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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103
2. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 8 -17, filed 05/26/2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully
considered and will be addressed in seriatim.
First, Applicant highlights discrepancies in the named inventors and takes notice “Terada” and “McAlister” as proper.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Second, Applicant argues that the cited portions of the proposed Terada-Higginson combination do not disclose, teach or suggest, “translating the export plan into an import plan for a second database, the import plan comprising multiple import operations and being based on a second syntax that is different from a first syntax of the export plan” as recited in claim 1. He further argues, that even assuming database operations described in the Terada reference could be characterized as “plans” in the manner claimed, Terada does not disclose that they have different syntaxes.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Third, Applicant argues that, claim 1 recites, translating the export plan into the import plan, where the import plan is “based on a second syntax that is different from a first syntax of the export plan.” The cited portions of the Terada reference do not appear to disclose translating between different syntaxes of plans
Examiner respectfully agrees
Fourth, the Applicant argues that the office action does not appear to cite Higginson as allegedly disclosing these features.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Fifth, Applicant argues that the format in Terada refers to endianness, not to syntax and that no syntax change is necessary
Examiner respectfully agrees
Sixth, Applicant argues that paragraph [0076] of Terada discloses that the term, “translation” refers to byte-swapping and thus does not teach or suggest translation of an export plan in a first syntax to am import plan in a different syntax. Additionally, the “translation dictionary” described in paragraph [0076] of Terada does not disclose an “import plan’ as claimed. It is not a plan, “comprising multiple import operations” or “based on a second syntax that is different from a first syntax” as recited in in claim 1
Examiner respectfully agrees
Seventh, Applicant argues that the proposed combination is improper between Terada and Higginson and how that would have been obvious.
Examiner disagrees and cites a POSITA recognizing the cited art as analogous would have been motivated to combine the references to reach the intended solution. Both references are in the field of database migration and are thus pertinent to applicant’s invention.
Finally, Applicant argues that even if assuming the references were properly combined, the proposed combination remains deficient at least because neither reference discloses translating plans between different syntaxes as recited in claim 1.
This final argument is made moot in light of replacement art, Jovanovic et al, “BabbleFlow – A Translator for Analytic Data Flow Programs” 18th June 2014
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. 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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jovanovic et al, “BabbleFlow – A Translator for Analytic Data Flow Programs” 18th June 2014
Regarding claim 1 Jovanovic teaches a computer-implemented method, (method Page 2) comprising: receiving, from a first database, (input data store Page 3) an export plan (Flow Export Page 3) that comprises instructions executable to create (advanced schema matching and mapping techniques Page 3) catalog objects (output schemata Page 3) of the first database (input data store Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE databases Fig. 4 “PIG”, “SQL”, “VERTICA”, “POSTGRES”, “OPSYSTEM”, “PDI”having a relational structure; (database engine db-A Page 4) translating (translate analytic programs from one language to another (or one software version to another Page 1) (translate flows in PigLatin and/or SQL to a logical flow in xLM Page 2) ( An example scenario involves a user who has PigLatin code for HDFS data and wishes to process this data within db-A instead of using an HDFS-to-db connector. BabbleFlow can translate these scripts Page 4) the export plan (Flow Export Page 3) into an import plan (Flow Import Page 2) for a second database, (target data store Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE databases Fig. 4 “PIG”, “SQL”, “VERTICA”, “POSTGRES”, “OPSYSTEM”, “PDI” the import plan (Flow Import Page 2) comprising multiple import operations (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.product_1, flw_storeSupp_1 Page 3) and being based on a second syntax (logical flow in xLM Page 2) that is different from a first syntax (flows in PigLatin and/or SQL Page 2, PDI flow Page 3) of the export plan; (Flow Export Page 3) executing in parallel the multiple import operations (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.product_1 and flw_storeSupp_1 Page 3) of the import plan (Flow Import Page 2) to generate first import results; (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.Join_SL_1 Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE Fig 3 “A= Lod “StoreRev” USING PigStorage (‘|’) as (stkey, pkey, tmpstr, retVAl: Page 2 filtering (Fig. 5 C_LOFilter_2 Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE Fig 3 “C = FILTER A BY ToDate(tmpstr, “YYYY-MM-DD’) <ToDate(‘2013-01-101’,’YYY-MM-DD’) Page 2 and aggregating (Fig. 5 flw1.revenueCalc_1 Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE Fig 3 D = GROUP C BY stKey Page 2 the first import results (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.Join_SL_1 Page 3) to generate second import results; (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.revenueCalc_1 Page 3) merge sorting (In the PigLatin snippet
(Figure 8(back), lines 5 and 8) one may see two aggregation-related statements, Page 4) the second import results (Figs. 5 – 7 flw1.revenueCalc_1 Page 3) to generate third import results; (Figs. 5 – 7 D_LOCogroup_2 Page 3) and importing (Fig. 3 STORE E INTO ‘REPORT_2’ Page 2) the third import results (Figs. 5 – 7 D_LOCogroup_2 Page 3) and into the second database, (target data store Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE databases Fig. 4 “PIG”, “SQL”, “VERTICA”, “POSTGRES”, “OPSYSTEM”, “PDI” the third import results (Figs. 5 – 7 D_LOCogroup_2 Page 3) and being consistent (the PDI flow and the input data store of the PigLatin script are compatible; i.e., they have identical schemata. Page 3) with the catalog objects(output schemata Page 3) of the first database. (input data store Page 3) SEE EXAMPLE databases Fig. 4 “PIG”, “SQL”, “VERTICA”, “POSTGRES”, “OPSYSTEM”, “PDI”
Claims 8 and 15 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 7 Jovanovic teaches the computer-implemented method (run method [0048]) of claim 1,
Jovanovic further teaches wherein the catalog objects (input schemata of the nodes of the second flow Page 3) in the import plan (Flow Import Page 2) include at least one of: a catalog; a schema; (output schemata of the nodes of the first
flow and input schemata of the nodes of the second flow Page 3) a table; a view; a procedure; a sequence; a function; or a trigger
Claim 14 correspond to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
5. 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.
6. 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 2 – 4, 9 – 11 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al, “BabbleFlow – A Translator for Analytic Data Flow Programs” 18th June 2014 hereinafter Jovanovic in view of and Higginson et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20150019488) hereinafter Higginson
Regarding claim 2 Jovanovic the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic in view of Higginson the computer-implemented method of claim 2,
Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic 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
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al, “BabbleFlow – A Translator for Analytic Data Flow Programs” 18th June 2014 in view of Vasa et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2024/0281416) hereinafter Vasa
Regarding claim 5 Jovanovic teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic 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 Jovanovic et al, “BabbleFlow – A Translator for Analytic Data Flow Programs” 18th June 2014 in view of McAlister et al., (United States Patent Number 10963435) hereinafter McAlister.
Regarding claim 6 Jovanovic teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Jovanovic 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.
McAlister 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 primarily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jovanovic to incorporate the teachings of McAlister 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. McAlister Col 2 ln 1 - 6
Claims 13 and 20 correspond to claim 6 and are rejected accordingly
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Terada et al., (US 20060184561) teaches “For example, migration of a database using a bcp-out/bcp-in method requires an export/import operation to be done for each table in the database. [0025]”
6. 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
Prosecution Insights