DETAILED ACTION
The application of Thiagarajan et al., for a “Database observability system” filed on July 26, 2024 has been examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-3 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claims 4-9 and 17-20 are objected to while containing allowable matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-3, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20140101100) in view of Sangala et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20210349795).
As per claims 1 and 14, Hu discloses a computerized method/system comprising a processor ([0142]) in communication with a non-transient memory ([0147]) for managing replicated database resources ([0017], “a global service that is offered across multiple replicated databases”), the method comprising:
querying a first instance of a replicated database ([0062], “The GSM that receives the registration responds by querying the GDS Catalog to determine which services can be started on the database that is being registered”) with a plurality of global service manager (GSM) servers ([0028], “global service managers (GSMs)”);
receiving, at each GSM server, a plurality of golden signals from the first instance of the replicated database in response to the query ([0077]-[0078]);
at each the plurality of GSM servers, separately determining database health for the first instance of the replicated database based on the received plurality of golden signals ([0035], “each GSM also monitors databases instances, generates and publishes events when an instance, database or network go down. GSM also generates and publishes events for clients in the local region according to performance metrics it receives from all instances in the cloud and integrating them with estimated network latency.”), wherein the database health comprises an indication of healthy or unhealthy and wherein one or more of the plurality of golden signals received by one of the plurality of GSM servers exceeding a threshold causes that GSM to provide an indication of unhealthy ([0130], “each GSM periodically receives lag values from databases and generates a `service member down` event if the lag on a particular database exceeds the value specified for a service.”);
Hu fails to explicitly disclose a monitoring agent.
Sangala of analogous art teaches:
receiving, at a monitoring agent ([0030], “monitoring agent 406 of FIG. 4”), the database health indication from each of the plurality of servers;
comparing, at the monitoring agent, the database health indication received from each of the plurality of servers ([0037]-[0038], “depending upon the status being ‘HEALTHY’ or ‘UNHEALTHY’”); and
triggering a failover switch to a second instance of the replicated database ([0038], “Thus, in step 310, if the status of the public-facing health check module 310 is ‘HEALTHY,’ then the primary target can be designated as the replicated database instance 212 to read data from. If the status of the public-facing health check module 310 is ‘UNHEALTHY,’ then a failover may be performed.”) when a number of database health indications of unhealthy received from the plurality of servers exceeds a threshold ([0032]).
All of the claimed elements were known in Hu and Sangala and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their replicated database services methods. One would be motivated to make this combination since Sangala’s monitoring agent is a mere example of Hu’s GSM server’s metric monitoring.
As per claims 2 and 15, Sangala discloses the comparing step comprises tallying a total number of healthy indications and a total number of unhealthy indications; and wherein the threshold comprises the total number of unhealthy indications exceeding the total number of healthy indications ([0032]).
As per claims 3 and 16, Hu discloses only triggering the failover switch where a total number of GSM servers exceeds two ([0035]). Sangala discloses the monitoring agent received the database health indication ([0037]-[0038]).
As per claim 10, Hu discloses the plurality of GSM servers comprises at least six GSM servers (Fig. 2, GSM202-210), and wherein the plurality of GSM servers are located in at least two different data centers ([0029]-[0030]).
As per claim 11, Hu discloses the plurality of golden signals comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of single value metrics, multi value metrics, and log file scanning metrics ([0080]-[0081]).
As per claim 12, Hu discloses the single value metrics comprise two or more selected from the group consisting of host CPU utilization ratio ([0082]), database wait time ratio ([0086]-[0087]), database CPU time ratio, average synchronous single-block read latency, user commits per second, user rollbacks per second, user transactions per second, SQL service response time, response time per transaction ([0089]-[0090]), average active sessions rate, redo generated per second rate, logons per second rate, database file sequential read time, database file scattered read time, direct path read time, direct path write time, database parallel write time, log file parallel write time, log file sync time, database file async I/O submit time, database file parallel read time processes ratio, sessions ratio, replication latency rate, and listener error success count rate.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20140101100) in view of Sangala et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20210349795) and in further view of MacCarthaigh et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20210157692).
As per claim 13, Hu in view of Sangala discloses a scheduling agent (Sangala [0026], “the scheduling agent 402”). However Hu in view of Sangala fails to explicitly disclose selected intervals of 1 second or less.
MacCarthaigh of analogous art teaches:
the querying, determining, receiving, and comparing steps are initiated by a scheduling agent ([0161], “predetermined or dynamically determined schedule”) at selected intervals of 1 second or less ([0099], “the proxy system 605 polls the failover service at predetermined or dynamic intervals such that the proxy system 605 does not need to poll the failover service with every request. For example, the predetermined or dynamic interval may be 0.01 second, 0.1 second, 1 second, one 1 minute, and so forth. The proxy system 605 may continue to poll the failover service to identify when the data store 610 changes state.”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Hu and MacCarthaigh and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their replicated services methods. One would be motivated to make this combination since MacCarthaigh’s set interval is a mere example of Hu’s real time data reception (Hu, [0125], “services that provide real time data”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 17-20 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.
Reasons for allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After a complete search of all the relevant prior art the examiner has determined that the novel and non obvious feature of claims 4 and 17, when read as whole to be wherein the first instance of the replicated database is managed by global data services (GDS); wherein the comparing step further comprises determining if GDS is suspended and a last startup time for the first instance of the replicated database; and wherein the threshold further comprises a) the GDS not being suspended or b) the GDS being suspended and the last startup time for the first instance of the replicated database being less than 10 minutes.
The prior art does not teach the claimed invention as recited in dependent claims 4 and 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See included PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights