DETAILED ACTION
Application No. 18/879,472 filed on 12/27/2024 has been examined. Claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 20 and 22 are canceled. In this Office Action, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 21 and 23-27 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 appear to be directed to two different statutory classes and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph (as being indefinite).
In other words these claims are directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 and MPEP 2173.05(p).
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 15-17, 19, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In view of applicant claim limitations it is not clear if system include definitive hardware or physical components. Applicant is suggested to insert – “memory and processor” in the claim to obviate this rejection.
Claims 16-17,19,21,23-26 are also rejected under 35 U.S. C 101 because they fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, 21, 23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella (US 2023/0306014 A1) in view of Andreakis et al (US 11,860,849 B2) in view of Flatten et al (US 10,803,169 B1) further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2006/0095373 A1).
As per claim 1, Akella teaches a method of reconciling data sent from a database server to a cloud storage system ([0004]-[0015], e.g., a computing environment for cloud computing that supports transactionally consistent database exports and the computing system generate a transactionally consistent copy of a live database and then export this database copy to the backup file).
receiving a data transaction from a structured query language (SQL) database operated by the server (paragraphs [0039], [0041]-[0044], e.g., discloses that the live database may comprise Microsoft SQL server database, an Oracle SQL database, a MySQL database, receiving committed transactions and obtaining corresponding change log information from the live database during export and the backup manager communicates with the live database to receive transaction information).
Akella does not explicitly teach the data transaction including a source instance with log sequence numbers and corresponding data records, wherein the log sequence numbers are stored in a change data capture (CDC) table and streaming the data transaction via a cloud-based data integration service.
However, Andreakis teaches the data transaction including a source instance with log sequence numbers and corresponding data records, wherein the log sequence numbers are stored in a change data capture (CDC) table (col.7, lines 15-35, discloses source datastores including relational databases, tables, rows, and columns together with watermark table 125 and change log 127; col.8, lines 22-44, disclose change log events including log sequence numbers (LSNs), column values, schema information, and pre-change and post-change row images; Fig.1, illustrating source database 121, watermark table 125, change log 127, and log events 128) and streaming the data transaction via a cloud-based data integration service (col.9, line 17-30, discloses streams 162 handling real-time data feeds; col.9, lines 38-50, discloses CDC Log platform 140 operating as an Internet-based distributed computing and cloud storage system; col.9, lines 51-65, discloses CDC connector 141 capturing committed database changes and propagating the changes to sink datastores 160).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Andreakis with the teachings of Akella in order to efficiently enabling a system for maintaining LSN-based CDC metadata and streaming committed database changes through CDC connectors to cloud sink datastores (Andreakis).
Akella and Andreakis do not explicitly teach storing the data transaction into an object storage service bucket via a storage object service and executing a data reconciliation service that deploys a CloudTrail target to generate a log file from the data transaction stored in the object storage service bucket.
However, Flatten teaches storing the data transaction into an object storage service bucket via a storage object service (col.4, lines 40-60, discloses AWS CloudTrail recording cloud activity and storing the activity history in an Amazon S3 bucket; col.5, lines 29-44, discloses Amazon S3 storage-service logs stored in a target bucket; Fig.1, illustrating storage-service logs 118 and account activity logs 112 processed by cloud threat detection system 102) and executing a data reconciliation service that deploys a CloudTrail target to generate a log file from the data transaction stored in the object storage service bucket (col.4, lines 40-60, discloses CloudTrail continuously monitoring and recording cloud events; col.5, lines 29-44, discloses CloudTrail log delivery to Amazon S3 target buckets; Fig. 1, illustrating processing of CloudTrail logs by cloud monitoring services).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Flatten with the teachings of Akella and Andreakis in order to enable a system for recording cloud activity logs and storing the activity logs in an Amazon S3 bucket in efficient manner (Flatten).
Akella, Andreakis and Flatten do not explicitly teach flagging a missing data record to an exception table based on the comparison and providing an alert of the missing data record.
However, Venkatasubramanian teaches flagging a missing data record to an exception table based on the comparison (paragraph [0043], discloses performing a missing-data check, creating an exception, and storing the exception; paragraphs [0070]-[0071], discloses an exception inbox containing a "Missing Information" exception; paragraph [0083], discloses highlighting or marking missing information fields) and providing an alert of the missing data record (paragraph [0081], discloses automatically sending an electronic notification/alert informing the recipient that information is missing and paragraphs [0083]-[0084], discloses automatically generating an email notification identifying the missing information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Venkatasubramanian with the teachings of Akella, Andreakis and Flatten in order to efficiently enabling a system to create a missing-information exception, marking the missing information, storing the exception and automatically notifying a recipient of the missing information (Venkatasubramanian).
As per claim 2, wherein the object storage service bucket is an AWS S3 database or a Snowflake database (col. 4, discloses AWS CloudTrail records account activity and stores the activity history in an Amazon S3 bucket, col. 5, discloses storage-service logs maintained in an Amazon S3 target bucket and Fig. 1, illustrating storage-service logs 118 and account activity logs processed from Amazon S3 storage, Flatten).
As per claim 7, wherein the alert is an email includes further details relating to the missing transaction (paragraph [0081], e.g., detects missing information and automatically sends an electronic notification to U1 notifying U1 that the received invoice is missing data. The electronic notification may include some or all of the invoice data, invoice context information and paragraph [0084], teaching generating an email notification identifying the missing information, Venkatasubramanian).
As per claim 9, wherein a structured query language agent on the server compares the log sequence numbers (paragraph [0055], discloses that, prior to initiating the export operation, the backup service obtains the latest log sequence number (LSN) of the change log by invoking the SQL Server system procedure sys.fn_cdc_get_max_lsn(), retrieves the latest LSN from computing system 205-a when database 207-a is a Microsoft SQL Server database, records the latest LSN, and considers transactions committed after the latest LSN, having LSNs greater than the recorded LSN, for application to exported database 212-a, Akella) and flags the missing data record to an exception table (paragraph [0072, discloses wherein if the fields do not match, the system flag those fields and highlight non-matching fields, Venkatasubramanian).
As per claim 11, wherein the SQL server operates a database service comprising one of a SQL or a TIBCO database management service (paragraph [0037], disclosing the database may be a structured query language (SQL) database (e.g., a Microsoft SQL Server database), Akella).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 27, claims 13, 15, 27 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 16, 21, 23, 25, claims 16, 21, 23, 25 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2, 7, 9, 11 above.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella (US 2023/0306014 A1) in view of Andreakis et al (US 11,860,849 B2) in view of Flatten et al (US 10,803,169 B1) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2006/0095373 A1) further in view of Vora et al (2024/0004840 A1, which claims priority to provisional application no. 63/356956 filed on Jun.29, 2022).
As per claim 3, Akella, Andreakis, Flatten and Venkatasubramanian do not explicitly teach further comprising converting the sent data into a different format than the format of the data in the server, wherein the different format is a Parquet file.
However, Vora teaches further comprising converting the sent data into a different format than the format of the data in the server, wherein the different format is a Parquet file ([0037], [0040], e.g., disclosing different file converters can be configured to convert files of different corresponding source file formats into the target file format, for example if the target file format is the Parquet file format, file converter 110A may convert JSON files into Parquet file).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Vora with the teachings of Akella, Andreakis, Flatten, and Venkatasubramanian in order to enabling a system for automatically determine source file formats of a set of source files and invoke corresponding file converters to convert the source files into output files that are formatted according to the same target file format (Vora).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 3 above.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella (US 2023/0306014 A1) in view of Andreakis et al (US 11,860,849 B2) in view of Flatten et al (US 10,803,169 B1) further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2006/0095373 A1) further in view of Ellison (US 2013/0346232 A1).
As per claim 5, Akella, Andreakis, Flatten and Venkatasubramanian do not explicitly teach further comprising periodically reviewing the exception table, and wherein providing the alert is based on the periodic review or a cloud watch log entry from a notification lambda service of the notification service.
However, Ellison teaches further comprising periodically reviewing the exception table, and wherein providing the alert is based on the periodic review or a cloud watch log entry from a notification lambda service of the notification service ([0059], e.g., disclosing periodically checks the example server's databases for all Schedule and Save orders that are to be shipped to customers, and in advance of every such shipment, an email notification is sent to the customer confirming the scheduled delivery).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ellison with the teachings of Akella, Andreakis, Flatten, and Venkatasubramanian in order to enabling a system for periodically reviewing records stored in a server database to identify scheduled orders and providing an email alert based on the periodic review when an order is scheduled for shipment to a customer (Ellison).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 5 above.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella (US 2023/0306014 A1) in view of Andreakis et al (US 11,860,849 B2) in view of Flatten et al (US 10,803,169 B1) further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2006/0095373 A1) further in view of Blechman (US 2020/0258605 A1).
As per claim 10, Akella, Andreakis, Flatten and Venkatasubramanian do not explicitly teach wherein the log sequence numbers of the data transaction stored in the object storage service are determined by a parser lambda function.
However, Blechman teaches wherein the log sequence numbers of the data transaction stored in the object storage service are determined by a parser lambda function (paragraph [0069], disclosing Lambda functions 5132 access permitted data from blockchain storage 5109, report usage by generating audit events 5134, execute internal logic, such as permission checks, data filtering and throttling and searching for specific patterns in raw data, returning calculation results specified for this Lambda function 5132 to blockchain storage 5109 and to provider 5137 and Fig. 5, illustrating Lambda function 5132 processing data stored in blockchain storage and returning processed results).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Blechman with the teachings of Akella, Andreakis, Flatten, and Venkatasubramanian in order to efficiently enabling a system for using Lambda functions to process stored data in an event-driven, scalable computing environment, thereby improving automated processing of stored information (Blechman).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 10 above.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella (US 2023/0306014 A1) in view of Andreakis et al (US 11,860,849 B2) in view of Flatten et al (US 10,803,169 B1) further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2006/0095373 A1) further in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239 A1).
As per claim 12, Akella, Andreakis, Flatten and Venkatasubramanian do not explicitly teach further comprising automatically determining the missing data record from the SQL database operated by the server.
However, Banister teaches further comprising automatically determining the missing data record from the SQL database operated by the server (paragraphs [0030]-[0036], e.g., teach executable instructions executed by a processor that automatically comparing all of the keys of active records of the temporary table with a SQL statement to determine which records... are missing... in the target database table).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Banister with the teachings of Akella, Andreakis, Flatten, and Venkatasubramanian in order to efficiently enabling a system for comparing all keys of active records using a SQL statement to determine which records are missing from the target database table and generating a refresh list identifying those records for synchronization (Banister).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 12 above.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Froese et al US 11514020 B2 discloses Method for Tracking Log History Of Change Data Collection Or Change Data Collection Log History, Involves Performing Mirroring Operation Of Source System To Accordingly Create Change Operations.
Teixeira et al US 20190066216 A1 discloses System for Managing Financial Assets and Associated Fees for Clients, Has Processor for Correlating Issued Series Data, Related Financial Fee Data and Client Financial Data and Transmitting Invoice Requests to Securities Issuance Server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights