DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on December 11, 2025.
3. Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17 and 21-24 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 17 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended.5. Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18-20 are cancelled by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.7. Applicant argues that the rejection is improper under KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), because it allegedly relies on conclusory statements without articulated reasoning and that the cited references do not teach all elements of claim 1. Response: Examiner has carefully considered the argument but respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the rejection is set forth in the Office Action provides an element-by-element mapping of claim 1 to the applied references, supported by specific citations to Madan and Dageville. The rejection further includes an articulated rational explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references, namely, to improve consistency, efficiency, and accuracy of cross-deployment data replication using known snapshot and inventory-based techniques. Accordingly, the rejection is not based on conclusory statements but instead compiles with the requirement of KSR that obviousness determinations include “some articulated reasoning”. Second, Applicant’s assertion that “the cited portions of the references… do not disclose all elements of claim 1” is a general allegation lacking specificity. Applicant does not identify which particular limitation(s) are allegedly not taught or suggested by the applied references, nor does Applicant explain how the cited discourse fail to meet those limitations. Such a generalized statement does not meaningfully traverse the rejection. See MPEP § 2143.02 (a proper traversal requires specific arguments directed to particular limitations). Finally, Applicant’ statement that dependent claims 5-8 are allowable is likewise unsupported, as these claims depend from claim 1 and were rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above. Applicant has not presented separate, substantive arguments directed specifically to the additional limitations of these dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries 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.
11. Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al. US 20230418711 A1 (hereinafter Madan) in view of Dageville et al. US 20220019600 A1(hereinafter Dageville).
Regarding claim 1, Madan discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a primary deployment of a network-based data system, a refresh request to replicate data from the primary deployment to a secondary deployment (Madan [0045] e.g., “when a replication or failover group is refreshed a request is sent from the secondary to the primary” This teaches receiving a refresh request at a primary deployment to initiate replication to a second deployment);
identifying a first table created in the primary deployment since a previous refresh request (Madan [0169] e.g., “The at least one object or the external object may include at least one of: a table… The external object is a dangling reference to the at least one object such that the external object and the at least one object belong to different groups that are not replicated in response to a common request”. Madan discloses identifying object such as tables and their relationships within replication contexts, including distinguishing object based on grouping and external/dangling references across refresh boundaries); selecting the second table as a base table for cloning (Madan [0093] e.g., “…there may be a dependency between the data and structure of objects X and Y. In such an implementation, there may be a scenario where object X does not have a column even if object Y was created based on both the data and structure of object X”). Madan does not explicitly disclose: determining that the first table is a cloned table version of a second table by examining a clone table property of the first table;. This is about dependency; determining that the second table identified in the clone table property of the first table exists in the secondary deployment; retrieving an inventory of the second table from the second deployment, the inventory comprising expression property files of the second table from a previous refresh; performing a difference operation the first table and an the retrieved inventory of the second table; generating a snapshot in response to the refresh request, the snapshot comprising expression property files to clone the first table in the secondary deployment from the second table in the secondary deployment; and transmitting the snapshot to the secondary deployment. Dageville discloses: determining that the first table is a cloned table version of a second table by examining a clone table property of the first table (Dageville [0119] e.g., “The target deployment d2 converts all active files at table version No. 342 into a list of global file references according to the inventory … the target deployment … converts all active files … into a list of global file references according to the inventory”. These disclosures demonstrate that tables state and lineage are determined based on inventory metadata and shared file references, which correspond to determining that a table is derived (i.e., cloned) from another table); determining that the second table identified in the clone table property of the first table exists in the secondary deployment (Dageville [0119] e.g., “The source deployment dep1 includes a listing of table T's active files. The target deployment d2 also includes a listing of table T's active files…. only global file references are sent as part of the table's inventory, and only active files are sent”. This explicitly shows, the same table exists in both deployments and existence in secondary is affirmatively known); retrieving an inventory of the second table from the second deployment, the inventory comprising expression property files of the second table from a previous refresh (Dageville [0119] e.g., “As depicted in the inventory box, the current table version is No. 342 by way of illustration. The inventory includes a listing of relevant global file references. The target deployment d2 converts all active files at table version No. 342 into a list of global file references according to the inventory”. Dageville teaches retrieval of prior refresh inventory information); performing a difference operation the first table and an the retrieved inventory of the second table (Dageville [0122] e.g., “As illustrated in the discrepancy between the source deployment dep1 and the target deployment dep2, and as depicted in the snapshot response 1000, the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2”. This corresponds to performing a difference operation between table states and retrieved inventory); generating a snapshot in response to the refresh request, the snapshot comprising expression property files to clone the first table in the secondary deployment from the second table in the secondary deployment (Dageville [0120] e.g., “The snapshot response 1000 is generated by the source deployment dep1 in response to the refresh request 900. The snapshot response 1000 includes one or more of: (a) all micro-partition metadata to be added to the table; (b) the actual micro-partitions in a re-encrypted state; (c) all global micro-partition references to be removed from the table; (d) the table version sent from the target deployment dep2; and (e) the replication master key from which the micro-partitions were re-encrypted. In an embodiment,” Thus, Dageville teaches snapshot generation for cloning/reconstruction of tale state across deployments); and transmitting the snapshot to the secondary deployment (Dageville [0121] e.g., “…transmitting the snapshot response 1000 to the target deployment dep2”. Dageville explicitly teaches transmitting the snapshot response from the source deployment to the target deployment). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform the claimed steps because Madan teaches cross-deployment replication workflows, object tracking, and refresh-based consistency mechanisms, while Dageville teaches detailed snapshot-based table replication using inventories versioned metadata, and global file references. The combination would yield the predictable result of improving consistency, reduce redundant data transfer, and ensure accurate incremental refresh of cloned table structures across deployments.
Claims 9 and 17 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claim 1 in a machine-storage medium (Madan [0026] e.g., “…a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which”) and a system comprising: at least one hardware processor (Madan [0171] e.g., “…one or more processor(s)”) at least one memory (Madan [0171] e.g., “…one or more memory”) computer implemented method (Pederson [0006] e.g., “computer-implemented method”) and are rejected under the same rationale.
2. (Canceled)
3. (Canceled)
4. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a method, wherein the first table comprises a plurality of partitions (Dageville [0122] e.g., “…the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a method, further comprising: deduping partition files in the snapshot, wherein deduped partition files are to be shared by a plurality of tables in the secondary deployment (Dageville [0122] e.g., “...the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)…”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a method, wherein the primary deployment and secondary deployment are provided by different cloud service providers (Dageville [0037] e.g., “ In an embodiment of the disclosure, database data is stored across multiple cloud storage deployments…The cloud storage deployments may be located in a single geographic location but may be connected to different power supplies and/or use different computing machines for storing data”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a method, wherein determining that the first table is the cloned table version of the second table is based on a table property of the first table (Dageville [0119] e.g., “The target deployment d2 converts all active files at table version No. 342 into a list of global file references according to the inventory” This teaches identifying a cloned version of a table by comparing its active files to a prior inventory of the source table).
10. (Canceled)
11. (Canceled)
12. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a machine-storage medium, wherein the first table comprises a plurality of partitions (Dageville [0122] e.g., “…the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)”).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a machine-storage medium, further comprising: deduping partition files in the snapshot, wherein deduped partition files are to be shared by a plurality of tables in the secondary deployment (Dageville [0122] e.g., “...the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)…”).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 9 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a machine-storage medium, wherein the primary deployment and secondary deployment are provided by different cloud service providers (Dageville [0037] e.g., “ In an embodiment of the disclosure, database data is stored across multiple cloud storage deployments…The cloud storage deployments may be located in a single geographic location but may be connected to different power supplies and/or use different computing machines for storing data”).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 9 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a machine-storage medium, wherein determining that the first table is the cloned table version of the second table is based on a table property of the first table (Dageville [0119] e.g., “The target deployment d2 converts all active files at table version No. 342 into a list of global file references according to the inventory” This teaches identifying a cloned version of a table by comparing its active files to a prior inventory of the source table).
18. (Canceled)
19. (Canceled)
20. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 17 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a system, wherein the first table comprises a plurality of partitions (Dageville [0122] e.g., “…the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)”).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a system, the operations further comprising:
deduping partition files in the snapshot, wherein deduped partition files are to be shared by a plurality of tables in the secondary deployment (Dageville [0122] e.g., “...the micro-partitions with short names fdn15 and fdn16_g need to be added to table T at the target deployment dep2. Further, micro-partitions with global file references (dep1, fdn12), (dep0, fdn4)…”).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 17 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a system, wherein the primary deployment and secondary deployment are provided by different cloud service providers (Dageville [0037] e.g., “ In an embodiment of the disclosure, database data is stored across multiple cloud storage deployments…The cloud storage deployments may be located in a single geographic location but may be connected to different power supplies and/or use different computing machines for storing data”).
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 17 is hereby incorporated by reference, Madan and Dageville discloses a system, wherein determining that the first table is the cloned table version of the second table is based on a table property of the first table (Dageville [0119] e.g., “The target deployment d2 converts all active files at table version No. 342 into a list of global file references according to the inventory” This teaches identifying a cloned version of a table by comparing its active files to a prior inventory of the source table).
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU MITIKU whose telephone number is (571)270-1983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:30Am -4:00PM.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/BERHANU MITIKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2156
/AJAY M BHATIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights