DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to application filed on 11/12/24 and an Election of Group I, claims 1-14 and 17-32 filed on 3/23/26, responsive to a Restriction issued on 1/29/26. Group I is elected without traverse.
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 1-14 and 17-32 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (method), claim 17 (non-transitory medium) and claim 18 (system) recite a process and system, respectively, which are statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Exemplary claim 18, recites, managing the execution of database transactions in a database system; during a validation phase of a transaction, identifying conditional conflicts and their corresponding conflicting transactions, wherein the corresponding conflicting transactions are reading-transactions conflicting with the transaction; for each conditional conflict, classifying its state to determine if the transaction can commit, with respect to the conditional conflict, before the corresponding conflicting transaction; marking the transaction as dependent on the corresponding conflicting transaction when the transaction cannot commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction; and placing a commit pause on data cells modified by the transaction, thereby allowing the transaction to commit, when the transaction can commit before any corresponding conflicting transactions. These limitations, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, more specifically, processing transactions and validating transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of computer, processor, memory. The additional elements of a computer, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of processor, memory transaction are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of business transactions (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements (computer, processor, memory, transaction) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of transaction processing to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of transaction processing to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually, and do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 19 recites identify non-conditional conflicts and their related conflicting transactions; and for each non-conditional conflict, mark the transaction as dependent on the corresponding conflicting transaction. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claim 20 recites wait until all dependencies are cleared; and place a commit pause on data cells modified by the transaction. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claim 21 recites wherein a conditional conflict is determined based, in part, on at least one predicate in the corresponding conflicting transaction. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claim 22 recites wherein the state is determined based on the value of each of the least one predicates after applying an epsilon checking procedure, the epsilon checking procedure evaluates values of a predicate on a data cell set immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claims 23-30 depend from claim 22 and recite wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a stay-in state when the evaluated values of a predicate immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction are Boolean value true.
(24) wherein the stay-in state provides that there is no potential dependency between the transaction and the corresponding conflicting transaction with respect to the conditional conflict,
(25) wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a stay-out state when the evaluated values of a predicate immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction are Boolean value false,
(26) wherein the stay-out state provides that there is no potential dependency between the transaction and the corresponding conflicting transaction with respect to the conditional conflict,
(27) wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a move-in state when the evaluated value of a predicate immediately before committing the transaction is a Boolean value false, and the evaluated value of the predicate immediately after committing the transaction is a Boolean value true,
(28) wherein the move-in state does not allow the transaction to commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction,
(29) wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a move-out state when the evaluated value of a predicate immediately before committing the transaction is a Boolean value true, and the evaluated value of the predicate immediately after committing the transaction is a Boolean value false,
(30) wherein the move-out state does not allow the transaction to commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction,
These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra. Adding values, conditions and evaluations as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, more specifically, processing transactions and validating transactions.
Claim 31 recites wherein tasks in the transaction are executed in an optimistic manner, the transaction is validated in a pessimistic manner. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claim 32 recites wherein the conflicting transaction is determined to be any one of: a conditional conflict and a non-conditional conflict. These limitation are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 18, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Regarding claims 2-14, they comprise substantially the same subject matter as claims 19-32, and are therefore rejected as comprising an abstract idea on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (USPN. 2023/0100223).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Li teaches a method, medium and system for managing the execution of database transactions in a database system comprising (fig. 2, DB engine, Li):
one or more processors configured to (figs. 1 and 2, par. 111, processors):
during a validation phase of a transaction, identifying conditional conflicts and their corresponding conflicting transactions, wherein the corresponding conflicting transactions are reading-transactions conflicting with the transaction (fig. 5, item 506, par. 306 and par. 311, status table maintains the status of the Read Transaction, and condition based on time interval);
for each conditional conflict, classify its state to determine if the transaction can commit, with respect to the conditional conflict, before the corresponding conflicting transaction (fig. 5, item 507, par. 312-313, global committing stage comprises classifying);
mark the transaction as dependent on the corresponding conflicting transaction when the transaction cannot commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction (par. 66-67, marking each global committing order of each transaction); and
place a commit pause on data cells modified by the transaction, thereby allowing the transaction to commit, when the transaction can commit before any corresponding conflicting transactions (fig. 5, item 508-510 and pars. 276-294, committing or rolling back to execute based on technical solutions and optional embodiments). To the degree Li does not explicitly state “pause on data cells modified”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field before the effective filing date of the application to pause/halt data cells modified by a transaction during Li rolling back to transact concurrent access control using flexible models (pars. 291 and 295, Li). One would have been motivated to achieve concurrent access control during various consistencies of a concurrent consistency model to improve validation efficiency.
19. Modified Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify non-conditional conflicts and their related conflicting transactions and for each non-conditional conflict, mark the transaction as dependent on the corresponding conflicting transaction (par. 92, direct and indirect transactions based on whether condition is met and par. 83, metadata use as labels).
20. Modified Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: wait until all dependencies are cleared and place a commit pause on data cells modified by the transaction (fig. 5, item 508-510 and pars. 276-294, committing or rolling back to execute based on technical solutions and optional embodiments).
21. Modified Li teaches wherein a conditional conflict is determined based, in part, on at least one predicate in the corresponding conflicting transaction (par. 47, predicates in data exceptions).
22. Modified Li teaches wherein the state is determined based on the value of each of the least one predicates after applying an epsilon checking procedure, the epsilon checking procedure evaluates values of a predicate on a data cell set immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction (Note that epsilon is described as the moment before commit and at commit, see par 108, instant publication, i.e., before and after update (fig. 4, items 403 and 404, pars. 87-88, and 209, multiple versions of dataset comprise analyzing transaction data before and after commit).
23. Modified Li teaches wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a stay-in state when the evaluated values of a predicate immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction are Boolean value true (par. 209-210, data items are updated and committed).
24. Modified Li teaches wherein the stay-in state provides that there is no potential dependency between the transaction and the corresponding conflicting transaction with respect to the conditional conflict (pars. 34-36, current states based on latest version).
25. Modified Li teaches wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a stay-out state when the evaluated values of a predicate immediately before and immediately after committing the transaction are Boolean value false (par. 209-210, data items are updated and committed).
26. Modified Li teaches wherein the stay-out state provides that there is no potential dependency between the transaction and the corresponding conflicting transaction with respect to the conditional conflict (pars. 34-36, current states based on latest version).
27. Modified Li teaches wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a move-in state when the evaluated value of a predicate immediately before committing the transaction is a Boolean value false, and the evaluated value of the predicate immediately after committing the transaction is a Boolean value true (par. 209-210, data items are updated and committed).
28. Modified Li teaches wherein the move-in state does not allow the transaction to commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction (par. 39, different algorithms for consistency).
29. Modified Li teaches wherein a state of a conditional conflict is determined as a move-out state when the evaluated value of a predicate immediately before committing the transaction is a Boolean value true, and the evaluated value of the predicate immediately after committing the transaction is a Boolean value false (par. 257, Read Write updates during validation state are evaluated and are only performed if start and finish is within Read maximum time stamp, if not the Boolean value for update would be false).
30. Modified Li teaches wherein the move-out state does not allow the transaction to commit before the corresponding conflicting transaction (par. 257, Read Write updates during validation state are evaluated and are only performed if start and finish is within Read maximum time stamp, if start and or finish are not within threshold the transaction is not allowed).
31. Modified Li teaches wherein tasks in the transaction are executed in an optimistic manner, the transaction is validated in a pessimistic manner (pars. 52 and 53, satisfying some rules and optimistic concurrency in transaction operation).
32. Modified Li teaches wherein the conflicting transaction is determined to be any one of: a conditional conflict and a non-conditional conflict (par. 115, real-time condition in Read and Write transactions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the field of transaction processing:
USPN. 20230214925: Abstract and fig. 2, conditional conflict resolution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCIN R FILIPCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-4019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
June 4, 2026
/MARCIN R FILIPCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights