DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 04/27/2026. Claims 1-30 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 contain allowable subject matter but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Madan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20230418711).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly Claims 11 and 21, Madan teaches,
A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor (where the system may include a memory and one or more processors configured to perform the method [0019]) to perform operations comprising:
configuring a first failover group (FG) ("first failover group" (p.n. 610) [Fig. 6]) as a primary FG at a first deployment of a network-based database system, ("first set of data objects" (p.n. 615) [Fig. 6]; where the system may be cloud-based ("network-based") and applied to any type of database [0075-0076]);
the first FG comprising a first set of data objects (where entities of the system of Fig. 6 (see at least p.n. 605 and 607) include objects [0119 & 0123])
configuring a first replication group (RG) ("first replication group" (p.n. 615) [Fig. 6]) as a current primary RG within the first FG (replication is performed from (610) to (620) [0127]; the Examiner notes, therefore making (610) the “primary” and (615) is of (610)),
the first RG comprising a second set of data objects ("second set of data objects" (p.n. 607) [Fig. 6]),
the second set of data objects being a subset of the first set of data objects ((607) is a subset of (615) [Fig. 6, corresponding disclosure 0127]),
and the first RG configured to replicate the second set of data objects from a source account ("source account" (p.n. 610) [Fig. 6]) to at least one target account ("target account" (p.n. 620) [Fig. 6]; replication is performed from (610) to (620) based on replication metadata (606), including the replication of (607) [0127]; (615) comprises replication metadata (606) ("the first RG configured to replicate the second set of data objects") [Fig. 6]);
causing replication of the first FG from the first deployment to a second FG in a second deployment of the network-based database system, the second FG comprising a second RG as a replica of the first RG ("the first FG from the first deployment" (p.n. 610), "a second FG in a second deployment" (p.n. 620), "second RG" (p.n. 623) [Fig. 6]; "the replication processing device 640 replicates the first replication group 615 from the first database region 610 into the replicated group 623 in the second database region 620" [0128]; where the system may be cloud-based ("network-based") and applied to any type of database [0075-0076]);
configuring the second FG as the primary FG and the second RG as the current primary RG in the second deployment based on detecting a failover event in the first deployment (the system causes a database stored in a primary deployment to be replicated to one or more secondary deployments, where in the event that the primary deployment is unavailable, transactions are executed on the secondary deployment [0041]; where upon receipt of a command ("failover event") the failover group ("second FG") is promoted to the operating group ("primary FG," also see [0136]) [0138]);
and performing data replication based on the second RG being the current primary RG (in response to promoting the secondary deployment, synchronization is performed such that a snapshot of the failover group ("secondary deployment"/"current primary") is synchronized with the source group (original "primary") [0145]; par. 145 describes the procedure of Fig. 9, which is an "example schematic diagram depicts operations in a system including one or more processors operatively coupled to a memory to perform the replication operations discussed above" [0136]; Fig. 6 including the second RG (p.n. 623) is "discussed above").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are 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. The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Madan discloses use of metadata comprising snapshot starting points as a Database Data Persistence Object (DatabaseDPO) [0110]. However, in accordance with the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the location of replication metadata (606) is within internal entity (605) of first replication group (615), mapped to the first set of data objects [Fig. 6]. Madan’s explicit location of DatabaseDPO/metadata (606) [0110, Fig. 6] corresponding to one or more databases and a share object is not within the second set of data objects as claimed, and is instead found within the first set of data objects.
In addition to the prior art of record, the Examiner further points to closest prior art Gernhardt et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20230169090) discloses use of a manifest of a replication group object (RGO) that comprises at least one share object [0087] and databases [0078]. The use of the RGO, which would then correspond to the “second set of data objects,” is to be generated upon a replication request and replication is performed based on the RGO (“second set of data objects”) [Fig. 5, 0078, 0092, 0132-0133]. However, as claimed, the “second set of data objects” is replicated according to the first RG. The Examiner does not find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Madan’s “other internal entities” (607) [Fig. 6] to include Gernhardt’s replication group information because the step of replicating Madan’s (607) is performed according to metadata (606) of (605; within 615), external to (607) [Fig. 6]. Further, incorporation of Gernhardt’s replication group information to Madan’s metadata (606) would instead be incorporating the databases and share objects to the first set of data objects.
Accordingly, the prior art does not disclose, without the use of impermissible hindsight reasoning, “configuring the second set of data objects to include one or more databases and a share object.” Claims 12 and 22 recite similarly. Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 23-30 depend upon Claims 2, 12, and 22, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/26 have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees with the clarification provided by the Applicant regarding the first named inventors of U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0418711 and U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0060975. Accordingly, previously referenced “Uhlar” in the Office Action dated 01/27/2026 is now referenced as “Madan” in the rejection above.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant argues that Madan fails to disclose, “configuring a first replication group (RG) as a current primary RG within the first FG, the first RG comprising a second set of data objects, the second set of data objects being a subset of the first set of data objects, and the first RG configured to replicate the second set of data objects from a source account to at least one target account” [pg. 8]. The Applicant further details that,
First, Madan's replication metadata (606) is not a structural container of data objects. Madan describes element 606 as metadata about replication relationships. For example, Madan, in paragraph [0126], describes element 606 as "replication metadata" used to track relationships between source and failover groups. Madan, at paragraph [0145], similarly describes the replication metadata as containing information used to "match objects from the second FG to objects in the first FG." Madan's replication metadata describes or documents replication relationships; it does not itself comprise a set of data objects. … Madan does not disclose such a structurally nested container.
Second, Madan does not describe any element that is both (i) a subset of the data objects of the source group and (ii) a distinct replication unit nested within the source group. Madan's source group (the alleged "first FG") is the entire unit being replicated; Madan does not disclose a nested RG that constitutes a subset of the source group and that independently replicates that subset from a source account to a target account.
Third, Madan does not disclose that its replication metadata (606) is "configured to replicate the second set of data objects from a source account to at least one target account." Madan's replication metadata is information stored during replication; it does not itself function as a replication unit that replicates from a source account to a target account. Madan at paragraph [0102] describes the source group as being replicated to a different location via a database snapshot; Madan does not disclose a nested RG within the source group that independently replicates a subset of data objects to a target account.
The above arguments have been enumerated for clarity of the Examiner’s response. In response to 1), the Examiner points to the clarified rejection above, in light of the amendments made, that the claimed element of “a first replication group” is taught by part number 615 of Fig. 6 and corresponding disclosure.
In response to 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees that, “a nested RG that constitutes a subset of the source group and that independently replicates that subset from a source account to a target account” is claimed. The claims recite, “configuring a first replication group (RG) as a current primary RG within the first FG, […] the first RG configured to replicate the second set of data objects” [Claim 1]. The claims do recite that the first RG, of the first FG, is configured to replicate the second set of data objects from a source account to a target account, and separately that the first FG is replicated to a second FG; the Examiner does not find that this recites independently replicating a subset from a source account to a target account, the nested RG constituting that subset of the source group. In response to the claims themselves, Madan’s (610) (“first FG”) comprises, at least, a first replication group (615) (a ‘nested’ RG) [Fig. 6], where (615) comprises (607) and (605), and (605) comprises (606) [Fig. 6]. Madan discloses that “The replication processing device 640 may, based on the replication metadata 606 […] replicating the number of the other entities 607 in the first database region 610 to the second database region 620 as the other entities 627” [0127].
In response to 3) the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “configured to replicate” is not disclosed by Madan. The Examiner points to the rejection above, clarified in light of the amendment. Specifically cited portions of Madan disclose that replication of other entities (607) (“second set of data objects”) performed based on replication metadata (606) [0127]. As disclosed in the rejection above, (615) is relied upon to disclose the first replication group, where replication metadata (606) is member of (615) [Fig. 6]. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the newly amended limitations are taught by Madan, please see the rejection above.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding Claims 3, 13, and 23, have been fully considered but are moot in light of their dependence upon the indicated allowable subject matter of Claims 2, 12, and 22, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights