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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 8, 14 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-21 are now pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 7, recites the limitation " the database transaction file". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similar problem exists in claim 14.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 19 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-15, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0411824) in view of Jo et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0027338) and Chockalingam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,403,192).
Referring to claim 1, Sahu et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a unidirectional gateway, a plurality of change entries (the query gateway system enables a user to automatically transition from an autosuggest query to the GLM interface, see Sahu et al., Para. 17, query gateway system automatically provides the autosuggest query to the GLM system, see Sahu et al., Para. 19) in a database transaction text file (query logs of previous text inputs, see Sahu et al., Para. 104).
However, Sahu et al. does not explicitly teach
a database transaction file;
wherein each change entry in the plurality of change entries specifies a change that was previously applied to a database;
modifying a change entry in the plurality of change entries;
inserting, into the database transaction text file, metadata that describes said modifying; and
processing the database transaction file based on the metadata that describes said modifying.
Jo et al. teaches
a database transaction file (a log file, see Jo et al., Para. 4);
inserting, into the database transaction file, metadata that describes said modifying (determining to record the meta information and SQL operation regarding the object to the CDC file if a meta information of the object is generated, see Jo et al., Para. 31, extracts a change data from at least one redo log of an online redo log and an archive redo log, analyzes at least one information of a resource utilization rate information and a remain log information of a source database server, and determines to process the change data in one mode of a first mode saving the change data as a CDC file, see Jo et al., Para. 32); and
processing the database transaction file based on the metadata that describes said modifying (A solution that delivers change data from a source database system to target database system is called Change Data Capture (CDC). The CDC may be implemented by, for example, a method of reading and interpreting a log file in a source database system and replaying change data in the source database system to a target database system that desires to duplicate the change data, see Jo et al., Para. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sahu et al., to have a database transaction file; inserting, into the database transaction file, metadata that describes said modifying; and processing the database transaction file based on the metadata that describes said modifying, as taught by Jo et al., to providing efficient Change Data Capture (Jo et al., Para. 12).
However, Sahu et al. as modified still does not explicitly teach
a database transaction text file wherein each change entry in the plurality of change entries specifies a change that was previously applied to a database;
modifying a change entry in the plurality of change entries.
Chockalingam et al. teaches
a database transaction text file wherein each change entry in the plurality of change entries specifies a change that was previously applied to a database (No transaction log sequence numbers exist for any of the transactions that were committed while the database was temporarily set to the simple recovery model because a transaction's transaction log storage space is reclaimed after these transactions are committed, see Chockalingam et al., Col. 5, lines 32-36);
modifying a change entry in the plurality of change entries (resetting the corresponding transaction log sequence numbers and over-writing all of the information about these transactions' existence, see Chockalingam et al., Col. 5, lines 37-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sahu et al. as modified, to have a database transaction text file wherein each change entry in the plurality of change entries specifies a change that was previously applied to a database; modifying a change entry in the plurality of change entries, as taught by Chockalingam et al., to reduces the potential of running out of storage space for the transaction log, while at the same time reducing administrative overhead (Chockalingam et al., Col. 1, lines 40-43).
As to claim 2, Sahu et al. as modified teaches the change entry is human-readable (query logs of previous text inputs, see Sahu et al., Para. 104, and FIG. 4A); said modifying comprises generating a modified change entry based on the human-readable text (resetting the corresponding transaction log sequence numbers and over-writing all of the information about these transactions' existence, see Chockalingam et al., Col. 5, lines 37-39).
As to claim 6, Sahu et al. as modified teaches the change entry comprises a data structure that contains an object (change contents for a structure and an organization of data in the database (for example, change contents related to a table, a column, a row, a data type, and an index), see Jo et al., Para. 61, The first transaction may include a delete operation and a commit operation for the Tl object, see Jo et al., Para. 165); said modifying comprises deleting the object from the data structure (generating, deleting, and correcting a database table, schema, index, and/or data, see Jo et al., Para. 68, The first transaction may include a delete operation and a commit operation for the Tl object, see Jo et al., Para. 165). As to claim 8, Sahu et al. as modified teaches said database is a relational database (Microsoft® SQL Server, see Chockalingam et al., Col. 1, line 21);
the method further comprises applying the change to a database that is not a relational database (MongoDB, see Chockalingam et al., Col. 1, line 22).
As to claim 12, Sahu et al. as modified teaches the change entry represents a change caused by a data definition language (DDL) statement (The SQL operation may include, for example, a Data Manipulation Language (DML) operation, a Data Definition Language (DDL) operation, see Jo et al., Para. 136). As to claim 13, Sahu et al. as modified teaches the unidirectional gateway performs said modifying and said inserting (perform operations, such as search, insertion, see Jo et al., Para. 163). Referring to claim 14, Sahu et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (The computer system 900 also includes memory 903, see Sahu et al., Para. 120) storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 6 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 8 rejection.
Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 13 rejection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0411824) in view of Jo et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0027338) and Chockalingam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,403,192) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-15, 17, 18 and 21 above, and in further view of Geiselhart et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0419645).
As to claim 7, Sahu et al. as modified does not explicitly teach the data structure is a large object; the method further comprises detecting the object by parsing the LOB.
However, Geiselhart et al. teaches the data structure is a large object (LOB) (LOB) (LOB object, see Geiselhart et al., Para. 52); the method further comprises detecting the object by parsing the LOB (The LOB Handler may intercept and parse in step 601 an insert or update statement. The LOB handler may determine (602) whether the statement references a LOB value, see Geiselhart et al., Para. 62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sahu et al. as modified, to have human-readable text, as taught by Geiselhart et al., to enable an efficient management of tables (Geiselhart et al., Para. 25).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0411824) in view of Jo et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0027338) and Chockalingam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,403,192) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-15, 17, 18 and 21 above, and in further view of Lachambre et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0251180).
As to claim 10, Sahu et al. as modified does not explicitly teach applying a document schema to the database transaction text file.
However, Lachambre et al. teaches applying a document schema to the database transaction text file (Under existing solutions, the migration of a data base from one schema to another schema may rely on a transaction log for the database, see Lachambre et al., Para. 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sahu et al. as modified, to have teach applying a document schema to the database transaction text file, as taught by Lachambre et al., to have the database may be migrated from one schema to another schema, seamlessly and without any disruptions in service to the users during the update (Lachambre et al., Para. 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 10 rejection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (U.S. Pat. Pub. 11,263,206 in view of Sahu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0411824) in view of Jo et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0027338) and Chockalingam et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,403,192) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-15, 17, 18 and 21 above, and in further view of Maier et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0256520).
As to claim 11, Sahu et al. as modified does not explicitly teach replacing, in the change entry, a value with a predefined value.
However, Maier et al. teaches replacing, in the change entry, a value with a predefined value (shared database 114 may replace the cipher representation by a "null" value or another predefined default value, see Maier et al., Para. 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sahu et al. as modified, to have replacing, in the change entry, a value with a predefined value, as taught by Maier et al., to reduce efforts in software maintenance (Maier et al., Para. 40).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 9/18/2025 with respect to claims 1, 8, 14 and 18 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights