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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 21 July 2026, claims 1, 8-9, and 15 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. Claims 24-26 are new. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-26 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised non-statutory double patenting rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
The previously raised 101 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 112(a), lack of written description rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims (see Remarks, p. 12) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims are still subject to a non-statutory double patenting rejection, and Applicant has not filed a Terminal Disclaimer. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 with respect to the 112(a), lack of written description rejection of the claims (see Remarks, p. 13) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a), lack of written description rejection has been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, p. 13) have been fully considered. The Office agrees with Applicant (for the Office’s own reasons) that the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. The 101 rejection has been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 13-14) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the new references (and thus new combination of references) being used in the current rejection.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,526 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the present application recites substantially overlapping limitations as Claim 1 of the issued patent. Claim 1 of the present application has broader limitations concerning the creation/updating of records, with more details on sending a communication to users by retrieving user preference information from snapshot index(es), queueing the messages, scheduling sending the notifications using a message scheduler component, and then sending the message in accordance with a schedule.
Claim 2 of the issued patent narrows its parent claim to be executed by code. Claim 1 of the present application, despite not explicitly reciting code, implicitly utilizes code to perform its actions (e.g., via the claims of “automatically causing” the computer to perform these steps).
Claim 5 of the issued patent recites “evaluate the snapshot of the profile using the one or more rules to determine whether the communication is to be transmitted to the user, and based on a determination that the communication is to be transmitted to the user, to identify the type of content to include in the communication”. Claim 4 of the present application similarly identifies one or more rules associated with more specific data, and causes the communication to be transmitted based on the one or more rules.
Claim 6 of the issued patent recites that the communication is an email message or a text message. Although the present application does not recite such specifics of the type of communication, claim 6 represents a slightly more narrow limitation that those already encompassed by claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 7 of the issued patent recites that “the one or more records relating to the user include the first record and at least one additional record added to the first database before the first record”. This is similar to claim 1 of the present application, in which the profile is based on “an aggregation of event data in a plurality of event records relating to a plurality of events associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of events includes the first event and a second event associated with the first user and the first entity”.
Claim 8 of the issued patent recites “perform[ing] the aggregation of the data in the one or more records in the first database to determine a preference of the user, wherein the profile indicates the preference.” Claim 1 of the present application recites “wherein the profile is based on an aggregation of event data in a plurality of event records”. Furthermore, claim 7 of the present application similarly recites “determining a preference of the first user according to the profile”.
With respect to claims 9 and 11 of the issued patent, and claim 8 of the present application, see the discussion of claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 12 of the issued patent, see the discussion of claim 2 (of the issued patent) above.
With respect to claims 15-16 of the issued patent, and claim 15 of the present application, see the discussion of claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 18 of the issued patent, see the discussion of claim 2 (of the issued patent) above.
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 §§ 706.02(I)(1) – 706.02(I)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the firs inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (“Tseng”) (US 2012/0166530 A1), in view of Kaushik et al. (“Kaushik”) (US 2007/0043715 A1), in further view of Amano et al. (“Amano”) (US 2012/0158871 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Tseng teaches A method, comprising:
identifying a first event associated with a first user and a first entity; causing a record, associated with the first event, to be added to an event database (Tseng, [0036], where the action logger is capable of receiving communications from the web server 210 about user actions on and/or off the social networking system 130 (i.e., implying “identifying a new event associated with a user and an entity”), and populates action log 230 with information about user actions (i.e., “aggregation of event data in one or more event records”), allowing the social networking system 130 to track or monitor various actions taken by its users within the social networking system 130. Any action that a particular user takes with respect to another user is associated with each user’s profile, through information maintained in the action log 230 or in a similar database or other data repository (i.e., “event database”));
automatically updating or creating, based on causing the record to be added to the event database, a profile record, indicating a profile associated with the first user, and to store the profile record in a profile database, wherein the profile record is based on an aggregation of event data in a plurality of event records relating to a plurality of events associated with the first user, wherein the plurality of events includes the first event and a second event associated with the first user and the first entity (Tseng, [0031], where user profile store 240 includes a user’s interests or affinities, which may be explicitly specified in the user’s profile or interests inferred from the user’s activities in the social networking system, where the user profile store 240 includes logic1 for maintaining user information for users according to one or more categories (i.e., “automatically updating or creating a profile record”). See, e.g., Tseng, [0084], where the user may make frequent posts about “coffee” or variants thereof (i.e., “wherein the plurality of events includes the first event and a second event associated with the first user and the first entity”) and upload content associated with “coffee”, resulting in the social networking system 130 determining that the user has an interest for coffee and updates the user’s profile with an indication of an interest in coffee.
See Tseng, [0030-0032], where the social networking system 130 stores user profiles describing the users of a social network (i.e., “a profile associated with the first user”) in a user profile store 240 (i.e., “store the profile record in a profile database”));
determining … that a communication is to be transmitted to the first user; … and causing … the communication to be transmitted to the first user according to the schedule (Tseng, [0007], [0068-0071], and [0083], where the notifications are provided to users based on user-specified preferences, where the preferences describe when to provide the notifications, the type of notifications of interest, and/or the frequency in which to provide the notifications. See also, e.g., Tseng, [0031], where the user profile store 240 includes a user’s interests or affinities, as well as preferences, which may be explicitly specified in the user’s profile or interests inferred from the user’s activities in the social networking system, where the user profile store 240 includes logic for maintaining user information for users according to one or more categories, and can be used for determining what notifications to send to users (see also, e.g., Tseng, [0058-0061]). See Tseng, [0064], [0066-0081], with respect to the push rate by which to provide notifications of content objects to the user device 110 (i.e., the push rate corresponding to the claimed “according to the schedule”), which may be user-preference configured, automatically determined, etc., and may be based on various factors including time period, type of notification, etc.).
Tseng does not appear to explicitly teach automatically generating, based on automatically updating or creating the profile record, a snapshot record, including a snapshot of the profile, and to store the snapshot record in a snapshot database, wherein the snapshot database includes one or more indexes on one or more columns of the snapshot database to facilitate retrieval of records from the snapshot database; retrieving, using the one or more indexes, the snapshot record from the snapshot database; [determining,] based on the snapshot record[, that a communication is to be transmitted to the first user]; causing, based on determining that the communication is to be transmitted, an indication for the communication to be added to a queue database; causing, based on causing the indication for the communication being added to the queue database, a message scheduler component to schedule transmission of the communication; [and causing,] based on retrieving the snapshot record from the snapshot database and without retrieving the profile record from the profile database, [a communication to be transmitted to the first user].
Kaushik teaches automatically generating, based on automatically updating or creating the profile record, a snapshot record, including a snapshot of the profile, and to store the snapshot record in a snapshot database, wherein the snapshot database includes one or more indexes on one or more columns of the snapshot database to facilitate retrieval of records from the snapshot database (Kaushik, [0018-0023], where backup is performed after at least one data change is made to the production storage, the backup data including snapshot data, generational backup data, continuously mirrored and/or backed up data, etc., which is stored in a backup data storage unit. Content generator 204 processes data comprising and/or associated with backup data 202 for indexing. The searchable index is stored in index store 208. See Tseng above with respect to the data pertaining to “profiles”.
Although Kaushik does not appear to explicitly state that the storage units are associated with a “snapshot database” and that the data objects correspond to “one or more columns” of the snapshot database as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Kaushik to utilize a database with the motivation of implementing a widely used method of data organization that is good at storing, finding, and retrieving small pieces of structured data2, thereby enabling more efficient storage and retrieval of information);
retrieving, using the one or more indexes, the snapshot record from the snapshot database; [determining,] based on the snapshot record[, that a communication is to be transmitted to the first user]; [and causing,] based on retrieving the snapshot record from the snapshot database and without retrieving the profile record from the profile database, [a communication to be transmitted to the first user] (Kaushik, [0021], where the system receives a search query, server 112 searches, based on the received query, an index stored in index storage 114, and automatically retrieves, from the backup server, the location identifier(s) of data to be retrieved. The backup server then retrieves the identified data from backup data 110 using the location identifier(s) and sends the retrieved data back. See Tseng, [0007], [0031], [0058-0061], [0068-0071], and [0083] above with respect to the data relating to “profiles” and the “profile database”, as well as “causing, based on retrieving [profile information], a communication to be transmitted to the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tseng and Kaushik (hereinafter “Tseng as modified”), as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the challenges associated with maintaining and updating user information in response to user profile changes (as traditional systems often do not update information related to currently known users and/or require large amount of processing and/or data transmission to maintain real-time up-to-date user information).3 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated Kaushik’s snapshots with the motivation of ensuring that all read operations performed in a given transaction sees a consistent snapshot of the production data, e.g., by reading a last set of committed values that existed when the read operation commenced.4
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized indexes for searching for profile information with the motivation of more efficient searching (Kaushik, [0015]).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to have substituted Tseng’s utilization of profile information stored in the profile database (with respect to notifications), with Kaushik’s reading of retrieved data from snapshots, with the motivation of having read-only snapshots5 concurrent with the production data, which enables offloading read requests / query retrieval operations onto static copies for concurrent access instead of putting read requests on the production storage (i.e., the profile database)6, thereby reducing workload on the production (profile) database, as well as potentially improving the speed of servicing query retrieval requests.
Tseng as modified does not appear to explicitly teach causing, based on determining that the communication is to be transmitted, an indication for the communication to be added to a queue database; [and] causing, based on causing the indication for the communication being added to the queue database, a message scheduler component to schedule transmission of the communication.
Amano teaches causing, based on determining that the communication is to be transmitted, an indication for the communication to be added to a queue database; [and] causing, based on causing the indication for the communication being added to the queue database, a message scheduler component to schedule transmission of the communication (Amano, [0031-0034], where pieces of event data are queued, where queues are prepared in a memory of the server, and each piece of event data include a transfer time (transfer date and time). When the earliest time out of transfer times set in respective pieces of event data stored in the queue has come, all the pieces of event data stored in the queue are sent to a user as a single notification. See Amano, [0018], where the time is specified by a scheduler).
Although Amano does not appear to explicitly state that the queues stored in the server is a “queue database” as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized a database with the motivation of utilizing a widely used method of data organization that is good at storing, finding, and retrieving small pieces of structured data.7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tseng as modified and Amano (hereinafter “Tseng as modified”) with the motivation of improving usability by decreasing the number of notifications to be read (see, e.g., Amano, [0003]), as well as allowing messages to be delayed until when users might want to see them, e.g., thus holding in a queue prior to scheduled transmission, as opposed to being lost entirely.
Regarding claim 2: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the event database stores the plurality of event records, and wherein the plurality of events includes a third event associated with the first user and a second entity (Tseng, [0031-0032], [0089], and [0102], where users may “like” an article about a brand of shoes, as well as coffee, movies, etc. See also, more generally, Tseng, [0038], where multiple categories and user interests may correspond to the various events of different activities).
Regarding claim 4: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying one or more rules in the profile, wherein the one or more rules are associated with at least one of: the first user, or a transaction type associated with the first user and the first entity, and wherein the communication is caused to be transmitted based on the one or more rules ((Tseng, [0058-0061], where after third-party content objects are received, they are assigned categories, locations, and delivery time ranges, where categories reflect various categories of interests of users, where categories may be associated with the interests themselves. A delivery time range is assigned to a content object, and relevance scores are assigned based on various factors, e.g., interest value, connection value, etc. From the relevance scores, the third-party content objects are ranked from highest relevance score to lowest, or by selecting of the highest relevance scored items. The system then provides the selected objects to the notification controller for serving to the user, or is directly served to the user as the next notification (i.e., “wherein the communication is transmitted based on…one or more rules”). See also Tseng, [0083], where an interest hierarchy indicates an ordering of interests by the user, where the user may provide the hierarchy when establishing or updating his profile (i.e., “one or more rules in the profile, wherein the one or more rules associated with at least one of: the first user”). See also Tseng, [0007], [0068-0069], and [0071], where the notifications are provided to users based on user-specified preferences, where the preferences describe when to provide the notifications, the type of notifications of interest, and/or the frequency in which to provide the notifications)).
Regarding claim 6: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, based on the snapshot record, a type of content to be transmitted, wherein the communication is caused to be transmitted based on the type of content to be transmitted (Tseng, [0032] and [0083-0084], where the user profile store 240 includes logic for maintaining interest information for users according to one or more categories, which are explicitly or implicitly indicated. Interest is used to determine what type of notifications of interest to send to users (Tseng, [0007]). See Kaushik, [0021] in claim 1 above where backup data is queried (i.e., “based on the snapshot record”). See also Tseng, [0007], [0068-0069], and [0071], where the notifications are provided to users based on user-specified preferences, where the preferences describe when to provide the notifications, the type of notifications of interest, and/or the frequency in which to provide the notifications).
Regarding claim 7: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a preference of the first user according to the profile, wherein the communication is caused to be transmitted based on the preference (Tseng, [0031], [0068-0071], and [0083], where user profile store 240 includes a user’s interests or affinities, which may be explicitly specified in the user’s profile or interests inferred from the user’s activities in the social networking system, where the user profile store 240 includes logic for maintaining user information for users according to one or more categories, and can be used for determining what notifications to send to users (see also, e.g., Tseng, [0058-0061]). See also Tseng, [0007] and [0083], where the notifications are provided to users based on user-specified preferences, where the preferences describe when to provide the notifications, the type of notifications of interest, and/or the frequency in which to provide the notifications).
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Tseng teaches A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to [implement the claimed steps] (Tseng, [0148-0149], where the disclosed system may be implemented as a computing device reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer, where such a computer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and can be executed by a computer processor for performing the disclosed steps).
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Tseng teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to [implement the claimed steps] (Tseng, [0148-0149], where the disclosed system may be implemented with a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer program code comprising instructions that are executable by a processor for performing the disclosed steps).
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the event database stores a third event record, different from the plurality of event records, relating to a third event associated with a second user (Tseng, [0082], where the social networking system identifies a second user that has a connection with the first user in the system, determining a common interest between the first and second user, and impute interests to the first user based on the interests of other users that are connected to the first user, e.g., inferring the first user’s interests from his or her friends. As there is imputation/inference being performed, this implies that there is “a third event associated with a second user” as claimed. See also, more generally, Tseng, [0038], where multiple categories and (multiple) user interests may correspond to the various events of different activities. See, e.g., Tseng, [0031] and [0036] in claim 1 above with respect to the “event record”).
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 21, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 21, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 24: Tseng as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the schedule specifies at least one of: a transmission time for the communication, or a communication channel for the communication (Tseng, [0064], [0066-0081], with respect to the push rate by which to provide notifications of content objects to the user device 110 (i.e., the push rate corresponding to the claimed “according to the schedule”), which may be user-preference configured, automatically determined, etc., and may be based on various factors including time period, type of notification, etc.).
Regarding claim 25: Claim 25 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 24, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26: Claim 26 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 24, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the enclosed 892 form. Raman et al. (US 2006/0253502 A1) is cited to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized databases (with their associated columns) as claimed (Raman et al., [0004-0005]).
The prior art should be considered to define the claims over the art of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
10 October 2026
1 See Tseng, [0147], where the disclosed operations are implemented by computer programs or equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, etc., where these operations may be referred to as modules, in which the described operations and their associated modules may be embodied in software, firmware, etc.
2 Raman et al. US 2006/0253502 A1 at [0004-0005].
3 Khoyilar et al. US 12,001,419 B1 at [7:61-67]-[8:1-16].
4 Luo et al. US 2023/0055715 A1 at [0065].
5 See, e.g., Srinivasan et al. US 6,382,336 B1 at [Background] (“…it is conventional to permit only one host processor to have read-write access to the database, and to permit the other host processors to have read-only access to the database. For many applications, read-only access to the database must be restricted to consistent states of the database…There are various ways of restricting read-only access to consistent states of a database…. A typical way is to restrict read-only access to a snapshot copy of the database. The snapshot copy is updated at the end of each transaction…. The snapshot copy can be maintained by a data storage system that provides read-write access to the database and concurrent read-only access to the snapshot of the database…. The snapshot copy of the database can be updated very quickly at the conclusion of the transaction commit operation, so as to provide uninterrupted read-only access to consistent states of the database”).
6 See, e.g., Raman et al. US 2003/0217119 A1 at [0049] (“…it is desired to provide uninterrupted read-only access to remote copies of a consistent file system concurrent with read-write updating of the file system”).
7 Raman et al. US 2006/0253502 A1 at [0004-0005].
Prosecution Insights