Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to the Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed on 02/18/2026.
As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103.
Please note claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21 and 23 are pending.
Note that: Claims 5, 11, 16 and 22 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busjaeger et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0143636, hereinafter Busjaeger), in view of Fuller et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0344596, hereinafter Fuller).
As per as claim 1, Busjaeger discloses:
(Currently amended) A method for mitigating data race conditions in a database (Busjaeger, e.g., [abstract], [0037-0038], “...selecting data objects to move to database...”), the method comprising:
requesting, by two or more data sources, one or more changes to be performed on a data stored in the database (Busjaeger, e.g., [0019-0020], [0075], “...a plurality of tenant computer systems...includes database... tenants use the web services, database 125 may include a variety of database objects that are written, read, and edited. Any access in which a database object is modified (including creation or deletion of an object) causes a change to event record...”);
capturing the requested one or more changes in a streaming job to generate one or more alarms related to the one or more changes (Busjaeger, e.g., [0028-0030], “... change event record stream ...change event records that are generated by multiple tenants... access change event records for a particular tenant, the logging may further include generating a particular local table that maps change event records that are associated with a given tenant to corresponding shards...”, [0075], “...receiving, by computer system 101 in a multi-tenant database service, change event record stream 150 for database ... change event record 155 is indicative of a modification made to database 125 by one of a plurality of tenants...”);
generating one or more logs related to the captured one or more changes (Busjaeger, e.g., [0030],[0058-0059], “...returning a list of the identified change event records in an order in which the corresponding change events occurred...” and [0076], “...storing received change event records... change event records 155 may be assigned a record sequence number, which may then be used to identify and access particular change event records 155 after they have been stored....”);
determining a type of operation to be performed on the stored data based on the one or more generated logs and the one or more generated alarms (Busjaeger, e.g., [0020], “...access in which a database object is modified (including creation or deletion of an object) causes a change to event record ...” (types of operation) [0081-0082], “... updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant, wherein delta token 540a includes an indication of a most recent change event record 155 that was included in the processing of query...”) (note that: according to paragraph [0032] of instant application disclose: the alarms include messages indicating as one or more change to be performed on the data in the database); and
responsive to determining, performing the type of operation on the data stored in the database (Busjaeger, .g., [0081-0083], “....in response to completing processing of query 560, updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant... recent change event record indicated by updated delta token...”).
To make records clearer regarding to the language of “performing the type of operation on the data stored in the database” (although as stated above Busjaeger functional disclose the features of “performing the type of operation on the data stored in the database”).
However Fuller, in an analogous art, discloses “performing the type of operation on the data stored in the database” (Fuller, e.g., [0011-13], [0027-0029], and [0037-0039], “...creating transactionally consistent change notifications...perform operations... receiving transaction requests for executing corresponding transactions on the distributed system; and determining a change log load based on the received transaction requests. Each instance of the change log process is configured to store, on the memory hardware, a transaction history of transactions executed on the distributed system. When the change log load satisfies a threshold load, the system includes executing at least one subsequent instance of the change log process and determining whether multiple instances of the change log process are executing...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fuller and Busjaeger to use a change log to record each transaction to the data stored on the distributed system wherein change logs record every change made to a datastore, and when a read transaction occurs on the datastore, the change log functions as an on/off check point for all the data for a given snapshot (Fuller, e.g., [abstract], [0002]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Currently amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more changes are related to performing data manipulation operations on the data in the database (Fuller, e.g., [0011-13], [0027-0029], and [0037-0039], “...creating transactionally consistent change notifications...perform operations... receiving transaction requests for executing corresponding transactions on the distributed system; and determining a change log load based on the received transaction requests. Each instance of the change log process is configured to store, on the memory hardware, a transaction history of transactions executed on the distributed system. When the change log load satisfies a threshold load, the system includes executing at least one subsequent instance of the change log process and determining whether multiple instances of the change log process are executing...”) and (Busjaeger, .g., [0020], “...maintaining the change log, including establishing retention times for keeping each change event record in the change log. In addition, the set of rules may place a limit on how often the change log can be accessed and/or track charges for a number of accesses...” and [0081-0083], “....in response to completing processing of query 560, updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant... recent change event record indicated by updated delta token...”).
