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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/02/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 12,169,506 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Response, filed 12/02/2025, amended claims 21-23, 25, 28-30, 32 & 35-39. Claims 1-20 & 40 have been canceled. New claim 41 has been added. Therefore, claims 21-39 & 41 are pending.
The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn due to the filing and approval of a terminal disclaimer.
The claim objection has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page 16 of the Remarks that “Despite describing a data migration server, the replication of data in Nadimpalli describes a direct synchronization between two data stores that is fundamentally different from the elements recited in the currently amended independent claims.” The examiner respectfully disagrees based on the current claim language.
The claims are notably silent on reciting a full picture of the source and target for each data operation step. This absence of clarifying language permits the application of the present prior art references, but notes claim amendments that make explicit the source and target at each step would likely change the applied prior art.
For example, the independent claims have been amended to recite
“establishing a database migration instance comprising an initial sync direction for a first data table in a primary database and a second data table in a secondary database to configure direct writing of data from a data source to the first data table and an asynchronous writing of the data to the second data table”. However, the claims are silent on the asynchronous writing’s source component (what would be the underlined language). The claim only recites the target component (what is the italicized language).
It appears that one possible clarifying amendment for this particular limitation would be “an asynchronous writing of the data from the first data table to the second data table”. This would clarify that the asynchronous writing operation does not originate from the data source and terminate at the second data table.
Likewise, the “writing . . . generating . . . scheduling . . .” limitations should be reviewed to explicitly recite source and target arrangements for their respective operations.
Finally, the examiner recommends that a Form 439, the Internet Communications Authorization form, should be filed by Applicant’s representative in the next Office action response to facilitate emails from the examiner about the substance of the application.
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.
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.
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 21-39 & 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
(i) Nadimpalli et al. (US 2020/0409914 A1, cited in the Form 892 mailed 09/30/2025, hereinafter “Nadimpalli”) in view of
(ii) Zhou (US 2018/0260149 A1, cited in the IDS filed 03/06/2025, hereinafter “Zhou”).
Nadimpalli teaches:
21. A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing a database migration instance comprising an initial sync direction for a first data table in a primary database and a second data table in a secondary database to configure direct writing of data from a data source to the first data table and an asynchronous writing of the data to the second data table [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0014 & 0018];
based on receiving a write command of a unit of data from a data source [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0018]:
writing the unit of data to the first data table in the primary database based on the initial sync direction [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0021];
scheduling, with a sync record service, an asynchronous write command of the unit of data to the second data table in the secondary database based on the asynchronous write command trigger [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0018 & 0047];
determining to modify the database migration instance by changing the initial sync direction to a reversed sync direction to configure direct writing of the data from the data source to the second data table and the asynchronous writing of the data to the first data table [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0018 & 0047]; and
based on receiving an additional write command of an additional unit of data from the data source [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0047];
writing the additional unit of data to the second data table in the secondary database based on the reversed sync direction [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0021]; and
scheduling, with the sync record service, an additional asynchronous write command of the additional unit of data to the first data table in the primary database based on the additional asynchronous write command trigger [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0018 & 0047].
Nadimpalli does not explicitly teach generating an asynchronous write command trigger for the secondary database based on the initial sync direction; and generating an additional asynchronous write command trigger for the primary database based on the reversed sync direction.
However, Zhou teaches
generating an asynchronous write command trigger for the secondary database based on the initial sync direction [Zhou, ¶ 0049]; and
generating an additional asynchronous write command trigger for the primary database based on the reversed sync direction [Zhou, ¶ 0049].
Nadimpalli and Zhou are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, asynchronous data copying. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the cited references and further modify Nadimpalli by Zhou because providing schedulable triggers automates database functionality and event handling.
The combination of Nadimpalli and Zhou teaches:
22. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising terminating the database migration instance by removing a trigger to schedule, with the sync record service, asynchronous write commands when receiving work units [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0029].
23. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising changing the initial sync direction to the reversed sync direction for the data source comprising a first client device associated with a first user identification based on receiving a reverse sync direction command from the first client device [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0016].
24. The computer-implemented method of claim 23, further comprising:
after changing the initial sync direction to a reversed sync direction, detecting a write-error within the secondary database based on utilizing the secondary database to recall data [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0047]; and
changing, based on detecting the write-error, the reversed sync direction back to the initial sync direction [Nadimpalli, ¶ 0047].
25. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining the unit of data in the first data table in the primary database is a newest version of the unit of data based on timestamp data associated with the unit of data [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0030 & 0038]; and
based on determining that the unit of data in the first data table in the primary database is the newest version of the unit of data, writing, by the sync record service via the asynchronous write command, the unit of data to the second data table in the secondary database [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0030 & 0038].
26. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining the unit of data in the first data table in the primary database is an older version of the unit of data based on timestamp data associated with the unit of data [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0030 & 0038]; and
determining to not write the unit of data to the second data table in the secondary database based on the unit of data being the older version of the unit of data [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0030 & 0038].
27. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
identifying units of data in the first data table in the primary database comprising a timestamp older than the unit of data [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0046 & 0047];
identifying that the units of data in the first data table in the primary database comprising a time stamp older than the unit of data are not in the second data table in the secondary database [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0046 & 0047]; and
backfilling the second data table in the secondary database by writing the units of data that comprise a timestamp older than the unit of data from the first data table in the primary database to the second data table in the secondary database [Nadimpalli, ¶¶ 0046 & 0047].
Claims 28-34 recite limitations that are similar to those recited in claims 21-27, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 35-39 & 41 recite limitations that are similar to those recited in claims 21-25 & 27, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 12/19/2025