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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 5 is previously or currently cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-14 are pending, of which claims 12-13 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 with respect to amended claims 1-4 and 6-14 have been fully considered. With respect to amended claim 1, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 for claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13 has been withdrawn. However, claims 12-13 are presented without any amendments and/or arguments, therefore, the claim rejection has been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 2 are illegible and not clear because text labels are missing. Without proper text labeling drawings are unreadable. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xinjing Hu et el. (CN 112527894 A), (Hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches, a computational framework for determining a data synchronization state between a source database and a target database, wherein the target database is configured to store a copy of historical time-series data sets stored at the source database of an industrial plant, wherein a respective time-series data set is associated with a respective tag and comprises a respective series of time-dependent data values (Hu: ‘each business table stores timestamped data forming time-series data sets’ [0005, 0010, 0030] & [Fig.2]), wherein the framework comprises: a source map providing unit for providing a source map for the source database, wherein the source map is indicative of a structuring of at least some of the time-dependent data values stored on the source database into a plurality of source data frames, wherein the time-dependent data values associated with a data frame are defined by a) a respective tag associated with a respective time-series data set, and b) a respective start time and a respective end time of the time-dependent data values of the respective time-series data set associated with the respective tag (Hu: ‘the sliding window comprises a start and end time, for a given table, and is repeated from the user designed starting time, defining a frame-based structure of the source time series’ [0031]), a target map providing unit for providing a target map for the target database, wherein the target map is indicative of a structuring of at least some of the time-dependent data values stored at the target database into a plurality of target data frames, wherein the target map corresponds to the source map such that the structuring of the target database corresponds to the structuring of the source database such that the source data frames correspond to the target data frames, respectively (Hu: the same sliding window pattern is applied for the target database’ [0032]),
Hu does not explicitly disclose, a Hash value determining unit for determining for the source data frames and for the target data frames a Hash value, wherein the Hash value is sensitive to the time-dependent data values associated with the respective data frame, and a synchronization state determining unit for determining the data synchronization state by comparing the Hash value of a target data frame with the Hash value of the corresponding source data frame.
However, Hu teaches, a checksum is calculated on the basis of the time-dependent data within the sliding windows for each of the source and target database [0031-0032]. Hu also teaches, CRC [0034] which in some form represents in itself a cryptographically weak hash form. Further, the use of hash function to compute checksums is well-known in the art. Therefore, with the teaching of Hu, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the checksum calculations on the basis of hash function. As doing so, data consistency (or inconsistency) is verified and ensured by comparing a source checksum with a target checksum.
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches, a database system comprising: a source database provided at an industrial plant and configured to store time-series data sets of the industrial plant, a target database configured to store a copy of the historical time-series data sets stored at the source database of the industrial plant, and a computational framework according to claim 12 (Hu: ‘the arrangement includes a source and target databases, as well as a verification unit forming a computational framework.’ [0029, 0021] & [Fig.1]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 14 would be allowable if all remaining pending objections and rejections (if any) are overcome.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENAMUL MD KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7256. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-6:30 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, Albert Decady can be reached on 571-272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ENAMUL M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights