DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 18 November 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 18 November 2024 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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-8, 10-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20190205429 A1, hereafter referred to as Lee) in view of Upton et al (US 20210326359 A1, hereafter referred to as Upton) in view of Asama (JP 2009245089 A, hereafter referred to as Asama).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method that includes one or more processing devices performing operations comprising:
the first data file comprising a first plurality of data records (Lee [0031] teaches data records in a database table) and each data record of the first plurality of data records comprising a plurality of attributes (Lee [0031] teaches each record includes a plurality of attributes or columns [0032]);
identifying a first set of values of a primary key for the first plurality of data records (Lee [0062, 0031] discloses identify a set of records or subset of tables of data records wherein each record includes a record identifier or primary key);
generating a first set of hash values, each hash value of the first set of hash values generated by applying a hash function on a data record of the first plurality of data records (Lee [0082]);
receiving a second set of hash values for a second plurality of data records in a second data file stored on a second platform (Lee [0045] discloses receiving a calculated hash value for data records), each data record of the second plurality of data records comprising the plurality of attributes (Lee [0045] discloses records at target and source databases, wherein the records include a plurality of attributes [0031] or columns [0032]);
comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values (Lee [0032] discloses comparing a calculated value for the records stored at the source and target databases respectively); and
causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values (Lee [0042-0043] discloses upon determination the hash values are different, performing modification updates.
Lee does not explicitly teach transforming data in a first data file stored on a first platform to common data formats, receiving a second set of hash values along with a second set of values of the primary key associated with the second set of hash values; comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key; determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values.
Upton, in an analogous art, teaches receiving a second set of hash values for a second plurality of data records in a second data file stored on a second platform (Upton [0187-0188] teaches receiving compare records for a plurality of compare transactions, wherein the compare records include a hash of the data which the compare record corresponds) along with a second set of values of the primary key associated with the second set of hash values (Upton [Fig 4-402 and 0055] disclose the compare record includes the unique sequence field or key which is used to retrieve data [0066]);
comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values (Upton [0066] teaches comparing the source image with the target image, wherein the images include hash data of the record [0158]) and the second set of values of the primary key (Upton [0179] teaches comparing the hashes after comparing the keys); and
causing the first data file stored on the first platform of the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values (Upton [0082-0083, 0085 and 197-0199] disclose modifying the record).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Upton in order to configure the received second set of hash values, as taught by Lee, include a second set of values of the primary key associated with the second set of hash values and compare the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key, as taught by Upton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to allow more flexibility and reliability in the ability to detect differences between a source datastore object and its target equivalent, if it exists while performing immediate synchronization which can prevent future conflicts (Upton [0041]).
While Lee-Upton teaches compensating for differences in the format and contents of the source and target data (Upton [0040]), Lee-Upton does not explicitly teach transforming data in a first data file stored on a first platform to common data formats, determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values.
Asama, in an analogous art, teaches transforming data in a first data file stored on a first platform to common data formats (Asama [0007] teaches performing a process to serialize the value of the user-defined internal data);
determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform (Asama [0055, 0024, 0009, 0013] teaches determining a segment related to the mismatched hash values; and
causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values (Asama [0055, 0024, 0009, 0013] teaches acquiring the data of the segment related to the mismatched hash values and replacing the corresponding portion of the serialized data stored in the second area).
Regarding claim 2, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key comprises:
identifying correspondence between a first hash value from the first set of hash values and a second hash value from the second set of hash values based on a value of the primary key associated with the first hash value matches a value of the primary key associated with the second hash value (Upton [0066 and 0179] teaches determining whether the image data or hash match after determining whether a value of the key matches or exists);
comparing the first hash value and the second hash value (Upton [0066, 0179]; and
determining that the first set of hash values is different from the second set of hash values based on the first hash value being different the second hash value (Upton [0192, 0079, 0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein generating a first set of hash values comprises:
concatenating the plurality of attributes for each data record of the first plurality of data records in a pre-determined order to generate a single field for the data record (Upton [0179] discloses hashing the data of a relational database); and
applying the hash function on the single field to generate a hash value for the data record (Upton [0179] discloses hashing the data of a relational database).
Regarding claim 4, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein the second set of hash values for the second plurality of data records in the source data file are generated by:
transforming data in the source data file to the common data formats (Asama [0007] teaches performing a process to serialize the value of the user-defined internal data);
identifying the second set of values of the primary key for the second plurality of data records (Upton [0048] discloses selection of a specific set of records or ranges for which a compare transaction is defined [0054-0057]); and
generating the second set of hash values by applying the hash function on each data record of the second plurality of data records (Upton [0179, 0158]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein the primary key comprises an additional attribute from the plurality of attributes (Upton [0056] discloses a concatenated key).
Regarding claim 6, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein the operations further comprise determining the primary key for the destination data file and the source data file by:
identifying an attribute or a combination of attributes from the plurality of attributes that has a number of unique values being equal to the number of the first plurality of data records (Upton [0055] discloses identifying information for a database record based on a determined unique sequence field [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein the second data file is a source data file and the first data file is a destination data file of the source data file migrated from the second platform to the first platform (Lee [0031, 0081] discloses migrating data records from a source database to a destination database).
Regarding claim 8, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Lee-Upton-Asama teaches the method wherein the operations further comprise:
generating a third set of hash values for the first data file (Lee [0082]), each hash value of the third set of hash values generated by applying a second hash function on values in the first plurality of data records for an attribute of the plurality of attributes (Lee [0032] teaches an index which identifies “different information” or a column including desired information as input for the hash function);
receiving a fourth set of hash values for the second data file (Lee [0045] discloses receiving a calculated hash value for data records), each hash value of the fourth set of hash values generated by applying the second hash function on values in the second plurality of data records for an attribute of the plurality of attributes (Lee [0032] teaches an index which identifies “different information” or a column including desired information as input for the hash function);
comparing the third set of hash values and the fourth set of hash values (Lee [0034]. Upton [0066, 0179]); and
causing the first data file stored on the first platform to be modified based on the third set of hash values being different from the fourth set of hash values (Lee [00432-0043] and Upton [0082-0083, 0085 and 197-0199] disclose modifying the record).
Regarding claims 10-15, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-6.
Therefore, claims 10-15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1-6.
Regarding claims 16-20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-5.
Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8, 10-15, 6-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12149613. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-9, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-8 of the patent. That is claims 1-9 are anticipated by claims 1-8 of the patent.
The mapping of claims 1-9 of the instant application to the referenced patent are provided.
Instant Application 18950422
US Patent 12149613 B2
1. A method that includes one or more processing devices performing operations comprising: transforming data in a first data file stored on a first platform to common data formats, the first data file comprising a first plurality of data records and each data record of the first plurality of data records comprising a plurality of attributes; identifying a first set of values of a primary key for the first plurality of data records; generating a first set of hash values, each hash value of the first set of hash values generated by applying a hash function on a data record of the first plurality of data records; receiving a second set of hash values for a second plurality of data records in a second data file stored on a second platform along with a second set of values of the primary key associated with the second set of hash values, each data record of the second plurality of data records comprising the plurality of attributes; comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key; determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values.
1. A method that includes one or more processing devices performing operations comprising: transforming data in a first data file stored on a first platform to common data formats, the first data file comprising a first plurality of data records and each data record of the first plurality of data records comprising a plurality of attributes; identifying a first set of values of a primary key for the first plurality of data records; generating a first set of hash values, each hash value of the first set of hash values generated by applying a hash function on a data record of the first plurality of data records; receiving a second set of hash values for a second plurality of data records in a second data file stored on a second platform along with a second set of values of the primary key associated with the second set of hash values, each data record of the second plurality of data records comprising the plurality of attributes; comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key; determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform, wherein determining the location of the mismatch comprises: for each attribute of the plurality of attributes: partitioning the values in the first plurality of data records for the attribute into multiple chunks, applying a third hash function on each chunk of each attribute to generate multiple hash values, and applying a second hash function on each chunk of the multiple chunks to generate a hash value of a third set of hash values, and comparing the third set of hash values with a fourth set of hash values for the data file to identify the location of the mismatch between first values of the plurality of attributes of the first data file and second values of the plurality of attributes of the second data file; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key comprises: identifying correspondence between a first hash value from the first set of hash values and a second hash value from the second set of hash values based on a value of the primary key associated with the first hash value matches a value of the primary key associated with the second hash value; comparing the first hash value and the second hash value; and determining that the first set of hash values is different from the second set of hash values based on the first hash value being different the second hash value.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein comparing the first set of hash values and the second set of hash values according to the first set of values and the second set of values of the primary key comprises: identifying correspondence between a first hash value from the first set of hash values and a second hash value from the second set of hash values based on a value of the primary key associated with the first hash value matches a value of the primary key associated with the second hash value; comparing the first hash value and the second hash value; and determining that the first set of hash values is different from the second set of hash values based on the first hash value being different the second hash value.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein generating a first set of hash values comprises: concatenating the plurality of attributes for each data record of the first plurality of data records in a pre-determined order to generate a single field for the data record; and applying the hash function on the single field to generate a hash value for the data record.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein generating a first set of hash values comprises: concatenating the plurality of attributes for each data record of the first plurality of data records in a pre-determined order to generate a single field for the data record; and applying the hash function on the single field to generate a hash value for the data record.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second set of hash values for the second plurality of data records in the second data file are generated by: transforming data in the second data file to the common data formats; identifying the second set of values of the primary key for the second plurality of data records; and generating the second set of hash values by applying the hash function on each data record of the second plurality of data records.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second set of hash values for the second plurality of data records in the source data file are generated by: transforming data in the source data file to the common data formats; identifying the second set of values of the primary key for the second plurality of data records; and generating the second set of hash values by applying the hash function on each data record of the second plurality of data records.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the primary key comprises an additional attribute from the plurality of attributes.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the primary key comprises an additional attribute from the plurality of attributes.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining the primary key for the first data file and the second data file by: identifying an attribute or a combination of attributes from the plurality of attributes that has a number of unique values being equal to the number of the first plurality of data records.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining the primary key for the destination data file and the source data file by: identifying an attribute or a combination of attributes from the plurality of attributes that has a number of unique values being equal to the number of the first plurality of data records.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second data file is a source data file and the first data file is a destination data file of the source data file migrated from the second platform to the first platform.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second data file is a source data file and the first data file is a destination data file of the source data file migrated from the second platform to the first platform.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the mismatch comprises: generating a third set of hash values for the first data file, each hash value of the third set of hash values generated by applying a second hash function on values in the first plurality of data records for an attribute of the plurality of attributes; receiving a fourth set of hash values for the second data file, each hash value of the fourth set of hash values generated by applying the second hash function on values in the second plurality of data records for an attribute of the plurality of attributes; comparing the third set of hash values and the fourth set of hash values; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform to be modified based on the third set of hash values being different from the fourth set of hash values.
1. …… determining a location of a mismatch in the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform, wherein determining the location of the mismatch comprises: for each attribute of the plurality of attributes: partitioning the values in the first plurality of data records for the attribute into multiple chunks, applying a third hash function on each chunk of each attribute to generate multiple hash values, and applying a second hash function on each chunk of the multiple chunks to generate a hash value of a third set of hash values, and comparing the third set of hash values with a fourth set of hash values for the data file to identify the location of the mismatch between first values of the plurality of attributes of the first data file and second values of the plurality of attributes of the second data file; and causing the first data file stored on the first platform or the second data file stored on the second platform to be modified at the location of the mismatch based on the first set of hash values being different from the second set of hash values.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a fourth set of hash values for the second data file, each hash value of the fourth set of hash values generated by applying the second hash function on values in the second plurality of data records for an attribute of the plurality of attributes;
9. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the third set of hash values for the first data file comprises: partitioning the values in the first plurality of data records for the attribute into multiple chunks; applying a third hash function on each chunk of the multiple chunks to generate multiple hash values; and applying the second hash function on the multiple hash values to generate a hash value of the third set of hash values.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the third set of hash values for the first data file comprises: partitioning the values in the first plurality of data records for the attribute into multiple chunks; applying a third hash function on each chunk of the multiple chunks to generate multiple hash values; and applying the second hash function on the multiple hash values to generate a hash value of the third set of hash values
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kay et al (US 20080071867 A1);
Murata et al (JP 2007042066 A);
Peterson et al (US 20180219836 A1,);
Concannon et al (US 10896209 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights