DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected
The instant application has PRO 63/465,480 filed on 05/10/2023.
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 § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0129203 (hereinafter Pham) in view of Mayhew et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0068205 (hereinafter Mayhew).
Regarding claim 1, Pham teaches:
A computer implemented method, comprising: receiving, from a target system at a first network system (Pham Figure 1, shows the target system), a first update for a target table stored on the first network system (Pham Paragraph [0030], If the table already exists, perform data updates from other nodes in the synchronous cluster), wherein:
the target table is also configured to receive updates from a source table located on a second network system (Pham Paragraph [0011], the data is written directly to the database with the key being the last index value obtained from the index management table; then update new value for last index in ascending rule and cycle back to 0 if queue storage limit value is reached),
updates to the target table are managed according to a target queue (Pham Paragraph [0011], the data is written directly to the database with the key being the last index value obtained from the index management table; then update new value for last index in ascending rule and cycle back to 0 if queue storage limit value is reached), and
updating the source table using the first update in the sidecar queue (Pham Paragraph [0011], handle writing data to the queue; at this step, the data is written directly to the database with the key being the last index value obtained from the index management table);
determining one or more conditions of the source table (Pham Claim 1, setting the test cycle conditions through the queue test cycle value; initialize the last processing time value to the current time and store it in the state of the process; at the end of this step, obtain three main components constituting a queue: the index management table, the queue table and the monitoring and data processing process for the queue); and
in response to determining the one or more conditions of the source table, syncing at least the target table to the source table to provide that data in the target table matches the data in the source table (Pham Claim 1, setting the test cycle conditions through the queue test cycle value; initialize the last processing time value to the current time and store it in the state of the process; at the end of this step, obtain three main components constituting a queue: the index management table, the queue table and the monitoring and data processing process for the queue).
Pham does not expressly disclose:
updates to the source table are managed according to a sidecar queue;
in response to placing the first update into the target queue, blocking access to the target queue to prevent the target queue from receiving further requests for updating the target table until the first update has been placed into a sidecar queue configured to update the source table;
in response to the second network system placing the first update into the sidecar queue for updating the source table, unblocking the target queue for the target table on the first network system, wherein unblocking the target queue allows new updates to enter the target queue;
However, Mayhew teaches:
updates to the source table are managed according to a sidecar queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue);
in response to placing the first update into the target queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue), blocking access to the target queue to prevent the target queue from receiving further requests for updating the target table until the first update has been placed into a sidecar queue configured to update the source table (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue (Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 4 states that a first update is received from a target system and “syncing at least the target table to the source table to provide that data in the target table matches the data in the source table”, this shows that the received update is data, therefore the received data of Mayhew discloses this limitation, Pham teaches the claimed table));
in response to the second network system placing the first update into the sidecar queue for updating the source table (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records), unblocking the target queue for the target table on the first network system, wherein unblocking the target queue allows new updates to enter the target queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records);
The claimed invention and Mayhew are from the analogous art of queue systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Pham and Mayhew to have combined Pham and Mayhew. Mayhew teaches the improvement blocking and unblocking queues while using a bypass queue (Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Pham in view of Mayhew further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more conditions of the source table comprises (Pham Claim 1, setting the test cycle conditions through the queue test cycle value; initialize the last processing time value to the current time and store it in the state of the process; at the end of this step, obtain three main components constituting a queue: the index management table, the queue table and the monitoring and data processing process for the queue):
determining, using the second network system, that the source table has been successfully updated based on the first request for updating the target table (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records (Pham teaches the table while Mayhew teaches the specifics of the queues)).
Regarding claim 6, Pham in view of Mayhew further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises updating sync fields on the target table that can be changed by the source table (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records (Pham teaches the table while Mayhew teaches the specifics of the queues)).
Regarding claim 13, Pham in view of Mayhew further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the target system at the first network system, a second update for the target table (Pham Paragraph [0039], update the new last index value according to the increment and rotation rule between 0 and the storage value for the queue−1. Update the new last index value in the index management table);
determining whether the target queue is unblocked (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records);
in response to determining that the target queue is unblocked, placing the second update into the target queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records);
causing the second update to be sent second network system, the second network placing the second update into the sidecar queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records);
updating the source table using the second update in the sidecar queue (Pham Paragraph [0043], detect when threshold is exceeded and process data in the queue; the input to this step is the data in the queue written in step 3; referring to FIGS. 5 and 6, at this step, perform a periodic check of the threshold conditions at the queue monitoring process in the order of the following sub-steps);
determining the one or more conditions of the source table, wherein determining the one or more conditions of the source table comprises (Pham Claim 1, setting the test cycle conditions through the queue test cycle value; initialize the last processing time value to the current time and store it in the state of the process; at the end of this step, obtain three main components constituting a queue: the index management table, the queue table and the monitoring and data processing process for the queue):
determining, using the second network system, that the source table has been successfully updated based on the first and second request for updating the target table (Mayhew Paragraph [0028], the blocked data record at the head of the record queue can be redirected to one of the bypass queues. In this manner, the record queue is unblocked, and can resume the output of records (Pham teaches the table while Mayhew teaches the specifics of the queues)); and
in response to determining the one or more conditions of the source table or the sidecar queue, syncing at least the target table to the source table (Pham Claim 1, setting the test cycle conditions through the queue test cycle value; initialize the last processing time value to the current time and store it in the state of the process; at the end of this step, obtain three main components constituting a queue: the index management table, the queue table and the monitoring and data processing process for the queue).
Claims 14, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1, 2, 6, and 13 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method, system, computer program product). Mayhew teaches a processor and memory (Paragraphs 19 and 20).
Regarding claim 21:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
while the target queue is blocked (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue),
receiving, from the target system at the first system, a second update for the target table stored on the first network system (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue); and
preventing the second update from being added to the target queue (Mayhew Paragraph [0004], placing a record of the received data in a record queue; and responsive to the record queue is blocked transferring the blocked record from the record queue to an output bypass queue).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0157978 (hereinafter Haramati).
Regarding claim 3, Pham in view of Mayhew teaches parent claim 2.
Pham in view of Mayhew further teaches:
when the update to the source table has failed (Pham Paragraph [0069], especially, the queue is capable of withstanding large loads, storing large data and supporting data redundancy, minimizing the possibility of data loss in the event of a failure).
Pham in view of Mayhew does not expressly disclose:
wherein determining, using the second network system, that the source table has been successfully updated based on the first request for updating the target table comprises refreshing the target table to reflect original data from the source table
However, Haramati teaches:
wherein determining, using the second network system, that the source table has been successfully updated based on the first request for updating the target table comprises refreshing the target table to reflect original data from the source table (Haramati Paragraph [0235], the user may decide to revert to the previous version of the customized template prior to integrating the updated customized template)
The claimed invention and Haramati are from the analogous art of updating systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati to have combined Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati. Haramati teaches technological improvements in devices, systems, methods, and computer readable media for process management platforms that may allow a user to interact with process management information in real time (Paragraph 778).
Regarding claim 5, Pham in view of Mayhew teaches parent claim 1.
Pham in view of Mayhew does not expressly disclose:
wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises syncing a collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device.
However, Haramati teaches:
wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises syncing a collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device (Haramati Paragraph [0181], Certain embodiments disclosed herein include devices, systems, and methods for collaborative work systems that may allow a user to interact with information in real time, A table or tablature as used herein, refers to data presented in horizontal and vertical rows, (e.g., horizontal rows and vertical columns) defining cells in which data is presented).
The claimed invention and Haramati are from the analogous art of updating systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati to have combined Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati. Haramati teaches technological improvements in devices, systems, methods, and computer readable media for process management platforms that may allow a user to interact with process management information in real time (Paragraph 778).
Regarding claim 7, Pham in view of Mayhew teaches parent claim 1.
Pham in view of Mayhew does not expressly disclose:
wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises providing a notification of the synchronization to the target system.
However, Haramati teaches:
wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises providing a notification of the synchronization to the target system (Haramati Paragraph [0235], pushing the update may include sending a notification to every user device associated with the customized template, informing the users that an update has been made).
The claimed invention and Haramati are from the analogous art of updating systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati to have combined Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati. Haramati teaches technological improvements in devices, systems, methods, and computer readable media for process management platforms that may allow a user to interact with process management information in real time (Paragraph 778).
Regarding claim 8, Pham in view of Mayhew teaches parent claim 1.
Pham in view of Mayhew further teaches:
wherein receiving, from the target system at the first network system, the first update for the target table stored on the first network system comprises (Pham Paragraph [0030], If the table already exists, perform data updates from other nodes in the synchronous cluster):
Pham in view of Mayhew does not expressly disclose:
providing the target table, including any one of: a local dependent field, a sync dependent field, and a locked field, wherein:
the local dependent field is an unlocked field that, when updated by a user, is automatically updated on a collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device,
the sync dependent field is an unlocked field that, when updated by the user, is updated on the source table before syncing to the collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device, and
the locked field is not updatable by the user; and
receiving the first update for at least one of the local dependent field and the sync dependent field of the target table.
However, Haramati teaches:
providing the target table, including any one of: a local dependent field (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814), a sync dependent field (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814), and a locked field (Haramati Paragraph [0216], a customized template may be locked so that users may not add or remove columns or modify rules that are configured for specific workflows), wherein:
the local dependent field is an unlocked field that, when updated by a user, is automatically updated on a collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814),
the sync dependent field is an unlocked field that, when updated by the user, is updated on the source table before syncing to the collaborating table stored on a collaborating client device (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814), and
the locked field is not updatable by the user (Haramati Paragraph [0216], a customized template may be locked so that users may not add or remove columns or modify rules that are configured for specific workflows); and
receiving the first update for at least one of the local dependent field and the sync dependent field of the target table (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814).
The claimed invention and Haramati are from the analogous art of updating systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati to have combined Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati. Haramati teaches technological improvements in devices, systems, methods, and computer readable media for process management platforms that may allow a user to interact with process management information in real time (Paragraph 778).
Regarding claim 9, Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati further teaches:
The method of claim 8, further comprising updating a corresponding local dependent field on the collaborating table stored on the collaborating client device when the local dependent field is updated by the user (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814).
Regarding claim 10, Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati further teaches:
The method of claim 8, further comprising updating a corresponding sync dependent field on the collaborating table stored on the collaborating client device when the sync dependent field is updated on the source table (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814).
Regarding claim 11, Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati further teaches:
The method of claim 8, further comprising updating the locked field on the source table based on updates to the local dependent field and/or the sync dependent field (Haramati Paragraph [0216], a customized template may be locked so that users may not add or remove columns or modify rules that are configured for specific workflows).
Regarding claim 12, Pham in view of Mayhew and Haramati further teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein syncing at least the target table to the source table comprises: syncing the sync dependent field of the target table to a corresponding sync dependent field of the source table (Haramati Paragraph [0189], Certain embodiments disclosed herein may also include a computing device for generating features for work collaborative systems, Paragraph [0417], If the user selects an input field 2814, the input field 2814 may become editable, and the user may add, delete, or revise any text (e.g., “Done”) inside the input field 2814).
Claims 17-19 are rejected in the same manner as claims 3, 5, and 7-12 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method, system, computer program product).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 08/21/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 08/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the amendment and the newly cited Mayhew reference. Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 4 states that a first update is received from a target system and “syncing at least the target table to the source table to provide that data in the target table matches the data in the source table”, this shows that the received update is data, therefore the received data of Mayhew discloses this limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bavishi, Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0278941.
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 DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164