 1 (here, the bucket index is 5)”) and storing the data as objects including, for each of the objects, the associated storage area identifier (Milrud: at least ¶0036; “bucket index value in a particular bucket” and “index number in bucket 1 (here, the bucket index is 5)”; note: bucket index associated with objects in bucket).
As to Claim 13, Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein: the first relational database has a first structured format (Bachu: at least Col. 1 Line 67 - Col. 2 Line 1; “… backup copy of a relational database”; note: relations or tables have structured format); and
the one or more second object databases are generated and stored on the one or more second remote servers prior to the first relational database no longer being accessible (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 10-11 and 27-31; “stores the clone copies 238 to an external destination node” and “external destination node, such as the third server 212, may include multiple destination nodes, and the multiple destination nodes may include a disk destination node, a tape destination node, and/or a destination node that is a combination of disks and”; Col. 8 Lines 24-27 & 57-59 further disclose “protect the clone copy 238 of the backup copies 228 and 234 even if the databases 214 and 216, and the backup copies 228 and 234 stored on disks associated with the servers 208 and 210 are corrupted”; note: clones created before database being inaccessible/corrupt).
Bachu and Barker do not explicitly disclose, but Milrud discloses the one or more first object databases comprise buckets storing unstructured data as the objects (Milrud: at least ¶0018; “each MTS 16 is configured to provide web pages, forms, applications, data, and/or media content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Milrud’s feature of the one or more first object databases comprise buckets storing unstructured data as the objects (Milrud: at least ¶0018) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu and Barker.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement multitenant database to “keep each tenant's data separate unless the data is shared” (Milrud: at least ¶0018).
As to Claim 14, Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein causing the second relational database to be generated comprises the one or more processors being programmed to: transmit a command to the one or more second remote servers to construct the second relational database, wherein the command instructs the data stored by the one or more second object databases to be transferred into the second relational database (Barker: at least ¶0033; “creating a snapshot of each database. Each snapshot is transferred to its respective target server, and block 306 creates a new database from each snapshot at its respective target server”; note: transmit can mean transmit via connection in circuitry (CPU, memories)).
As to Claim 17, Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein: the first relational database has a first structured format (Bachu: at least Col. 1 Line 67 - Col. 2 Line 1; “… backup copy of a relational database”; note: relations or tables have structured format); the second relational database has a second structured format (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 24-27 & 57-59; “protect the clone copy 238 of the backup copies 228 and 234 even if the databases 214 and 216, and the backup copies 228 and 234 stored on disks associated with the servers 208 and 210 are corrupted” and “recover the clone copy 238 from the disk associated with the third server 212, and may restore the clone copy 238 to its corrupted database”); the second structured format is identical or similar to the first structured format (Bachu: at least Col. 8 Lines 57-59; “… recover the clone copy 238 from the disk associated with the third server 212, and may restore the clone copy 238 to its corrupted database”; note: restored database is identical or similar as the original).
Bachu and Barker do not explicitly disclose, but Milrud discloses wherein the one or more first object databases comprise unstructured databases having an object-storage architecture; and the objects are independent of one another (Milrud: at least ¶¶0020, 0022; “Tenant database 108 may be shared across application servers and may be divided into individual tenant storage areas 112, which can be either a physical arrangement or a logical arrangement. Within each tenant storage area 112, user storage 114 might be allocated for each user” and “tenant database(s) 108”; ¶0032 further discloses “although five objects are shown in tenant database 308, any suitable number may be included”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Milrud’s feature of wherein the one or more first object databases comprise unstructured databases having an object-storage architecture; and the objects are independent of one another (Milrud: at least ¶¶0020, 0022, 0032) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu and Barker.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement multitenant database to “keep each tenant's data separate unless the data is shared” (Milrud: at least ¶0018).
As to Claim 18 Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a script to cause the mapping to be identified and the data to be transferred from being stored in the one or more second object databases to being stored in the second relational database (Barker: at least ¶¶0022, 0033; “referring now to FIG. 3, a method for live migration is provided that allows maintenance of SLA guarantees. Block 302 designates the database or databases to be migrated and selects a target server for the migration(s)” and “each snapshot is transferred to its respective target server, and block 306 creates a new database from each snapshot at its respective target server”; note: a method is a series of instruction/steps that reads on a script; a mapping to target server).
As to Claim 19 Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein the one or more first object databases are duplicates of an entirety of the first relational database (Bachu: at least Col. 5 Lines 62-64; “each of the backup copies 228 and 234 may be an image copy of data files a proprietary format file that includes parts or all of multiple data files, a full backup copy”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,850,455 by Bachu et al. (“Bachu”) in view of US PGPUB 2013/0085998 by Barker et al. (“Barker”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2018/0218017 by Milrud et al. (“Milrud”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2013/0185329 by Bartolome Rodrigo (“Rodrigo”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2016/0021172 by Mahadevan et al. (“Mahadevan”).
As to Claim 15, Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14.
Bachu, Barker and Milrud do not explicitly disclose, but Rodrigo discloses, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to the data being transferred to the second relational database (Rodrigo: at least ¶0008; “data query must therefore be forwarded to a second database node within the distributed database system that holds either the master copy or a replicated copy of that data”), causing traffic directed to the first relational database to be routed to the second relational database (Rodrigo: at least ¶¶0008-0009; “the database node that first receives a query from a database client (i.e. as the client's point of access to the database) is referred to as the local database node, whilst the other database nodes within the distributed database are referred to as remote database nodes. Depending on where (i.e. at which remote database node) the data is stored or is intended to be stored” and “client sends the query to its local database node” and “… determine whether or not it stores or is intended to store that data that is the subject of the query. In this example, DB Node 1 determines that this data is stored or is intended to be stored at a remote database node, DB Node 2, and forwards the request on to the DB Node 2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Rodrigo’s feature of wherein the one or more processors are further programed to: responsive to the data being transferred to the second relational database (Rodrigo: at least ¶0008), causing traffic directed to the first relational database to be routed to the second relational database (Rodrigo: at least ¶¶0008-0009) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu, Barker and Milrud.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to properly route database queries in a distributed database so that they may return results sought by users (Rodrigo: at least ¶0008).
Bachu, Barker, Milrud and Rodrigo do not explicitly disclose, but Mahadevan discloses wherein said traffic routed by modifying a weighted routing policy such that a weight of zero is assigned for the first relational database (Mahadevan: at least ¶0064; "if routing policy is unimportant, node 202 may set w.sub.3= 0 where w.sub.3 is the weight value for a routing policy attribute"; note: see as unimportant so route to another node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mahadevan’s feature of traffic routed by modifying a weighted routing policy such that a weight of zero is assigned for the first relational database (Mahadevan: at least ¶0064) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu, Barker, Milrud and Rodrigo.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement “routing policy that can specify routing constraints or routing considerations, such as restrictions on routing between nodes during certain time periods or restrictions on the traffic load or types of traffic to some portions of the network” (Mahadevan: at least ¶0052).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,850,455 by Bachu et al. (“Bachu”) in view of US PGPUB 2013/0085998 by Barker et al. (“Barker”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2018/0218017 by Milrud et al. (“Milrud”), and further in view of US Patent 6,199,069 by Dettinger et al. (“Dettinger”).
As to Claim 16, Bachu, Barker and Milrud teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12.
Bachu, Barker and Milrud do not explicitly disclose, but Dettinger discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an error message indicating that the first relational database is no longer functional, wherein the first relational database is determined to no longer be accessible based on the error message (Dettinger: at least Col. 8 Lines 10-11; "… notified in the event of a primary database failure"; Col. 7 Lines 2, 6-8 & 11-15 further disclose "detect when the primary database 216 is failing or has previously failed", "mirroring the primary database server 216 on the backup database server” and “sends a failure signal to each of the database switchers when an imminent failure is detected. That signal, when received by the database switchers, prompts the database switchers to instruct the application servers to switch to the backup database 216”; note: determine a failure and switch to another database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dettinger’s feature of wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an error message indicating that the first relational database is no longer functional, wherein the first relational database is determined to no longer be accessible based on the error message (Dettinger: at least Col. 7 Lines 2, 6-8 & 11-15, Col. 8 Lines 10-11) with the computer readable media disclosed by Bachu, Barker and Milrud.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to handle database failure “in the event of a database failure” (Dettinger: at least Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
07 June 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights