Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker US 20080162509 A1in view of Girten, Sharing a DeltaTable's Change DataFeed with DeltaSharing 0.5.0, pp. 1-8 (Year: 2023)
Claim 1
Reference: Becker US 20080162509 A1
Analysis
A system for managing a database in a multi-tenant cloud environment, the system comprising at least one processor programmed to perform operations comprising:
Abstract, para. 41
receiving, by a database management application, a first query directed to a first table, the first query being received from a cloud application associated with a first tenant of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 43, 44; 64; para. 147 (BI queries are directed to tables)
Examiner finds user tenant terminal software with network access to provider 110 is a cloud application. Examiner finds “tenant-specific data structures 215” the first table. The use of “table links” teaches that the structures are tables. Examiner finds BI queries are directed to a first table.
accessing, by the database management application, a first shared table associated with the first table and stored at a common storage of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 64, 68
In this regard, and as shown in FIG. 5, tenant database includes table links 225 that, when accessed by tenant server 114, redirect the server request to the corresponding shared data structure 214 in provider database 112.
Para. 77-78
In contrast, shared data structures 214 are those that contain data common to a plurality of tenant stations 130. In one embodiment, the various data structures are identified or classified by using data structure attributes defined in data dictionary 216.
. . . this step may only require placing the shared data structures in a common space of provider server.
Examiner finds “shared data structure” includes shared tables and common storage.
Becker further teaches a accessing a delta table link in paras. 149 and 151.
However, it appears Becker fails to explicitly teach “accessing, by the database management application and from a tenant data storage associated with the first tenant, a first tenant delta table for the first table, the first tenant delta table describing at least one modification[[s]] to data stored at the first shared table associated with the first tenant; generating, by the database management application, a first query response, the first query response being based at least in part on the first query, the first shared table and the first tenant delta table; and responding, by the database management application, to the first query using the first query response.”
However, Girten, Sharing a DeltaTable's Change DataFeed with DeltaSharing 0.5.0, pp. 1-8 (Year: 2023) teaches “accessing, by the database management application and from a tenant data storage associated with the first tenant, a first tenant delta table for the first table, the first tenant delta table describing at least one modification[[s]] to data stored at the first shared table associated with the first tenant on p. 2:
New to this release, is support for sharing the Change Data Feed for Delta tables. This is an excellent way for data recipients to keep track of incremental changes as they occur by the data provider. Data recipients may now read only the changes that have been made to a table, rather than having to re-read the entire dataset to get the latest snapshot
PNG
media_image1.png
691
1785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“generating, by the database management application, a query response, the first query response being based at least in part on the first query, the first shared table and the first tenant delta table” on p. 4 , (“the data recipient can now query the
Delta table changes from a sharing client” );
“and responding, by the database management application, to the first query using the first query response” on p. 4 (Python code):
PNG
media_image2.png
161
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(“#Display the first 5 table changes”).
Becker and Girten are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the accessing in Becker to include “accessing, by the database management application and from a tenant data storage associated with the first tenant, a first tenant delta table for the first table, the first tenant delta table describing at least one modification[[s]] to data stored at the first shared table associated with the first tenant; generating, by the database management application, a first query response, the first query response being based at least in part on the first query, the first shared table and the first tenant delta table; and responding, by the database management application, to the first query using the first query response.” as taught by Girten
The motivation would have been speed. See Girten page 2 (“This is an excellent way for data recipients to keep track of incremental changes as they occur by the data provider. Data recipients may now read only the changes that have been made to a table, rather than having to re-read the entire dataset to get the latest
snapshot.” ).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1.
Claim
Becker
Analysis
5. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, by the database management application, a third query directed to a third table, the third query being received from the cloud application associated with the first tenant of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 43, 44; 64; para. 147 (BI queries are directed to tables)
Examiner finds “BI queries” teaches any number of tables.
Examiner finds user tenant terminal software with network access to provider 110 is a cloud application. Examiner finds “tenant-specific data structures 215” is a third table. The use of “table links” teaches that the structures are tables. Examiner finds BI queries are directed to any number of tables including a third table.
determining, by the database management application, that the third table is a read-only table;
Para. 149
In this way, usage of delta table link 1925 is restricted to utilities using delta table links 1925 at the database level. Delta table links 1925 may allow read-only or full access to tenant data structure 1810 located in provider space 310.
accessing, by the database management application, a third shared table stored at the common storage of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 57, 64, 68
In this regard, and as shown in FIG. 5, tenant database includes table links 225 that, when accessed by tenant server 114, redirect the server request to the corresponding shared data structure 214 in provider database 112.
