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
The instant application having Application No. 18/833,678 has claims 1-10 pending filed on 07/26/2024; there are 4 independent claim and 6 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 23, 2025 in response to PTO Office Action dated July 23, 2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
Objections to the Claims
In view of the applicant’s amendment to the dependent claim 2 (dated 09/10/2025), the objection to the claim 2 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the applicant’s amendments to the independent claims 1 and 2 (dated 10/23/2025), the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more of the claims 1-8 is withdrawn but the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more is maintained for independent claims 9 and 10 as no similar amendments as in independent claim 1 or claim 2 were made to the independent claims 9 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Independent Claims 1 and 2
Applicant argues on page 8 in regards to the independent claims 1 and 2, “In response, it is submitted that claims 1 and 2 have been amended according to the
Examiner's comment. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the above rejections to claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, be withdrawn.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 8 in regards to the independent claims 1 and 2. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is maintained as there is still insufficient antecedent basis for a limitation in the claim after making the amendments to the independent claims 1 and 2.
Dependent Claims 7 and 8
Applicant argues on page 8 in regards to the dependent claims 7 and 8, “The USPTO respectfully rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as allegedly being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the
limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In response, it is respectfully submitted that claims 7 and 8 were previously amended to have single dependent form in the preliminary amendment filed on July 26, 2025.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 8 in regards to the dependent claims 7 and 8. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (d) for as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is maintained as the dependent claims 7 and 8 include similar limitations as they are added in the amended independent claim 2. Thus the dependent claims 7 and 8 fail to further limit the subject matter of the independent claim 2 upon which the dependent claims depend. .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 103 Rejection of claims 1-10
Independent Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10
CLAIM 1
Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 in regards to the independent claim 1, “However, it is noted that Fujiyama merely discloses that Fujiyama only performs sequential SQL conversion and issuance between an old and new DBMS, not simultaneous execution for comparative performance testing. That is, Fujiyama does not teach or suggest that ‘the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means, and issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion corresponding to the test SQL after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion’. Sugiyama does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Fujiyama and Sugiyama, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest ‘wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means, and issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion corresponding to the test SQL after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion’ as recited in amended claim 1.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on pages 9 and 10 in regards to the independent claim 1. The combination of Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230), Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446) and Ito et al (US Patent 5721904) teaches all the limitations of the amended independent claim 1. The prior art Fujiyama (Paragraph [0113]) teaches “wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion corresponding to the test SQL”, Ito (Col 8 Lines 58-67 and Col 9 Lines 1-8) teaches “wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means”, Ito (Col 4 Lines 41-45) teaches “of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means”, and Ito (Col 1 Lines 56-62 and Col 20 Lines 27-35) teaches “after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion”. Thus, the applicant’s arguments against Fujiyama and Sugiyama are moot.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 9 and 10
Applicant argues on page 10 in regards to the independent claims 1,2, 9 and 10, “the cited references, taken either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 2, 9 and 10. Therefore, it is respectfully asserted that independent claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are allowable.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 10 in regards to the independent claims 1, 2, 9 and 10. As specified supra for the independent Claim 1, the combination of Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230), Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446) and Ito et al (US Patent 5721904) teaches all the limitations of the amended independent claim 2. The claims 9 and 10 haven’t been amended to include the new limitations as the independent claims 1 and 2. Thus, the claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are not allowable.
Dependent Claims 3-8
Applicant argues on pages 10 and 11 in regards to the dependent claims 3-8, “As noted above, it is respectfully asserted that independent claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are allowable, and therefore it is further respectfully asserted that dependent claims 3-8 are also allowable.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on pages 10 and 11 in regards to the dependent claims 3-8. As specified supra for the independent Claim 1, the combination of Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230), Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446) , Ito et al (US Patent 5721904) and Yamada et al (JP 2016009225) teaches all the limitations of the dependent claims 3-8. Thus, the claims 3-8 are not allowable.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
The claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component in claims 2-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: an information processing method in an information processing device that executes a database migration test, the method comprising; a first SQL issuance processing operation of issuing a test SQL to a first database in the same environment as a current database together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time; a second SQL issuance processing operation of issuing the test SQL together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time to a second database in the same environment as a database that is a migration destination; a first response acquisition operation of acquiring a first response from the first database; a second response acquisition operation of acquiring a second response from the second database; a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation; and a response time comparison operation of comparing respective execution times in a case where it is determined that the first response and the second response are the same through the process in the response result comparison operation.
Step 1: Statutory Category:
Yes, the claim recites a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited:
The limitations of the claim recites an information processing method in an information processing device that executes a database migration test, the method comprising; a first SQL issuance processing operation of issuing a test SQL to a first database in the same environment as a current database together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time; a second SQL issuance processing operation of issuing the test SQL together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time to a second database in the same environment as a database that is a migration destination; a first response acquisition operation of acquiring a first response from the first database; a second response acquisition operation of acquiring a second response from the second database; a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation; and a response time comparison operation of comparing respective execution times. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As per MPEP 2106,04(a)(2) III “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “in a case where it is determined that the first response and the second response are the same through the process in the response result comparison operation” in the claim limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Accordingly, there are no additional elements in the claim limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims provide an Inventive Concept
The claim 9 does not have additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 9 is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 10 have similar limitations as claim 9, thus the independent claim 10 is rejected for the reasons specified supra for the independent claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), as the claim 10 is directed to a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se").
Because the full scope of the claim 10 encompasses non-statutory subject
matter (i.e., software per se), the claim 10 as a whole is non-statutory. The Examiner suggests amending the claim 10 so that the claim 10 falls within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1
i) As per claim 1, the claim recites “… wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means … “. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant needs to amend the language of the claim to overcome the lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim 1. Thus, the claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
ii) As per claim 1, the claim recites “… wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means … after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion “. The claim limitation language is confusing and not clear. The applicant states “issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion” and then later on states “issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion”. The two statements are conflicting. As per MPEP 2173.05(a) (i) “the claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention”. The applicant needs to amend the language of the claim so that “the meaning of every term should be apparent”, particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Thus, the claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
For this office action, the examiner assumes that Independent claims 1 includes “… wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means … after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion “.
The independent claim 2 have similar limitations as claim 1, thus the independent claim 2 is rejected for the reasons specified supra for the independent claim 1.
The dependent claims 3-8 are rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent on the independent claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS-Subject to subsection (e), a claim in
dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As per dependent claims 7 and 8, the claims include similar limitations as they are added in the amended independent claim 2 and do not further limit the subject matter of the independent claim 2 Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230) in view of Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446) and in further view of Ito et al (US Patent 5721904).
As per claim 1:
Fujiyama teaches:
“An information processing system including a first database in the same environment as a current database, a second database in the same environment as a migration destination database, and an information processing device” (Paragraph [0036] (there is provided a first computer system including: one or more application servers on which an application program that issues a database processing request conforming to a first database operation language (as a current database) in accordance with a database independent protocol runs and a database server which receives a database processing request conforming to a second database (as a migration destination database) operation language in accordance with a database dependent protocol))
“the information processing device including” (Paragraph [0036] (a database connecting unit including))
“a first SQL issuance processing means for issuing a test SQL for each session to the first database together with a command for measuring an execution time of the test SQL” (Paragraph [0113] (an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol)))
“a second SQL issuance processing means for issuing the test SQL for each session for each session to the second database together with a command for measuring an execution time of the test SQL” (Paragraph [0113] (a new database server that receives a database processing request conforming to a second database operation language (SQL for a new DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (new DB protocol)))
“a SQL sending control means for controlling issuance of the SQL for each session from the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means” (Paragraph [0113] (a database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) that multiplexes the database processing requests issued from the application program, converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server 5200 to provide the data processing result to the old database server 5200, converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server 5300 to provide the database processing request to the new database server))
“a first response acquisition processing means for acquiring a first response from the first database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server to provide the data processing result to the old database server (acquiring a first response from the first database)))
“a second response acquisition processing means for acquiring a second response from the second database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server to provide the database processing request to the new database server to provide the data processing results of the new database server))
“and a response time comparison means for comparing respective execution times in a case where the response result comparison means determines that the first response and the second response are the same” (Paragraph [0142] (the verifying unit investigates the contents of the data processing results from both the DBMSs and compares and verifies the data processing results including the verification system has a first system and second system, each including data processing times necessary until the data processing results are returned after the data processing requests are provided may be measured and compared))
“wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion corresponding to the test SQL” (Paragraph [0113] (a database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) that multiplexes the database processing requests issued from the application program, converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server 5200 and an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) to provide the data processing result)).
Fujiyama does not EXPLICITLY teach: a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response; a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired; wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion.
However, in an analogous art, Sugiyama teaches:
“a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2))
“a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Sugiyama and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama for the information processing system “a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response; a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired”. One would be motivated as the database DB1 has a database function, and executes updating of the database and the like in response to requests received from the AP server WA1, the data base DB1 then transmits the results of having executed the received requests to the AP server WA1 where the database DB1 includes one or multiple databases (Sugiyama, Paragraph [0074]).
Fujiyama and Sugiyama do not EXPLICITLY teach: wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches:
“wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means” (Col 8 Lines 58-67 and Col 9 Lines 1-8 (the gateway information processing system includes an access management component, two types of database access language conversion means which are called SQL conversion unit here as the SQL is used as a database access language and include the SQL conversion unit A and the SQL conversion unit B, database drivers, an RPC driver and the access management component))
“of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means” (Col 4 Lines 41-45 (the access management means and the SQL conversion unit are connected by the RPC, and is used for the processing request to the access management means as for the processing request to the SQL conversion unit))
“after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion” (Col 1 Lines 56-62 and Col 20 Lines 27-35 (an access management component is operated in such a manner that the SQL statement issued by the application software for database access is delivered to the component of the SQL conversion unit A when the destination of access is DBMSA, and to the component of the SQL conversion unit B when the destination of access is DBMSB and the gateway information processing system is used only for the case in which the SQL statement designating simultaneous access (executed in parallel) to DBMSA and DBMSB)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Ito and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama and Sugiyama for the information processing device “wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion”. One would be motivated as the gateway function is realized by the access management component and the SQL conversion unit A, SQL conversion unit B on the client information system, so that it is possible to access DBMSs having different SQL specifications using a single SQL specification (Ito, Col 2 Lines 18-23).
As per claim 2:
Fujiyama teaches:
“An information processing device comprising” (Paragraph [0036] (a database connecting unit including))
“a first SQL issuance processing means for issuing a test SQL for each session to a first database in the same environment as a current database together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time” (Paragraph [0113] (an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol)))
“a second SQL issuance processing means for issuing the test SQL for each session together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time to a second database in the same environment as a database that is a migration destination” (Paragraph [0113] (a new database server that receives a database processing request conforming to a second database operation language (SQL for a new DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (new DB protocol)))
“a SQL sending control means for controlling issuance of the SQL from the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means” (Paragraph [0113] (a database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) that multiplexes the database processing requests issued from the application program, converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server 5200 to provide the data processing result to the old database server 5200, converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server 5300 to provide the database processing request to the new database server))
“a first response acquisition processing means for acquiring a first response from the first database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server to provide the data processing result to the old database server (acquiring a first response from the first database)))
“a second response acquisition processing means for acquiring a second response from the second database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server to provide the database processing request to the new database server to provide the data processing results of the new database server))
“and a response time comparison means for comparing respective execution times in a case where the response result comparison means determines that the first response and the second response are the same” (Paragraph [0142] (the verifying unit investigates the contents of the data processing results from both the DBMSs and compares and verifies the data processing results including the verification system has a first system and second system, each including data processing times necessary until the data processing results are returned after the data processing requests are provided may be measured and compared))
“wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion corresponding to the test SQL” (Paragraph [0113] (a database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) that multiplexes the database processing requests issued from the application program, converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server 5200 and an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) to provide the data processing result)).
Fujiyama does not EXPLICITLY teach: a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response; a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired; wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion.
However, in an analogous art, Sugiyama teaches:
“a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2))
“a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Sugiyama and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama for the information processing device “a normal response presence/absence determination means for determining whether the first response acquisition processing means and the second response acquisition processing means have acquired the normal first response and the normal second response; a response result comparison means for comparing the first response and the second response to determine whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where the normal response presence/absence determination means determines that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired”. One would be motivated as the database DB1 has a database function, and executes updating of the database and the like in response to requests received from the AP server WA1, the data base DB1 then transmits the results of having executed the received requests to the AP server WA1 where the database DB1 includes one or multiple databases (Sugiyama, Paragraph [0074]).
Fujiyama and Sugiyama do not EXPLICITLY teach: wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion.
However, in an analogous art, Ito teaches:
“wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means” (Col 8 Lines 58-67 and Col 9 Lines 1-8 (the gateway information processing system includes an access management component, two types of database access language conversion means which are called SQL conversion unit here as the SQL is used as a database access language and include the SQL conversion unit A and the SQL conversion unit B, database drivers, an RPC driver and the access management component))
“of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means” (Col 4 Lines 41-45 (the access management means and the SQL conversion unit are connected by the RPC, and is used for the processing request to the access management means as for the processing request to the SQL conversion unit))
“after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion” (Col 1 Lines 56-62 and Col 20 Lines 27-35 (an access management component is operated in such a manner that the SQL statement issued by the application software for database access is delivered to the component of the SQL conversion unit A when the destination of access is DBMSA, and to the component of the SQL conversion unit B when the destination of access is DBMSB and the gateway information processing system is used only for the case in which the SQL statement designating simultaneous access (executed in parallel) to DBMSA and DBMSB)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Ito and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama and Sugiyama for the information processing device “wherein the SQL sending control means causes issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means; after conversion, to be executed in parallel with issuance, by the first SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL before conversion and issuance, by the second SQL issuance processing means, of the test SQL after conversion”. One would be motivated as the gateway function is realized by the access management component and the SQL conversion unit A, SQL conversion unit B on the client information system, so that it is possible to access DBMSs having different SQL specifications using a single SQL specification (Ito, Col 2 Lines 18-23).
As per claim 3:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device of claim 2 above.
Fujiyama further teaches:
“SQL acquisition processing means for acquiring an SQL actually executed on the current database” (Paragraph [0078] (the database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) includes an operation language converting unit (SQL converting unit) that converts the database processing request issued from the application program into the second database operation language (SQL for the current DB)))
“ Wherein the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means issue, as the test SQL, an SQL acquired by the SQL acquisition processing means and actually executed on the current database ” (Paragraph [0078] (a protocol converting unit (new DB protocol converting unit) that converts the database processing request having been converted from its database operation language (SQL for the old DB) into the second database operation language (SQL for the current DB) from its protocol (standard protocol) into the database dependent protocol (current DB protocol) and converts the data processing result of the database server from its protocol (current DB protocol) into the database independent protocol (standard protocol))).
As per claim 4:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device of claim 3 above.
Fujiyama further teaches:
“wherein the SQL acquisition processing means further acquires session information of the SQL actually executed on the current database” (Paragraph [0078] (an application program that issues a database processing request conforming to a first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) runs, a new database server that receives a database processing request conforming to a second database operation language i.e. SQL for a new DB (SQL for the current DB)))
“ the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means issue the test SQL for each session on the basis of the session information” (Paragraph [0079] (the database connecting unit (extension DB connection middleware) includes an operation language converting unit (SQL converting unit) that converts the database processing request issued from the application program from its database operation language (SQL for the old DB) into the second database operation language (SQL for the new DB) based on the session (DB) information)).
As per claim 5:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device of claim 2 above.
Fujiyama further teaches:
“the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means issue the test SQL for each session” (Paragraph [0166] (in the verification mode, the data processing request as the SQL for the old DB is provided to the old DBMS, the data processing request subjected to an SQL conversion based on the conversion information is provided to the new DBMS (issue the test SQL for each session), and the verification operation is performed)).
As per claim 7:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device of claim 2 above.
Ito further teaches:
“wherein the SQL sending control means performs control such that the first SQL issuance processing means and the second SQL issuance processing means issue the SQL simultaneously or substantially simultaneously” (Col 1 Lines 56-62 and Col 20 Lines 27-35 (an access management component is operated in such a manner that the SQL statement issued by the application software for database access is delivered to the component of the SQL conversion unit A when the destination of access is DBMSA, and to the component of the SQL conversion unit B when the destination of access is DBMSB and the gateway information processing system is used only for the case in which the SQL statement designating simultaneous access to DBMSA and DBMSB)).
As per claim 8:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device of claim 2 above.
Ito further teaches:
“SQL conversion processing means for performing a conversion process on the SQL” (Col 4 Lines 41-45 (the access management means and the SQL conversion unit are connected by the RPC, and is used for the processing request to the access management means as for the processing request to the SQL conversion unit)).
“wherein the SQL sending control means controls issuance, from the second SQL issuance processing means, of a session including an SQL after conversion generated through conversion performed by the SQL conversion processing means, and controls issuance, from the first SQL issuance processing means, of a session including an SQL before conversion corresponding to the SQL after conversion issued by the second SQL issuance processing means” (Col 8 Lines 58-67 and Col 9 Lines 1-8 (the gateway information processing system includes an access management component, two types of database access language conversion means which are called SQL conversion unit here as the SQL is used as a database access language and include the SQL conversion unit A and the SQL conversion unit B, database drivers, an RPC driver and the access management component, SQL conversion unit A, SQL conversion unit B, a database driver A, a database driver B, an RPC driver and a LAN driver of the gateway information processing system are implemented)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230) in view of Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446) and in further view of Ito et al (US Patent 5721904) and Yamada et al (JP 2016009225).
As per claim 6:
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito teach the information processing device according to claim 2 above.
Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito do not EXPLICITLY teach: execution plan acquisition control means for controlling acquisition of an execution plan of a corresponding SQL in a case where the response time comparison means determines that an execution speed in the second response is lower than an execution speed in the first response.
However, in an analogous art, Yamada teaches::
“execution plan acquisition control means for controlling acquisition of an execution plan of a corresponding SQL in a case where the response time comparison means determines that an execution speed in the second response is lower than an execution speed in the first response” (Page 4 Lines 40-44 and Page 11 Lines 22-24 (the execution plan management unit of the database management apparatus reads the normal execution plan corresponding to the SQL statement and receives the execution plan of the old execution SQLfrom the database server where the two execution plans are compared to determine whether they match and returns to the execution plan processed at the normal time in the past when the processing time is delayed due to the new execution plan)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Yamada and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama, Sugiyama and Ito for the information processing device “execution plan acquisition control means for controlling acquisition of an execution plan of a corresponding SQL in a case where the response time comparison means determines that an execution speed in the second response is lower than an execution speed in the first response”. One would be motivated as a database management method for generating an execution plan for a new query statement for improving the efficiency of memory resources and the system speed (Yamada, Page 2 Lines 23-25).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al (US PGPUB 20090307230) in view of Sugiyama et al (US PGPUB 20140365446).
As per claim 9:
Fujiyama teaches:
“An information processing method in an information processing device that executes a database migration test, the method comprising” (Paragraph [0085] and Paragraph [0086] (a database access method in the computer system that the SQL for the old DBMS before the migration is issued through the DB connection middleware includes))
“a first SQL issuance processing operation of issuing a test SQL to a first database in the same environment as a current database together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time” (Paragraph [0113] (an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol)))
“a second SQL issuance processing operation of issuing the test SQL together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time to a second database in the same environment as a database that is a migration destination” (Paragraph [0113] (a new database server that receives a database processing request conforming to a second database operation language (SQL for a new DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (new DB protocol)))
“a first response acquisition operation of acquiring a first response from the first database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server to provide the data processing result to the old database server (acquiring a first response from the first database)))
“a second response acquisition operation of acquiring a second response from the second database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server to provide the database processing request to the new database server to provide the data processing results of the new database server))
“and a response time comparison operation of comparing respective execution times in a case where it is determined that the first response and the second response are the same through the process in the response result comparison operation” (Paragraph [0142] (the verifying unit investigates the contents of the data processing results from both the DBMSs and compares and verifies the data processing results including the verification system has a first system and second system, each including data processing times necessary until the data processing results are returned after the data processing requests are provided may be measured and compared)).
Fujiyama does not EXPLICITLY teach: a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation.
However, in an analogous art, Sugiyama teaches:
“a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2))
“a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Sugiyama and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama for the information processing method “a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation”. One would be motivated as the database DB1 has a database function, and executes updating of the database and the like in response to requests received from the AP server WA1, the data base DB1 then transmits the results of having executed the received requests to the AP server WA1 where the database DB1 includes one or multiple databases (Sugiyama, Paragraph [0074]).
As per claim 10:
Fujiyama teaches:
“A program for causing a computer configuring a database migration test device to execute” (Paragraph [0085] and Paragraph [0086] (an application program that issues the database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for the old DB) in accordance with the database independent protocol in the computer system that the SQL for the old DBMS before the migration is issued through the DB connection middleware includes))
“a first SQL issuance processing operation of issuing a test SQL to a first database in the same environment as a current database together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time” (Paragraph [0113] (an old database server that receives a database processing request conforming to the first database operation language (SQL for an old DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (old DB protocol)))
“a second SQL issuance processing operation of issuing the test SQL together with a command for measuring an SQL execution time to a second database in the same environment as a database that is a migration destination” (Paragraph [0113] (a new database server that receives a database processing request conforming to a second database operation language (SQL for a new DB) in accordance with a database dependent protocol (new DB protocol)))
“a first response acquisition operation of acquiring a first response from the first database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts one database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (old DB protocol) suitable for the old database server to provide the data processing result to the old database server (acquiring a first response from the first database)))
“a second response acquisition operation of acquiring a second response from the second database” (Paragraph [0113] (converts the other database processing request from its protocol into the database dependent protocol (new DB protocol) suitable for the new database server to provide the database processing request to the new database server to provide the data processing results of the new database server))
“and a response time comparison operation of comparing respective execution times in a case where it is determined that the first response and the second response are the same through the process in the response result comparison operation” (Paragraph [0142] (the verifying unit investigates the contents of the data processing results from both the DBMSs and compares and verifies the data processing results including the verification system has a first system and second system, each including data processing times necessary until the data processing results are returned after the data processing requests are provided may be measured and compared)).
Fujiyama does not EXPLICITLY teach: a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation.
However, in an analogous art, Sugiyama teaches:
“a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2))
“a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation” (Paragraph [0052] and Paragraph [0053] (the database DB transmits the first SQL response 1, which is the response to the first SQL request 1, to the AP server WA#1, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp1 and The database DB transmits the second SQL response 2, which is the response to the second SQL request 2, to the AP server WA#2, as indicated by the reference symbol S_Rsp2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Sugiyama and apply them on teachings of Fujiyama for a program “a normal response presence/absence determination operation of determining whether the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired in the first response acquisition operation and the second response acquisition operation; a response result comparison operation of comparing the first response and the second response and determining whether the first response and the second response are the same in a case where it is determined that the normal first response and the normal second response have been acquired through the process in the normal response presence/absence determination operation”. One would be motivated as the database DB1 has a database function, and executes updating of the database and the like in response to requests received from the AP server WA1, the data base DB1 then transmits the results of having executed the received requests to the AP server WA1 where the database DB1 includes one or multiple databases (Sugiyama, Paragraph [0074]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikawa Masaya , (WO 2023145794 A1), it checks whether or not SQL works properly in a migration destination environment in a database migration test. The present invention is provided with: an SQL-statement acquisition processing unit that acquires an SQL statement; a first SQL-statement issuance processing unit that issues the acquired SQL statement to a current-environment test database; a second SQL-statement issuance processing unit that similarly issues the acquired SQL statement to a migration-destination-environment test database; an SQL-statement forwarding control unit that controls the issuance of the SQL statement; a first response acquisition processing unit that acquires a first response from the current-environment test database; a second response acquisition processing unit that acquires a second response from the migration-destination-environment test database; and a response comparison processing unit that checks whether or not a normal first response and a normal second response have been acquired and that compares the first response and the second response to check whether or not the first response and the second response are the same.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/KAMAL DEWAN/
Examiner
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights