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 .
Remarks
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ reply dated December 15, 2025, including arguments and amendments, such amendments including the cancellation of claims 8 and 10.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, and 11 – 20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 is in condition for allowance because it integrates the subject matter of cancelled claim 8.
Applicant correctly notes in their arguments that claim 8 had received an objection (Non-final Office action of September 30, 2025) for depending on a rejected base claim, but would have been allowable if rewritten in independent form. However, this was a typographical error, and claim 8 was not intended to be included in that list, where claim 6 was intended to be included. At the next page of the Non-final Office action, claim 8 is correctly included in the list of claims rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McConnell, and the detailed rejection of claim 8 is presented on the following page.
The rationale for which the other claims were indicated as allowable was that they claim the use of “read timestamps”, a feature not present in claim 8. In addition, the Office Action Summary (PTOL-326) and Index of Claims both indicate that claim 8 has been rejected, and that claim 6 has received an objection.
Because claim 8 was previously rejected as being anticipated by McConnell, and not actually allowable, the subject matter of that claim being integrated into claim 1 does not bring claim 1 into condition for allowance. The rejection of amended claim 1 is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 6 and 7 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 prior art does not adequately disclose “read timestamps” as they are used in the instant invention
Claims 9 and 11 – 16 are allowed. The prior art does not adequately disclose: “obtaining, from a cache associated with the key-value store, a read timestamp associated with the key; … determining that the upper bound write attempt timestamp is after the read timestamp; [or] determining, based on the upper bound write attempt timestamp being after the read time stamp, that a cache associated with the key-value store stores a stale value of the key,” as specifically recited in claim 9.
Claims 17 – 20 are allowed. The prior art does not disclose the generation of an upper bound write attempt timestamp as recited in the claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McConnell et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,216,631 (hereafter, “McConnell”).
As to Claim 1, McConnell discloses: a method of reading a value of a key, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client, a read request for the value of the key (col. 4, lines 41 – 47, referring to a user sending a request to query a database);
obtaining, from a server, for every key in a key-value store, an upper bound write attempt timestamp associated with the key (col. 6, lines 26 – 33, referring to the determination of a database threshold, based on the age of the stored data), wherein the key-value store is a distributed key-value store storing data as key-value pairs in tables distributed across multiple nodes (Fig. 1, described at col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 11, showing environment 100, including database 108, which is described as being a distributed database);
determining, based on the upper bound write attempt timestamp associated with the key, whether a cache associated with the key-value store stores a stale value of the key (col. 5, lines 1 – 10, referring to the system determining whether the cache associated with the query is expired, stale or valid); and
responsive to determining that the cache stores a stale value of the key, retrieving the value of the key from the key-value store (col. 5, lines 24 – 35, referring to reading query data from the database in response to a determination that the cache is expired).
As to Claim 5, McConnell discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from a client, a write request for a new value of the key and a write attempt timestamp associated with the write request; updating the server with the key and the write attempt timestamp; and updating the key-value store with the key and the new value (col. 5, lines 24 – 35, referring to the primary storage database performing updating write operations to save the data received in response to determining that the cache had contained expired data).
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 NIRAV K KHAKHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1004. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/NIRAV K KHAKHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2167
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163