Examiner finds “shared data structure” includes shared tables. See para. 57.
generating, by the database management application, a third query response, the third query response being based at least in part on the third query and the third shared table; and
Paras. 150-151
The response is the new value 2010.
responding, by the database management application, to the third query using the third query response.
Paras. 150-151
Importing the new value to the tenant data structure 1810 is the response.
Claim
Reference: Becker
Analysis
6. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, by the database management application, a fourth query directed to a fourth table, the fourth query being received from the cloud application associated with the first tenant of the multi-tenant cloud environment, the fourth query requesting that a record be inserted to the fourth table;
Paras. 43, 44; 64; para. 147 (BI queries are directed to tables)
Examiner finds “BI queries” teaches any number of tables.
Examiner finds user tenant terminal software with network access to provider 110 is a cloud application. Examiner finds “tenant-specific data structures 215” is a third table. The use of “table links” teaches that the structures are tables. Examiner finds BI queries are directed to any number of tables including a third table.
accessing, by the database management application, a fourth common table from the common storage of the multi-tenant cloud environment
Paras. 64, 68
In this regard, and as shown in FIG. 5, tenant database includes table links 225 that, when accessed by tenant server 114, redirect the server request to the corresponding shared data structure 214 in provider database 112.
Para. 77-78
In contrast, shared data structures 214 are those that contain data common to a plurality of tenant stations 130. In one embodiment, the various data structures are identified or classified by using data structure attributes defined in data dictionary 216.
. . . this step may only require placing the shared data structures in a common space of provider server.
Examiner finds “shared data structure” includes shared tables and common storage.
and generating the fourth table, by the database management application and at the tenant data storage, the generating of the fourth table being based at least in part on the fourth common table and the fourth query.
Paras. 150-151
The response is the new value 2010. The generation of the fourth table happens when the new value is imported into the tenant data structured 1810 (i.e. the fourth table).
7. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: generating, by the database management application, a representation of the first table using the first shared table and the first tenant delta table; and
Fig. 8A; paras. 99-101, 103; para. 135; para.142, 148, and 149
Tenant template 808 is a representation of first shared tables (i.e. tables referred to by links—see Fig. 8A items 22 and 225).
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
Tenant template is generated using shared tables and the first tenant delta table
executing, by the database management application, the first query against the representation of the first table.
Para. 64, Para. 82, para. 148;
Query is executed against the template (representation).
Claim 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 5-7.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Girten as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zimmerman US 20190340282 A1.
With respect to claim 2, Becker and Girten teach all the elements of claim 1 above including a delta table.
It appears Becker fails to explicitly teach “2. The system of claim 1 the operations further comprising before accessing the first tenant delta table associated with the first table
determining that at least one previous query associated with the first tenant resulted in a modification to the first table.”
However, Zimmermann teaches
Claim
Zimmerman US 20190340282 A1
Analysis
2. The system of claim 1 the operations further comprising before accessing the first tenant . . .table associated with the first table
Para. 82
[0082] For tenant-specific data, data to be written can be written by an application that also reads tenant data. If the application determines that the tenant has not modified the data, such as all tables being read-only or non-materialized tables (i.e., a view on the materializable table), no action need be taken. That is, the update can be carried out on the shared container and no tenant-specific action need be taken if the tenant has not modified any data. If the data being read is modified by the tenant, the write can be processed using any tenant-modified data. In the case of a materializable table where a write is received from a tenant during an update process, before the write is processed, the table can be materialized in the client container.
determining that at least one previous query associated with the first tenant resulted in a modification to the first table.
Para. 82
[0082] For tenant-specific data, data to be written can be written by an application that also reads tenant data. If the application determines that the tenant has not modified the data, such as all tables being read-only or non-materialized tables (i.e., a view on the materializable table), no action need be taken. That is, the update can be carried out on the shared container and no tenant-specific action need be taken if the tenant has not modified any data. If the data being read is modified by the tenant, the write can be processed using any tenant-modified data. In the case of a materializable table where a write is received from a tenant during an update process, before the write is processed, the table can be materialized in the client container.
Zimmerman and Becker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Combination of Becker and Girten teach a first tenant delta table. See claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “accessing, by the database management application and from a tenant data storage associated with the first tenant, a first tenant delta table for the first table” in Becker and Girten to include 2. The system of claim 1 the operations further comprising before accessing the first tenant . . .table associated with the first table determining that at least one previous query associated with the first tenant resulted in a modification to the first table.” as taught by Zimmerman.
The motivation would have been to maintain data consistency. See Zimmerman para. 82.
It would have been obvious to modify the first tenant table in Zimmerman to include the first tenant delta table in Becker and Girten.
The motivation would have been speed. See Girten page 2 (“This is an excellent way for data recipients to keep track of incremental changes as they occur by the data provider. Data recipients may now read only the changes that have been made to a table, rather than having to re-read the entire dataset to get the latest
snapshot.” ).
Claim
Reference: Becker US 20080162509 A1
Analysis
3. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, by the database management application a second query directed to a second table, the second query being received from the cloud application associated with the first tenant of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 43, 44; 64; para. 147 (BI queries are directed to tables)
Examiner finds user tenant terminal software with network access to provider 110 is a cloud application. Examiner finds “tenant-specific data structures 215” the first table. The use of “table links” teaches that the structures are tables. Examiner finds BI queries are directed to a first table.
accessing, by the database management application, a second shared table stored at the common storage of the multi-tenant cloud environment;
Paras. 64, 68
In this regard, and as shown in FIG. 5, tenant database includes table links 225 that, when accessed by tenant server 114, redirect the server request to the corresponding shared data structure 214 in provider database 112.
Examiner finds “shared data structure” includes shared tables.
determining, by the database management application, that the first tenant has not previously modified the second table;
generating, by the database management application, a second query response, the second query response being based at least in part on the second query and the second shared table;
Paras. 150-151
The response is the new value 2010.
and responding, by the database management application, to the second query using the second query response.
Paras. 150-151
Importing the new value to the tenant data structure 1810 is the response.
It appears Becker fails to explicitly teach “determining, by the database management application, that the first tenant has not previously modified the second table.”
However, Zimmerman US 20190340282 A1 teaches “determining, by the database management application, that the first tenant has not previously modified the second table” in para. 81 (tables taught); and para. 82 (“For tenant-specific data, data to be written can be written by an application that also reads tenant data. If the application determines that the tenant has not modified the data. . .”) (Examiner finds “the data” includes the second table).
Zimmerman and Becker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “accessing, by the database management application, a second shared table stored at the common storage of the multi-tenant cloud environment” in Becker to include “determining, by the database management application, that the first tenant has not previously modified the second table” as taught by Zimmerman.
The motivation would have been to preserve processing power. See Zimmerman para. 82.
Claims 12-13 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 2-3 above.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Girten as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zimmerman US 20190340282 A1 as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Engelko US 10303665 B2.
With respect to claim 4, it appears Becker fails to teach the elements listed below. However, Engelko US 10303665 B2 teaches these elements. See below.
Engelko US 10303665 B2
4. The system of claim 3, the operations further comprising generating a projection view of the second shared table,
Col. 5:25-45
If projection view is updateable it must have be generated.
the generating of the second query response being based at least in part on the projection view of the second shared table.
Col. 5:25-45
Response to query includes data from fields F1-F4.
Engelko and Becker et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “generating, by the database management application, a second query response, the second query response being based at least in part on the second query and the second shared table; and responding, by the database management application, to the second query using the second query response ” in Becker et al. to include “generating a projection view of the second shared table the generating of the second query response being based at least in part on the projection view of the second shared table” as taught by Engelko.
The motivation would have been to maintain data security and privacy. See Engelko col. 5:39-41.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Girten as applied to claim 1 and claim 7 above and further in view of Bamel US 20220171748 A1
Claim
Ref: Becker
Analysis
8. The system of claim 7, the first shared table comprising a plurality of columns
Para. 120
Shared table is the “TAX” table, for example.
and the first tenant delta table comprising a plurality of columns corresponding to the plurality of columns of the first shared table
Para. 128, para. 149
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
and a status column, the operations further comprising,
accessing a first record of the first tenant delta table,
Para. 149-para. 152
“. . .recognize that new value 2010 exists in tenant data structure 1810. . .”
Recognizing a new value includes accessing the first record of the delta table.
the first record of the first tenant delta table referring to a first record of the first shared table
Para. 149-para. 152
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
and a status column value of the first record indicating deletion of the first record,
the generating of the representation of the first table comprising omitting the first record from the representation of the first table.
Para,. 148, Para. 150;
Para. 143:
The tools may compare which tables are new or deleted, which tables structures have been changed or unchanged, which indexes are new or deleted, which index structures have been changed or unchanged, which views are new or deleted, which view structures have been changed or unchanged, which table links 225 are new or deleted, and the content of tables (e.g., initial number of rows, changed rows, new rows, or deleted rows). Results of the comparison may be used to create a delta upgrade and apply the delta upgrade to a tenant to update to the new version.
“Change the content of the tables” includes deletion. Deleting rows teaches deleting records.
It appears Becker et al. fails to explicitly teach “and a status column, and a status column value of the first record indicating deletion of the first record.”
However, Bamel US 20220171748 A1 teaches “and a status column, and a status column value of the first record indicating deletion of the first record” in Fig. 15 (Examiner finds “change_operation” is a status column for any number of records); para. 52-60 (“The change operation (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) from the change log event (stored as CHANGE_OPERATION)”).
Bamel and Becker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tenant delta table and the first record in Becker/Girten to include “and a status column, and a status column value of the first record indicating deletion of the first record” as taught by Bamel.
The motivation would have been facilitate migration of tables with a new schema. See Bamel para. 46.
Claim
Reference:
Becker
Analysis
9. The system of claim 7, the first shared table comprising a plurality of columns and the first tenant delta table comprising a plurality of columns corresponding to the plurality of columns of the first shared table
Fig. 8A; paras. 99-101, 103; para. 135; para.142, 148, and 149
Tenant template 808 is a representation of first shared tables (i.e. tables referred to by links—see Fig. 8A items 22 and 225). Tenant template is generated using shared tables and the first tenant delta table.
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
and a status column,
the operations further comprising ,accessing a second record of the first tenant delta table, the second record of the first tenant delta table referring to a second record of the first shared table
Para. 149-para. 152
“. . .recognize that new value 2010 exists in tenant data structure 1810. . .”
Recognizing a new value includes accessing the first record of the delta table.
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
and a status column value of the second record
indicating a modification to the second record,
Para. 151
Modification of second record happens with new value is recognized, for example.
the generating of the representation of the first table comprising modifying the second record of the first shared table based at least in part on the second record of the first tenant delta table.
Para. 149-para. 152
Tenant space 330 may recognize that new value 2010 exists in tenant data structure 1810, and may then use delta table link 1925 to import new value 2010 to tenant data structure 1810 in tenant database 222
This transport can be imported to all tenants, to tenants of a certain customer, or to all customers at once.
Examine finds “importing” teaches generating.
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
It appears Becker fails to explicitly teach “and a status column” and “ a status column value of the second record”.
However, Bamel US 20220171748 A1 teaches “and a status column” and “ a status column value of the second record” in Fig. 15 (Examiner finds “change_operation” is a status column for any number of records); para. 52-60 (“The change operation (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) from the change log event (stored as CHANGE_OPERATION)”).
Bamel and Becker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tenant delta table and the second record in Becker and Girten to include “and a status column” and “ a status column value of the second record” as taught by Bamel.
The motivation would have been facilitate migration of tables with a new schema. See Bamel para. 46.
Claims 18 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 8
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Girten.
Becker
10. The system of claim 1, the first tenant delta table being associated with identifier data referencing the first shared table, the operations further comprising:
Para. 149;
Alternate name is identifier data. Tenant data structure 1810 is a first shared table.
It would have been obvious to modify the delta table links in Becker to include the delta tables taught by Girten. The motivation is given in claim 1.
receiving, by the database management application, a request to restore the first tenant;
Para. 101, Para. 111
Restore backup is the command to restore the first tenant.
accessing a backup record associated with the first tenant, the backup record comprising data describing the first shared table and the identifier data;
Para. 111
querying the common storage to retrieve common storage identifier data describing the first shared table;
determining that the common storage identifier data matches the identifier data; and
restoring the first tenant delta table.
Para. 101, para. 1111
Restoring includes any and all data.
It appears Becker fails to explicitly teach “querying the common storage to retrieve common storage identifier data describing the first shared table” and “determining that the common storage identifier data matches the identifier data; and”
Examiner takes official notice that “querying the common storage to retrieve common storage identifier data describing the first shared table;
determining that the common storage identifier data matches the identifier data; and” were well known in the art at the time of filing1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “accessing a backup record associated with the first tenant, the backup record comprising data describing the first shared table and the identifier data” taught in Becker to include “querying the common storage to retrieve common storage identifier data describing the first shared table;
determining that the common storage identifier data matches the identifier data.”
The motivation would have been to maintain data integrity.
Claims 19 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
1 Examiner finds these claim elements are not described in detail in the specification. See MPEP 2163 (“What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail.”)
Prosecution Insights