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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The Request for continued Examination, filed on 05/01/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. In the Amendment, applicant amended claims 1, 13-15, 18 and 23. Claims 25-26 are newly added. As necessitated by the Amendment, Examiner hereby respectfully maintains 35 U.S.C § 101 rejections to claims 1-25.
As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103
Please note claims 1-26 are pending.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Claim recites the language of “executing a sequence of database statements in a database transaction;
and decreasing replication lag of a database by:
detecting, during said executing, that a redo generation statistic of the database transaction exceeds a threshold; and
pausing, in response to said detecting, execution of the one or more database statements in the database transaction, wherein the one or more database statements includes a database statement that can store a value in the database; wherein the method is performed by plurality of computers.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “executing a sequence of database statements in a database transaction”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “executing sequence statements” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually perform an action. Similarly, the limitation of decreasing replication lag of a database by: detecting, during said executing, that a redo generation statistic of the database transaction exceeds a threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying an information. Also similarly, the limitation of pausing, in response to said detecting, execution of the one or more database statements in the database transaction, wherein the one or more database statements includes a database statement that can store a value in the database; wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “response” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually response to the request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a plurality of computers to perform the executing, detecting, response steps. The computers in those steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computers response to the detecting ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include 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, the additional element of using a plurality of computers the executing, detecting, and response steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-11 recites “assigning each time interval in a sequence of contiguous time intervals to a distinct respective redo counter of a plurality of redo counters, operating the plurality of redo counters as a circular buffer, generating an integer that represents a current time; using the integer that represents the current time as an offset into the circular buffer, generating comprises to the current time, applying at least one selected from a group consisting of: modulo, a bitmask, or a bitwise shift, said plurality of redo counters are a transaction plurality of redo counters that reflect only the database transaction; the method further comprises combining each redo counter of the transaction plurality of redo counters to a distinct corresponding redo counter in a global plurality of redo counters, detecting is based on at least one selected from a group consisting of: a redo counter in the global plurality of redo counters and an aggregate statistic of the global plurality of redo counters, the sequence of contiguous time intervals includes a previous time interval that is adjacent to a next time interval; the method further comprises in response to expiration of the previous time interval, assigning a positive number to the redo counter of the next time interval, adjusting a particular redo counter of the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters comprises adjusting the particular redo counter by an amount greater than one or adjusting the particular redo counter more than once, adjusting comprises using a current time as a lookup key to select a particular redo counter of the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters, adjusting comprises decreasing the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters”. The claim language provides only further assigning each time interval, operating, generation, using the integer, redo counters, sequence, adjusting which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 12 recites “the method further comprises executing a database statement of the one or more database statements; said executing the database statement comprises requesting a shared resource of a database management system (DBMS)”. The claim language provides only further executing a database statement which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the one or more database statements are a sequence of database statements that include a previous database statement followed by a next database statement;
the method further comprises sequentially executing the sequence of database statements; said detecting occurs between executing the previous database statement and executing the next database statement”. The claim language provides only further database which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 14 recites “detecting is in response to a dynamic condition selected from a group consisting of: utilization of a shared buffer exceeds a utilization threshold and lag of transport of redo from a primary server to a standby server exceeds a lag threshold”. The claim language provides only further determining number read and write limited which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 15 recites “the threshold is based on a count of bytes of redo or a count of redo entries, or the threshold is zero”. The claim language provides only further the threshold which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 16 recites “detecting is based on at least one selected from a group consisting of: a statistical mean and a statistical variance”. The claim language provides only further detecting which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 17 recites “resuming the database transaction when utilization of a shared buffer is less than a utilization threshold”. The claim language provides only further resuming which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 18-26: are essentially the same as claims 1-17 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer readable media rather than a method respectively and correspondingly, therefore are rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-17.
Accordingly, the claims 1-26 are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mylavarapu et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0281190, hereinafter Mylavarapu), in view of Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0364239, hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of Tahara et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0197173, hereinafter Tahara) .
As per as claim 1, Mylavarapu discloses:
A method comprising:
executing a sequence of database statements in a database transaction (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 9, associating with texts description, [0016], [0249-0250], [0259-0262], “… execution of a statement of a database command…” and further see [0266] and [0271], “...execution of the fragment produced three log records, then the fragment complete message may include (a) the statement number ST2, and (b) the log record sequence number...”); and
decreasing replication lag of a database by:
detecting, during said executing, that a redo generation statistic of the database transaction exceeds a threshold (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0367-0368], [0415], “… the transaction as a whole is ready to be committed, the read operation … tracks how many read operations attempt to read data touched by a transaction that has been eagerly prepared. If the number of read operations exceeds a threshold, then the transaction automatically transitions from eager-prepare to no-eager-prepare…”); and
pausing, in response to said detecting, execution of the one or more database statements in the database transaction (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0176], [0180], “... waits until the log record is on the wire, the changes made at the primary duplicate and secondary duplicas is also not fully asynchronous...” (the examiner asserts waits is equivalent to pausing) and see [0263-0265], [0279], [0367], “… track of which statements of a transaction have been reported to be successfully executed…” and further see [0326], [0375], “... waits to report the commit of the transaction until the receiving the acknowledge commit time messages from the backup coordinators is because, under certain circumstances, the commit time of the transaction will change from the candidate commit time that is initially set by the coordinating engine instance...”)); and wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computers (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 11, 497-0499], (computer systems)).
To make records clearer regarding to the features of “redo generation statistic of the database transaction exceeds a threshold” (although as stated above, Mylavarapu functional disclose the languages of “redo/commit/rollback transaction exceeds a threshold” (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0367-0368], [0415]).
However Kumar, in an analogous art, discloses “redo generation statistic of the database transaction exceeds a threshold” (Kumar, e.g., [0019-0020], [0081], “…Once the count reaches a threshold number of change records indicated by the flag, in-scope replication program terminates scaping of the redo record…determine whether there is a subsequent redo record in the transaction log file…”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kumar and Mylavarapu to asynchronous replication, data or changes to data are written to the primary database first and then copied to a replica stored on the secondary database to archiving in duplicating changes made to source data between replicas located on separate databases, data reliability, accessibility and fault-tolerance is improved (Kumar, e.g., [0002-0003]).
To further clarify the language of “decreasing replication lag of a database” and “a database statement that can store a value in the database”.
However Tahara, in an analogous art, discloses “decreasing replication lag of a database” (Tahara, e.g., [0034-0035], “…the replication lag metric or the geographic replication lag metric indicates that replication lag is decreasing…”) and “a database statement that can store a value in the database” (Tahara, e.g., [0046-0047], [0072-0077], “…a database that is designated as the “primary” of certain data stored in the database (which may be a subset of all data stored in the database) and participates in a primary-secondary replication scheme whereby changes to the database data in the database are propagated to one or more “secondary” database servers and/or one or more secondary databases that also participate in the replication scheme… The statement-based logging is used to propagate database commands (e.g., SQL statements) from the primary database server 702 to the secondary database server 704 where they are executed by the secondary database server 704 against the secondary database 718. Row-based logging is used to record changes in individual database data objects (e.g., individual database table rows)… replication events stored in the relay log 726 are only a one, two, few, or a small number of replication events behind the latest replication events stored in the binary log…”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu for linearizable primary-secondary database system that replicates data with eventually consistency to archiving in if the computer systems storing the primary copy fails, the secondary copy is still available (Tahara, e.g., [002-006]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 1 wherein:
the method further comprises assigning each time interval in a sequence of contiguous time intervals to a distinct respective redo counter of a plurality of redo counters (Tahara, e.g., [0020-0021], “point” and [0073-0077], (records log)) and (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…receives an instruction to scrape redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and further see (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0415-0419]);
said executing comprises adjusting at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0223], [0292], [0385], [0438]).
As per as claim 3, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 2 further comprising operating the plurality of redo counters as a circular buffer (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0065], [0223], [0292], [0385], [0438]) and (Tahara, e.g., [0073-0077], (records log)).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 3 wherein said operating comprises:
generating an integer that represents a current time (Kumar, e.g., [0049-0051], and [0068-0069], (timestamps)) and see (Tahara, e.g., [0033] , (timer));
using the integer that represents the current time as an offset into the circular buffer (Kumar, e.g., [0049-0051], and [0068-0069], (timestamps)) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0065], [0223], [0292], [0385], [0438]), see (Tahara, e.g., [0074-0076], “buffer of the binary log”).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 4 wherein said generating comprises to the current time, applying at least one selected from a group consisting of: modulo, a bitmask, or a bitwise shift (Kumar, e.g., [0034], [0107]) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0104], [112-0113]).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose: The method of Claim 2 wherein:
said plurality of redo counters are a transaction plurality of redo counters that reflect only the database transaction (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0223], [0292], [0385], [0438]);
the method further comprises combining each redo counter of the transaction plurality of redo counters to a distinct corresponding redo counter in a global plurality of redo counters (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0415-0419]) and further see (Tahara, e.g., [0017], [0021], [0024], [0037], (commit)).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 6 wherein said detecting is based on at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a redo counter in the global plurality of redo counters and an aggregate statistic of the global plurality of redo counters (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…receives an instruction to scrape redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0223], [0292], [0385], [0415-0419], [0438]) and further see (Tahara, e.g., [0017], [0021], [0024], [0037], (commit)).
As per as claim 8, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 2 wherein:
the sequence of contiguous time intervals includes a previous time interval that is adjacent to a next time interval (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0266-0267], [0484], (sequence number of log record for the statement) and (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…receives an instruction to scrape redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”);
the method further comprises in response to expiration of the previous time interval, assigning a positive number to the redo counter of the next time interval (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…receives an instruction to scrape redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0266-0267], [0484]).
As per as claim 9, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 2 wherein said adjusting a particular redo counter of the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters comprises adjusting the particular redo counter by an amount greater than one or adjusting the particular redo counter more than once counters (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…receives an instruction to scrape redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0223], [0292], [0385], [0415-0419], [0438]).
As per as claim 10, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 2 wherein said adjusting comprises using a current time as a lookup key to select a particular redo counter of the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0223], [0292], [0385], [0415-0419], [0438]).
As per as claim 11, the combination of Baid, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose: The method of Claim 2 wherein said adjusting comprises decreasing the at least one redo counter of the plurality of redo counters (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 13, associating with texts description, [0223], [0292], [0385], [0415-0419], [0438]).
As per as claim 12, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose: The method of Claim 1 wherein:
the method further comprises executing a database statement of the one or more database statements (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 9, associating with texts description, [0016], [0249-0250], [0259-0262], “… execution of a statement of a database command…”);
said executing the database statement comprises requesting a shared resource of a database management system (DBMS) (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0026], , [0045-0046], [0053], (database system));
said detecting is in response to said requesting (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0026], [0034], [0056], (detecting in request)).
As per as claim 13, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 1 wherein:
the one or more database statements are a sequence of database statements that include a previous database statement followed by a next database statement (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0266-0267], [0484], (sequence number of log record for the statement) and [0326], [0375], “... waits to report the commit of the transaction until the receiving the acknowledge commit time messages from the backup coordinators is because, under certain circumstances, the commit time of the transaction will change from the candidate commit time that is initially set by the coordinating engine instance...”));
the method further comprises sequentially executing the sequence of database statements (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 9, associating with texts description, [0016], [0249-0250], [0259-0262], “… execution of a statement of a database command…”);
said detecting occurs between executing the previous database statement and executing the next database statement (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 9, associating with texts description, [0016], [0249-0250], [0259-0262], “… execution of a statement of a database command…”).
As per as claim 14 the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 1 wherein said detecting is in response to a dynamic condition selected from a group consisting of:
utilization of a shared buffer exceeds a utilization threshold and
lag of transport of redo from a primary server to a standby server exceeds a lag threshold (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) (the examiner asserts predefine time interval or predesignated time = lag threshold) and further see (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0227], [0367-368]), and further see (Tahara, e.g., [0018], [0027] and [0033-0034]).
As per as claim 15, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 1 wherein the threshold is based on a count of bytes of redo or a count of redo entries, or the threshold is zero (Kumar, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0068-0069], [0081], “…redo records at predefined time intervals or at a predesignated time…”) and see (Mylavarapu, e.g., [0227], [0367-368]) and further see (Tahara, e.g., [0018], [0027] and [0033-0034]).
As per as 16, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose: The method of Claim 1 wherein said detecting is based on at least one selected from a group consisting of: a statistical mean and a statistical variance (Kumar, e.g., [0040], “…log writing parameters with respect to the creation and archival of transaction log files and redo records and (v) monitor system performance, latency, event messages and other statistics…” and further see [0068-0069], [0081] (measure set of data point)).
As per as claim 17, the combination of Tahara, Kumar and Mylavarapu disclose:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising resuming the database transaction when utilization of a shared buffer is less than a utilization threshold (Mylavarapu, e.g., fig. 7, associating with texts description, [0065], [0223], [0227], [0292], [0385], [0438], [0367-0368] and further see [0326], [0375], “... waits to report the commit of the transaction until the receiving the acknowledge commit time messages from the backup coordinators is because, under certain circumstances, the commit time of the transaction will change from the candidate commit time that is initially set by the coordinating engine instance...”)).
Claims 18-26 are essentially the same as claims 1-17 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non transitory computer readable media rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-17.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/10/2026 with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record (See the new ground(s) of rejection set forth herein above).
Issue : Applicant argued on page 11 (Remarks/Argument) regarding 101 rejections to claims 1-26.
Response: The examiner respectfully submits: Claim limitation (executing, detecting, response), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the human activity and “data gathering” but for the recitation of generic computer components for performing the human activities and data gathering, then it falls within the “Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a plurality of computers to perform the executing, detecting, response steps with including a new amended language of “a database statements includes a database statement that can store a value in the database” (Note that the steps of executing, detecting , response in the claim is not practical and do not provide any improving steps or transformation steps in the claim). The computers in those steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computers response to the detecting ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include 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, the additional element of using a plurality of computers the executing, detecting, and response steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner respectfully submits that, with respect to the totally newly amended subject matter, the Examiner respectfully cited proper paragraphs from cited reference to reject the claim in responsive to the newly amended, please refer to the corresponding section of the office action.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to executing database statements in a database transaction, some of the redo counters are adjusted to reflect a fluctuating amount of redo generated by the transaction and when the redo generation rate of the database transaction is detected as exceeding a threshold, execution of the database statements in the database transaction is paused.
a. Feng et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0144333, herein after Feng); “System For Maintaining A Database” discloses “ maintaining a database and storing many tablets each tablet including multiple records, wherein the tablet controller tracks failures to access the storage unit and designates a new storage unit for each tablet based on a storage unit failure which in communication with the tablet controller and configured to distribute messages from clients to the storage units thereby serving as a layer of indirection”.
Feng further discloses identified storage unit failures exceed a threshold number of storage unit failures [0010].
Feng also teaches read a sequence number stored in a record and increment the sequence number then the storage unit publishes the update for the record and a sequence number to the transaction bank [0011].
Feng also teaches redo log into the transaction bank [0052].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, 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 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights