Final Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta et al., US 11,210,184 B1.
Referring to claim 1:
In col. 23, lines 19-25, Gupta et al. disclose a method by a distributed database system, the method comprising: performing at least one backtracking of a database, wherein each backtracking reverts the database to a respective target timepoint; determining a desired state of the database to reconstruct after the at least one backtracking.
In col. 23, lines 41-45 and lines 49-56 and col. 24, lines 15-24, Gupta et al. disclose determining, based on a set of timelines generated from the at least one backtracking (multiple snapshots representing different states included in the restore window-- see col. 3, lines 30-35 and col. 24, lines 15-24), one or more of a set of relevant log sequence number (LSN) ranges and a set of relevant storage offset ranges to reconstruct the database to the desired state (State information may include data dictionaries, undo logs, transaction logs/tables, indexing structures, mapping information, data page caches or buffers, or any other information used to perform access requests with respect to the database).
In col. 23, lines 36-67, Gupta et al. disclose reconstructing the database to the desired sate based on the one or more of the set of relevant LSN ranges and the set of relevant storage offset ranges.
Referring to claims 2 and 15:
In col. 3, lines 30-38 and in col. 8, lines 60-61, Gupta et al. disclose periodically generating clock sampling records, each clock sampling record indicating a timepoint to which the database can be reconstructed, said each clock sampling record including an LSN corresponding to the timepoint. In col. 16, lines 65-67 continued in col. 17, lines 1-4 and in col. 21, lines 28-37, Gupta et al. disclose a storage offset of one or more events, wherein each event is: a log record, an anchor snapshot (full backup), or a recovery checkpoint (store user pages that are different between snapshots).
In col. 23, lines 19-25, Gupta et al. disclose generating backtracking information records based on the at least one backtracking.
Referring to claim 14:
In col. 26, lines 55-57 and col. 27, lines 3-13, Gupta et al. disclose an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure a distributed data system.
In col. 23, lines 19-25, Gupta et al. disclose a method by a distributed database system, the method comprising: performing at least one backtracking of a database, wherein each backtracking reverts the database to a respective target timepoint; determining a desired state of the database to reconstruct after the at least one backtracking.
In col. 23, lines 41-45 and lines 49-56, Gupta et al. disclose determining, based on a set of timelines generated from the at least one backtracking (multiple snapshots representing different states included in the restore window-- see col. 3, lines 30-35 and col. 24, lines 15-24), one or more of a set of relevant log sequence number (LSN) ranges and a set of relevant storage offset ranges to reconstruct the database to the desired state (State information may include data dictionaries, undo logs, transaction logs/tables, indexing structures, mapping information, data page caches or buffers, or any other information used to perform access requests with respect to the database).
In col. 23, lines 36-67, Gupta et al. disclose reconstructing the database to the desired sate based on the one or more of the set of relevant LSN ranges and the set of relevant storage offset ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-8, 16, and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In addition to the cited references above, US 2008/0120349 A1 discloses storing log information. US 2017/0060699 A1 discloses having numerous recovery paths and each recovery path includes log backups. US 2016/0342484 A1 discloses that the restore process may generate multiple timelines.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, the set of backtracking information records including: an initial backtracking information record wherein the respective start LSN is based on when a backtracking feature of the distributed database system is activated, the respective end LSN is based on when a first backtracking of the at least one backtracking is performed; and at least one backtracking information record corresponding to the at least one backtracking, each backtracking information record of the at least one backtracking information record further indicating a target LSN of the corresponding target timepoint to which the database backtracked, wherein for said each backtracking information record of the at least one backtracking information record, the respective start LSN is based on the end LSN of a previous backtracking information record as determined based on the time order, and wherein the respective end LSN of said each backtracking information record of the at least one backtracking information record is based on when a next backtracking is performed.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, the set of timelines including: at least one timeline corresponding to the at least one backtracking, each timeline of the at least one timeline corresponding to a respective backtracking of the at least one backtracking and associated with a respective target LSN corresponding to the target timepoint of the respective backtracking, wherein a latest timeline of the at least one timeline corresponds to a current timeline associated with a latest backtracking of the at least one backtracking, the current timeline indicating a respective last LSN range with an end LSN being based on when a next backtracking is performed after the at least one backtracking, said each timeline of the at least one timeline indicating a respective set of LSN ranges including: a respective last LSN range with a start LSN based on an end LSN of a previous timeline, the previous timeline determined according to the time order, the last LSN range ending based on an LSN of when a next backtracking is performed.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, in para. 0043, US 2017/0060699 A1 discloses that a new full backup is automatically created in response to the restoration of the database. However, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest resuming the generation of the clock sampling records after receiving an indication from each slice of the database that an anchor snapshot has been generated subsequent to the backtracking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “However, Gupta's system does not utilize ‘a set of timelines generated from... backtracking’ to manage database states”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, a set of timelines generated from at least one backtracking is disclosed by Gupta et al. (multiple snapshots representing different states included in the restore window-- see col. 3, lines 30-35 and col. 24, lines 15-24).
In response to applicant's argument (see pages 12-13 of the REMARKS) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “generating a new branching ‘timeline’ from a base timeline each time a backtracking event occurs“ and “a branching set of timelines generated from…backtracking” where new timelines are formed and inherit from base timelines) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
On page 13 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully notes that the Examiner, in the ‘Allowable Subject Matter’ section of the Office Action, has already acknowledged the patentability of this ‘set of timelines’ concept as recited in original dependent claim 7. By incorporating this allowable subject matter into independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant has rendered these claims allowable over Gupta.” The Examiner disagrees. The previous office action explicitly states: the claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (emphasis by Examiner). Further, the reasons for allowance in the previous office action states: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, the set of timelines including: at least one timeline corresponding to the at least one backtracking, each timeline of the at least one timeline corresponding to a respective backtracking of the at least one backtracking and associated with a respective target LSN corresponding to the target timepoint of the respective backtracking, wherein a latest timeline of the at least one timeline corresponds to a current timeline associated with a latest backtracking of the at least one backtracking, the current timeline indicating a respective last LSN range with an end LSN being based on when a next backtracking is performed after the at least one backtracking, said each timeline of the at least one timeline indicating a respective set of LSN ranges including: a respective last LSN range with a start LSN based on an end LSN of a previous timeline, the previous timeline determined according to the time order, the last LSN range ending based on an LSN of when a next backtracking is performed.
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 MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113