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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 13, 16-18, and 22 are amended. Claims 5, 15, 20, and 24 are cancelled. New claims 25-28 are added. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-28 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walshe et al. in US Patent № 12,524,279, hereinafter called Walshe.
In regard to claim 13, Walshe teaches a method comprising concurrently performing without interpreting a database content (i.e. by directly transferring a drive, “After the new virtual computing resource is created, provisioning module 106c creates (step 508) a new database instance in the new virtual computing resource. Finally, the provisioning module 106c re-attaches (step 510) the physical disk drive 112a-112n (that was previously detached in step 512) to the new database instance” column 10 line 24):
first recovering, by a first storage computer, a first replica of a database by receiving the database content only from a third storage computer, and second recovering, by a second storage computer, a second replica of the database by receiving the database content only from a fourth storage computer (“The data migration hub 402a establishes a 10 connection to replica database instance 110n' and coordinates transfer of data from database instance 110a' to instance 110n'. The replica database instance 110n' is configured as a read-only replica, such that the instance can receive read-only traffic (e.g., requests for data) from other computing systems and/or end user devices. Similarly, replica database instances 110b' and ll0z' in Region Two are configured as read-only replicas, each capable of receiving read-only traffic. The data migration hub 402a in Region One establishes a connection to data migration hub 402b in Region Two, and coordinates transfer of data from database instance 110a' (and/or data migration hub 402a) to replica database instances 110b' and ll0z'.” column 9 line 10, note that “In some embodiments, the active database instance does not directly transfer data to the data migration hub but instead provides instructions to the data migration hub 402a for transfer of data to one or more of the replica database instances 110n', ll0b' or ll0z'.” column 9 line 5);
wherein the third storage computer and the fourth storage computer are not allocated storage that stores the database (i.e. is not being used to respond to database requests, “FIG. 3 is a detailed flow diagram of an active-standby high availability database configuration 300, using the system 100 of FIG. 1. […] In this example, database instance 110a' is the active database instance that handles incoming read/write requests while database instance 110n' is a standby database instance that maintains synchronized data with instance 110a' and can be made available in the 45 event that instance 110a' fails”, column 8, line 32). [Examiner’s note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would seem to be self-contradicting, as the broadest interpretation of “allocated storage that stores the database” would appear to include storing any portion of the database; however, the limitations “recovering, by a first storage computer, a first replica of a database by receiving the database content only from a third storage computer, and second recovering, by a second storage computer, a second replica of the database by receiving the database content only from a fourth storage computer” would appear to inherently require that the received database content is stored by the storage computer.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is being interpreted as though it does not preclude the rest of the claim. The interpretation of this limitation as ‘not being used to respond to database requests’ appears to be analogous in that the storage would then store information contained in the database, but not serve as the database itself.
Examiner additionally notes that, in regard to the analogous limitation recited for claim 1, applicant’s remarks, filed 6/26/2025, page 4, section C, argues that this limitation is not self-contradicting (in regards to claim 1) because “A computer may have insufficient space to store a database, but can still store the claimed “portion of a database.” However, no such argument is made of record for claim 13, which differs in scope. Absent an express interpretation of this claim limitation on the record or an amendment supported by applicants’ disclosure which limits the claim interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is not restricted by this argument regarding a different claim.]
In regard to claim 22, it is substantially similar to claim 13 and accordingly is rejected under similar reasoning.
In regard to claim 14, Walshe further teaches generating the database content while the first replica of the database and the second replica of the database are unavailable (i.e. are failed, “The server computing device monitors each of the plurality of virtual computing resources using a monitoring service provided by a second computing resource of the server computing device, including determining that one of the virtual computing resources has failed and redirecting network traffic from the failed virtual computing resources to another one of the plurality of virtual computing resources” Column 2 line 52)
In regard to claim 23, it is substantially similar to claim 14 and accordingly is rejected under similar reasoning.
In regard to claim 16, Walshe teaches a method comprising
detecting, by a first computer, that a replica of a database that contains a plurality of database blocks is unavailable (i.e. because the drive is detached or the instance is deleted, column 10 line 10);
and performing by a second computer in response to said detecting: receiving, from a communication network (i.e. disk drive sharing network, “In the example of a cloud computing environment, these disk drives 112a-112n can be managed/shared disks used by a plurality of different resources or computing devices.” Column 6 line 26) a subset of the plurality of database blocks that were modified after the replica of the database became unavailable, and persisting the subset of the plurality of database blocks (“For example, the provisioning module 106c can deploy the virtual computing resource using an updated software image file that was created to utilize the new version of the database. […]. Finally, the provisioning module 106c re-attaches (step 510) the physical disk drive 112a-112n (that was previously detached in step 512) to the new database instance.” column 10 line 21; note that indirect transfer of changed data is taught in at least column 9 line 5, “In some embodiments, the active database instance does not directly transfer data to the data migration hub but instead provides instructions to the data migration hub 402a for transfer of data to one or more of the replica database instances 110n', ll0b' or ll0z'.”);
wherein the second computer is not allocated storage that stores the database (i.e. is used to respond to requests for the database content of the database system, “Next, the provisioning module deletes (step 504) the virtual computing resource (e.g., resource 108a) that contains the database instance (e.g., instance 110a) that will be updated.” Column 10 line 15, note that the database is taught to be deleted until the storage is re-attached and therefore is not allocated storage that stores the database data while it is unattached).
[Examiner’s note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would seem to be self-contradicting, as the broadest interpretation of “allocated storage that stores the database” would appear to include storing any portion of the database; however, the limitation “and persisting the subset of the plurality of database blocks;” would appear to require the storage of at least some portion of the database.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is being interpreted as though it does not preclude the rest of the claim.
Examiner additionally notes that, in regard to the analogous limitation recited for claim 1, applicant’s remarks, filed 6/26/2025, page 4, section C, argues that this limitation is not self-contradicting (in regards to claim 1) because “A computer may have insufficient space to store a database, but can still store the claimed “portion of a database.” However, no such argument is made of record for claim 16, which differs in scope. Absent an express interpretation of this claim limitation on the record or an amendment supported by applicants’ disclosure which limits the claim interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is not restricted by this argument regarding a different claim.]
In regard to claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 16 and accordingly is rejected under similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim1, 2-4, 6-12, 18, 21, 25-28 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 1, the claim recites:
A method comprising: receiving, from a database server, and persisting a portion of a database;
and performing without using the database server:
receiving a request to synchronize the database, and sending, in response to the request to synchronize the database, the portion of the database;
wherein the method is performed by a storage computer that is not allocated storage that stores the database.
The limitation “wherein the method is performed by a storage computer that is not allocated storage that stores the database.” appears to be self-contradictory with the limitation “receiving, from a database server, and persisting a portion of a database”. However, in applicant’s remarks, filed 6/26/2025, page 4, section C, applicant argues that this limitation is not self-contradicting because “A computer may have insufficient space to store a database, but can still store the claimed “portion of a database.”” Accordingly, the limitation “not allocated storage that stores the database” is interpreted as though it requires the absence of an allocation of storage that stores the entire database.
Brahmadesam teaches a method comprising:
persisting a portion of a database (“The mirror volume may be configured to replicate the primary volume. For example, the primary volume may store data pages or blocks of a database, and the pages or blocks may be periodically copied to the mirror volume.” Column 3 line 30, wherein “In some embodiments, the mirror volume 130 may be configured to replicate only a portion of the data held in the primary volume 120” column 5 line 24);
receiving a request to synchronize the database (i.e. by configuring the database, “In some embodiments, the automatically recovery process described above may be provided as a feature of the database system, which can be enabled, disabled, and/or configured via a configuration interface of the database system or recovery manager.” Column 8 line 15, wherein “In some embodiments, once a data error in the primary volume is detected, the database system will automatically perform a recovery process to catch up the mirror volume to a state of the database expected by clients, and to fail over to the mirror volume.” Column 4 line 4);
and sending, in response to the request to synchronize the database, the portion of the database (“At this point, the recovery manager 118 may cause the mirror volume to be promoted 170 to become the new primary volume. Thereafter, all database updates will be submitted directly to the new primary volume.” Column 8 line 8);
wherein the method is performed by a storage computer that is not allocated storage that stores the database (i.e. stored on a separate storage than the database, “In some embodiments, the two different types of data may be stored on separate storage media (e.g. separate physical storage). In some embodiments, separation may be implemented at a high level, for example, by separating the controllers or storage nodes that perform the updates to the data.” Column 14 line 16.) [Examiner’s note: this limitation is being treated as though “not allocated storage that stores the database” is read to mean not allocated storage that stores the entire database]
However, the art of record fails to expressly teach that the method is performed without using the database server. Brahmadesam teaches away from this limitation (“The mirror volume may be configured to replicate the primary volume. For example, the primary volume may store data pages or blocks of a database, and the pages or blocks may be periodically copied to the mirror volume.” Column 3 line 30, wherein “In some embodiments, the mirror volume 130 may be configured to replicate only a portion of the data held in the primary volume 120” column 5 line 24”)
Accordingly, claim 1 is allowable over the prior art. Claims 2-4, 6-12 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on allowable claim 1.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and accordingly is allowed under similar reasoning. Claims 21 and 25-28 are further allowable by virtue of their dependency on allowable claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 13, 14, 16-19, 22, 23 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Walshe.
In particular, examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the third storage computer and the fourth storage computer are not allocated storage that stores the database.” In claims 12 and 22, and “wherein the second computer is not allocated storage that stores the database.” in claims 16 and 17 appears roughly analogous to the limitation “storage computer that is not allocated storage that stores the database” in claims 1 and 18; however, in regard to the analogous limitation recited for claim 1, applicant’s remarks, filed 6/26/2025, page 4, section C, argues that this limitation is not self-contradicting (in regards to claim 1) because “A computer may have insufficient space to store a database, but can still store the claimed “portion of a database.” However, no such argument is made of record for claim 13 or 16, which differ in scope. Absent an express interpretation of this claim limitation on the record or an amendment supported by applicants’ disclosure which limits the claim interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is not restricted by this argument regarding a different claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Z Ganger whose telephone number is (571)272-0270. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AJAY M BHATIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156