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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-20, 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations “inserting, by the data processing hardware, a temporary association replication configuration file that associates a temporary table, the temporary table with a replication family”, the meaning of this limitation in unclear.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-11, 13, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrle et al. (US 2015/0278329 A1), hereinafter “Hrle” and in view of Skidanov et al. (US 2013/0198139 A1, Applicant’ submitted IDS filed 7/19/2024), hereinafter “Skidanov”.
As per claim 1, Hrle teaches a method comprising:
“identifying, by data processing hardware, a first replica table comprising table data, the first replica table having an associated replication state file indicating a logical clock time and an associated replication log file logging mutations of the first replication table” at [0019]-[0021], [0039]-[0045] and Figs. 1-2;
(Hrle teaches the source database 116 comprising table data 120 and associated with a timeline which includes a plurality of log positions such as SP1, CSLP, CELP and RSLP (i.e., “logical clock time”), and transaction log 152 comprises a list of all transactions being performed (e.g., T1.1-T9.1) on the source database in chronological order)
“responsive to an instruction to create a new replica, inserting, by the data processing hardware, a temporary association replication configuration file that associates a temporary table, the temporary table with a replication family,” at [0049], [0069];
(Hrle teaches receiving a request for replicating data 120 of the source database to a relational target database 114, creating a copy of data in the main memory (i.e., “temporary table”) of the source database by selectively reading unmodified data and/or data having been stored to the source data by committed transactions. The copy of data in the main memory is associated with a replication family which includes source data 120 and target data 114)
“the temporary table
(Hrle teaches the source database is associated with a transaction log 152 (i.e., “replication log file”). Said transaction log comprises a list of all transaction previously and/or currently being performed on the source database in chorological order (i.e., “new mutations to the first replica table logged in the replication log file”))
“during existence of the temporary table, generating, by the data processing hardware, a second replica table by at least copying the table data and the replication state file from the first replica table” at [0050], [0065];
(Hrle teaches creating a copy 144 of data 120 of the source database by copying data from the source database and writing the created copy to the target database. Hrle also teaches sending the transaction log to the target database)
“after generating the second replica table, synchronizing, by the data processing hardware, the second replica table by at least applying the new mutations, wherein the new mutations to be applied are identified based on logical clock time in the replication state file” at [0028]-[0032], [0051]-[0053].
(Hrle teaches after completion of the writing, identifying within the transaction log a first set of transactions T2.1 … T7.1 comprising all transaction which started after the first start position SP1 (i.e., “logical clock time”), traversing the transaction log for executing on the copy written in the target database the transactions contained in the identified first set of transaction)
Hrle does not teach “a temporary table configured in a non-loadable state” to cause persistence of new mutations to the first replica table logged in the replication log file as claimed as claimed. However, Skidanov teaches a similar method for replicating database tables including the steps of “generating, by the data processing hardware, a temporary table configured in a non-loadable state to cause persistence of new mutations to the first replica table logged in the replication log file” as claimed” at [0030]-[0042] and Figs. 1-3. Particularly, Skidanov teaches the LogN (i.e., “temporary table”) is frozen (i.e., “in a non- loadable state”) when all pending claims are aborted (i.e., “a temporary table without data”). Skidanov also teaches during the time period when the LogN is frozen, committed transactions that commenced after state M are logged to LogM (i.e., “replication log file that correspond to any mutations of the first replica table). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Skidanov with Hrle’s teaching because “by using two snapshot files and two log files, pending transactions can be included in the “current” log, and new transactions can be included in the “new” log, thereby avoiding the need to delay execution of the transactions”, as suggested by Skidanov at [0031].
As per claim 3, Hrle and Skidanov teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Skidanov also teaches: “after applying the new mutations, removing the temporary association from the replication configuration file” at [0030]-[0042] and Figs. 1-3.
As per claim 7, Hrle and Skidanov teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Hrle also teaches: “the replication configuration file further comprises other replication logs for logging mutations to all tables associated with the replication family” at [0056].
As per claim 10, Hrle and Skidanov teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Hrle also teaches: “the second replica table comprises a replica of a primary table” at [0019]-[0022].
As per claim 22, Hrle and Skidanov teach the method of claim 1 discussed above. Hrle also teaches: “generating the second replica table further comprises copying a metadata file that includes metadata associated with the first replica table” at [0019]-[0059]-[0060]
Claims 11, 13, 17-20 recite similar limitations as in claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 21-22 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Claims 4-6, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrle and Skidanov, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lo et al. (US 9,977,612 B1), hereinafter “Lo”.
As per claim 4, Hrle and Skidanov teach the method of claim 3 discussed above. Skidanov also teaches: “after removing the temporary association, removing the new mutations from the replication log file” as claimed. However, Lo teaches at Col. 7 lines 1-55 and Fig. 4 a method for managing system data using garbage collection and logs including the steps of recording changes to the system data into a log, determining whether the number of generated logs exceed the threshold and after changes recorded in the logs have been applied to the system data, performing garbage collection of logs. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lo with Hrle’s teaching in order to increase available storage space by deleting the logs which are no longer needed.
As per claim 5, Hrle-Skidanov and Lo teach the method of claim 4 discussed above. Lo also teaches: “removing the new mutations comprises using a garbage collection process” at Col. 7 lines 1-55 and Fig. 4.
As per claim 6, Hrle-Skidanov and Lo teach the method of claim 5 discussed above. Lo also teaches: “using the garbage collection process comprises: identifying one or more replication logs from the replication log file that satisfy a threshold; and removing the identified one or more replication logs” at Col. 7 liens 1-55 and Fig. 4.
Claims 14-16 recite similar limitations as in claims 4-6 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examine respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that “Hrle do not disclose or suggest "inserting… a temporary association in a replication configuration file that associates a temporary table, the temporary table configured in a non-loadable state, with a replication family, wherein the temporary association of the temporary table with the replication family causes persistence of new mutations to the first replica table logged in the associated replication log file during existence of the temporary table," as recited by amended independent claim 1”. On the contrary, Hrle teaches at [0049], [0069]; the steps of receiving a request for replicating data 120 of the source database to a relational target database 114, creating a copy of data in the main memory (i.e., “temporary table”) of the source database by selectively reading unmodified data and/or data having been stored to the source data by committed transactions. The copy of data in the main memory is associated with a replication family which includes source data 120 and target data 114. Hrle also teaches the source database is associated with a transaction log 152 (i.e., “replication log file”). Said transaction log comprises a list of all transaction previously and/or currently being performed on the source database in chorological order (i.e., “new mutations to the first replica table logged in the replication log file”).
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection is hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (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 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
March 19, 2026