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 .
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
3. The office action issued on 09/17/2025 indicating the finality of prosecution has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
4. 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.
5. 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (United States Patent Publication Number 20060184561) hereinafter Smart in view of and Higginson et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150019488) hereinafter Higginson
Regarding claim 1 Smart teaches a computer-implemented method, (ABS., method) (method [0049]) comprising: receiving, (receiving [0058]) from a first database, (Fig. 2 relational database [0063]) SEE ALSO “source database [0082] such as “first database” an export plan (dumping a database on the source (or old) platform [0074]) such as “export plan” that comprises instructions executable (DUMP DATABASE [0074]; DUMP DATABASE function [0134]) to create catalog objects (system tables or catalogs [0075]) of the first database (Fig. 2 relational database [0063]) SEE ALSO “source database [0082] such as “first database” having a relational structure; (Fig. 2 Data in a relational database is stored as a series of tables, also called relations [0063]) translating (build translation dictionaries for the conversion of the database to the format of the target platform. This conversion (which is also sometimes referred to herein as "translation" or "unscrambling") is performed in two general phases. In the first phase, the system data is converted (translated) to the appropriate format for the target platform. In the second phase the system data is used for converting the user data. [0075]) SEE ALSO [0080], [0091], [0109] the export plan (dumping a database on the source (or old) platform [0074]) such as “export plan” into an import plan (loading it on a target (or new) platform having a different byte storage architecture [0074]) such as “import plan” for a second database, (target database [0082]) such as “second database” the import plan (loading it on a target (or new) platform having a different byte storage architecture [0074]) such as “import plan” comprising multiple import operations (building translation dictionaries for the conversion of the database to the format of the target platform. This conversion (which is also sometimes referred to herein as "translation" or "unscrambling") is performed in two general phases. In the first phase, the system data is converted (translated) to the appropriate format for the target platform. In the second phase the system data is used for converting the user data. [0075]) and being based on a second syntax that is different from a first syntax of (( e.g., a cross-platform conversion from big-endian to little-endian or vice versa is involved). [0077]) the export plan; (dumping a database on the source (or old) platform [0074]) such as “export plan”
Smart does not fully disclose executing in parallel the multiple import operations of the import plan to generate first import results; filtering and aggregating the first import results to generate second import results; merge sorting the second import results to generate third import results; and importing the third import results into the second database, the third import results being consistent with the catalog objects of the first database.
Higginson teaches executing in parallel the multiple import operations (the plurality of scripts can be executed in parallel during migration [0093], [0106]) of the import plan (Figs. 7 - 9, migration plan [0025] – [0027]) such as “import plan” to generate first import results; (continuously populated data during normal legacy systems operations [0075]) such as “first import results” filtering and aggregating (crunching data [0076]) such as “filtering and aggregating” the first import results (continuously populated data during normal legacy systems operations [0075]) such as “first import results” to generate second import results; (Fig. 5 data produced and stored in “MGMT$” tables/views, EMCT Tables, GC$ tables, ACS$ Tables [0075]) such as “second import results” merge sorting (extract, fit and populate [0077]) such as “merge sorting” the second import results(Fig. 5 data produced and stored in “MGMT$” tables/views, EMCT Tables, GC$ tables, ACS$ Tables [0075]) such as “second import results to generate (generate [0065]) third import results; (new data model including the data from the many different databases [0077]) such as “third import results” and importing (migrating [0108]) such as “importing” the third import results (Fig. 5, (522) results including new data model including the data from the many different databases [0076], [0077]) such as “third import results” into the second database, (ABS., one or more target database) (Figs. 12 & 13 target database [0030], [0031], [0054] – [0056]); second database [0090]) the third import results (Fig. 5, (522) results including new data model including the data from the many different databases [0076], [0077]) such as “third import results” being consistent with the catalog objects of the first database (post-migration validation may be executed automatically upon completion of the migration process [0100]; Row counts in the target databases may be compared to row count in the source databases. Some embodiments may also select certain rows and compare the data therein to ensure that it was successfully migrated from the source to the target databases. [0101])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Higginson wherein executing in parallel the multiple import operations of the import plan to generate first import results; filtering and aggregating the first import results to generate second import results; merge sorting the second import results to generate third import results; and importing the third import results into the second database, the third import results being consistent with the catalog objects of the first database. By doing so the method may additionally include generating a migration plan that defines an execution order for the plurality of migration scripts. The
method may further include migrating the plurality of objects from the one or more source databases to one or more target databases according to the migration plan. Higginson [0013]
Claims 8 and 15 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 2 Smart in view of Higginson the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Smart does not fully disclose wherein executing in parallel the multiple input import operations of the import plan comprises: dividing at least some of the catalog objects into subsets based on index value ranges, wherein each of the subsets is used for an import operation of the multiple import operations.
Higginson teaches wherein executing in parallel (the plurality of scripts can be executed in parallel during migration [0093], [0106]) the multiple input import operations (ABS., migration scripts) (migration scripts [0055]) such as “import operations” of the import plan (Figs. 7 - 9, migration plan [0025] – [0027]) such as “import plan” comprises: dividing at least some of the catalog objects into subsets based on index value ranges, ("slice and dice" the source databases into small manageable chunks. In some embodiments, the source databases may be divided into
individual objects, [0087]) wherein each of the subsets is used for an import operation (and each individual object may be associated with its own migration script. [0087]) of the multiple import operations (ABS., migration scripts) (migration scripts [0055]) such as “import operations”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Higginson wherein executing in parallel the multiple input import operations of the import plan comprises: dividing at least some of the catalog objects into subsets based on index value ranges, wherein each of the subsets is used for an import operation of the multiple import operations. By doing so small chunks are migrated instead of taking the entire database offline for migration Higginson [0089]
Claims 9 and 16 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 3 Smart in view of Higginson the computer-implemented method of claim 2,
Smart does not fully disclose wherein executing in parallel the multiple input import operations of the import plan comprises: respectively executing, for each of the subsets, the multiple import operations of the multiple import operations in parallel.
Higginson teaches wherein executing in parallel(the plurality of scripts can be executed in parallel during migration [0093], [0106]) the multiple input import operations (ABS., migration scripts) (migration scripts [0055]) such as “import operations” of the import plan (Figs. 7 - 9, migration plan [0025] – [0027]) such as “import plan” comprises: respectively executing, (executing [0045]) for each of the subsets, (chunks [0087]) such as “subsets” the multiple import operations (ABS., migration scripts) (migration scripts [0055]) such as “import operations” of the multiple import operations (ABS., migration scripts) (migration scripts [0055]) such as “import operations” in parallel (the plurality of scripts can be executed in parallel during migration [0093], [0106])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Higginson wherein executing in parallel the multiple input import operations of the import plan comprises: respectively executing, for each of the subsets, the multiple import operations of the multiple import operations in parallel. By doing so small chunks are migrated instead of taking the entire database offline for migration Higginson [0089]
Claims 10 and 17 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 4 Smart in view of Higginson the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Smart does not fully disclose wherein: the second import results are unjoined with respect to index values; and the third import results are joined with respect to the index values.
Higginson teaches wherein: the second import results (Fig. 5 data produced and stored in “MGMT$” tables/views, EMCT Tables, GC$ tables, ACS$ Tables [0075]) such as “second import results” are unjoined with respect to index values; (Rather than copying previously-created index files from the source server system to the target server system, it may be more efficient to ignore the index files of the source server system and have the target server system generate its own index files. [0057]) and the third import results (Fig. 5, (522) results including new data model including the data from the many different databases [0076], [0077]) such as “third import results” are joined with respect to the index values (Rather than copying previously-created index files from the source server system to the target server system, it may be more efficient to ignore the index files of the source server system and have the target server system generate its own index files. [0057], (For example, index generation for a database to be performed by the target database can only be performed after all of the target database information has been received. [0090]))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Higginson wherein: the second import results are unjoined with respect to index values; and the third import results are joined with respect to the index values. By doing so the scheduler system may analyze available system resources of the source server system and/or the target server system to schedule functions (e.g., index generation and/or verifications functions). Higginson [0091]
Claims 11 and 18 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 7 Smart in view of Higginson teaches the computer-implemented method (run method [0048]) of claim 1,
Smart as modified further teaches wherein the catalog objects (Fig. 6 system tables (catalogs) [0037]) in the import plan (loading it on a target (or new) platform having a different byte storage architecture [0074]) such as “import plan” include at least one of: a catalog; a schema; a table; (one or more database tables [0063]) a view; a procedure; a sequence; a function; or a trigger
Claim 14 correspond to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20060184561) hereinafter Smart in view of and Higginson et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150019488) hereinafter Higginson and in further view of Vasa et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0281416) hereinafter Vasa
Regarding claim 5 Smart in view of Higginson teaches the computer-implemented method (run method [0048]) of claim 1,
Smart as does not fully disclose teaches wherein: the first syntax is structured query language (SQL); and the second syntax is compatible with a non-relational structure supported by the second database.
Vasa teaches wherein: the first syntax is structured query language (SQL); (The first database type may comprise a Structured Query Language (SQL) database [0038]) (The first database type may be a relational database (e.g., accessed using Structured Query Language (SQL)) [0043]) and the second syntax is compatible with a non-relational structure supported by the second database (and the second database type may comprise a non SQL (NoSQL) database. [0038]) (while the second database type may be a non-relational database (e.g., a NoSQL database, where NoSQL means "non SQL" or "not only SQL"). [0043])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Vasa wherein: the first syntax is structured query language (SQL); and the second syntax is compatible with a non-relational structure supported by the second database. By doing so advantageously create adapters on the models to enable users to assess the target database size for a given source database (e.g., an existing SQL database).Vasa [0050]
Claims 12 and 19 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected accordingly
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20060184561) hereinafter Smart in view of and Higginson et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150019488) hereinafter Higginson and in further view of Macdonald et al., (United States Patent Number 10963435) hereinafter Macdonald.
Regarding claim 6 Smart in view of Higginson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Smart as does not fully disclose teaches further comprising: receiving, from the second database, first results to a first query associated with the catalog objects consistent with second results to a second query of the first database, the second query being commensurate to the first query.
Macdonald teaches receiving, (receiving Col 29 ln 40 – 45) from the second database, (ABS., target database) (Fig. 1, (156) target database Col 4 ln 50 - 55) such as “second database” first results (Fig (614) data retrieved from source data set Col 27 ln 22 - 27) to a first query (DVT 118 makes a query to the source database 150 Col 7 ln 50 - 55) SEE ALSO repeatable query Col 8 ln 1 – 20” associated with (associated with Col 18 ln 15 – 20) the catalog objects (object with schema name; table name and column name Col 12 ln 10 – 15) such as “catalog objects” consistent with (Consistent queries may be used by the DVT 118 to determine whether the data at time 't' was in sync or not. Col 8 ln 30 - 35) (Fig. 7, 712) match? “YES” (714) mark as “InSync” Col 30 ln 20 – 25) second results (Fig (616) data retrieved from target data set Col 27 ln 22 - 27) to a second query (DVT 118 makes a query to the target database 156 Col 7 ln 50 - 55) SEE ALSO repeatable query Col 8 ln 1 – 20” of the first database, (ABS., source database) (Fig. 1, (150) source database Col 4 ln 50) such as “first database” the second query (DVT 118 makes a query to the target database 156 Col 7 ln 50 - 55) SEE ALSO repeatable query Col 8 ln 1 – 20 being commensurate (at approximately the same time Col 7 ln 53 - 55) to the first query (DVT 118 makes a query to the source database 150 Col 7 ln 50 - 55) SEE ALSO repeatable query Col 8 ln 1 - 20
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smart to incorporate the teachings of Macdonald wherein receiving, from the second database, first results to a first query associated with the catalog objects consistent with second results to a second query of the first database, the second query being commensurate to the first query. By doing so validating data migrated from a source database to a target database and storing validation metrics resulting from validating the data can be achieved. Macdonald Col 2 ln 1 - 6
Claims 13 and 20 correspond to claim 6 and are rejected accordingly
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Cai et al., (WO 2014032262) teaches “Generate pre-migration scripts and adaptation script files; Performing the pre-migration script and the migration adaptation script to configure a target platform system environment and generating the post-migration script by parsing OS configuration information of the source platform and OS configuration information of the target platform”
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469) 295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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).
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166