As per a claim 3, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Original) The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the data manipulation operations include at least one of an insert operation, an update operation, or a delete operation (Busjaeger, e.g., [0020], “...access in which a database object is modified (including creation or deletion of an object) causes a change to event record ...” (types of operation) [0081-0082], “... updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant, wherein delta token 540a includes an indication of a most recent change event record 155 that was included in the processing of query...”).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Currently amended) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more alarms include messages indicating the one or more changes to be performed on the data in the database, wherein the messages are stored in a distributed event streaming platform (Busjaeger, e.g., [0017], “... stream of change event records for a database on a server, and storing the received change event records...” and see [0021-0025], “...receive change event record stream 150 for database 125 on server 120...change event record stream 150 to computer system 101...change event record stream 150 may include a series of shards, a given shard including one or more change event records associated with a plurality of tenants over a particular period of time. As used herein, a “shard” refers to a portion of a change event record stream that includes change event records generated for a particular database partition during a particular time period...”).
5. (Cancelled)
As per as claim 6, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Original) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more alarms include at least one of a new alarm or a clear alarm (Note that: According to paragraph [0036] disclose insert = new alarm) (Fuller, e.g., [006-009], “... change log cache sets a notification lock from the true time until the maximum commit time. The notification lock may prevent the corresponding change log cache from notifying one or more subscribing watchers for completed transactions having corresponding commit times earlier than the maximum commit time. The at least one change log cache may remove the notification lock at an end of the maximum commit time. The removed notification lock may permit the corresponding log cache to notify the one or more subscribing watchers...”) and see (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], “...query 560, delta process 501 updates delta token 540a that corresponds to the particular tenant. Delta token 540a is updated to include indications of the most recent shards that were included in the processing of query...”)).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Currently amended) The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the new alarm indicates performing an insert operation on the data in the database (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], (add and update)).
As per as claim 8, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Original) The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein an insert query is created when the new alarm is generated (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], (add and update)).
As per as claim 9, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Currently amended) The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the clear alarm indicates performing an update operation on the data in the database (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], (add and update)).
As per as claim 10, the combination of Fuller and Busjaeger disclose:
(Currently amended) The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the update operation includes updating the data with a clear time as indicated in the clear alarm (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], ( processed using updated delta token 540aa to identify change event records that were received after the most recent shards indicated by delta token )).
11. (Cancelled)
Claims 12-15 and 17-21 are essentially the same as claims 1-4 and 6-10 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a system rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10.
Claims 23 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it set forth the claimed invention as a computer program product rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21 and 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection for the following reasons:
Issue I: Applicant argued on page 2 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “mitigating data race condition in a database”.
Response I: Unless applicant provide the detailing of mitigating data race condition in a database, otherwise the for the purpose of examination and base on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. The examiner respectfully submits (Busjaeger, e.g., [abstract], [0036-0038], “divide data objects between database partitions...selecting data objects to move to database partition/shard...”) (the examiner asserts divide/partition/shard data object to prevent from grow in size/overflow).
Issue II: Applicant argued on page 2 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “capturing the requested one or more changes in a streaming job to generate one or more alarms related to the one or more changes”.
Response II: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits (Busjaeger, e.g., [0028-0030], “... change event record stream ...change event records that are generated by multiple tenants... access change event records for a particular tenant, the logging may further include generating a particular local table that maps change event records that are associated with a given tenant to corresponding shards...”, [0075], “...receiving, by computer system 101 in a multi-tenant database service, change event record stream 150 for database ... change event record 155 is indicative of a modification made to database 125 by one of a plurality of tenants...”, and further see [0015-0016], “...change event records may be requested by individual tenants of a multi-tenant database, resulting in a time-consuming process for sifting through all change event records to identify those that are associated with a particular requesting tenant...who can request access”) (capturing changes/updating to notify/alarms/recording change).
Issue III: Applicant continue to argued on pages 2-3 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “determining a type of operation to be performed on the stored data based on the one or more generated logs and the one or more generated alarms”.
Response III: According to the paragraph [0032] of the instant application disclose “the alarms include messages indicating as one or more change to be performed on the data in the database”. The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits (Busjaeger, e.g., [0020], “...access in which a database object is modified (including creation or deletion of an object) causes a change to event record ... maintain a log of change event records corresponding to data objects modified by the various tenants.. track charges for a number of accesses....” (types of operation) [0081-0082], “... updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant, wherein delta token 540a includes an indication of a most recent change event record 155 that was included in the processing of query...”) (logging/tracking who are write/reading/change/updating/modify is equivalent to determining a type operation and then logs/tracking/recording in order to notify/alarms to management/master system) .
Issue IV: Applicant also argued on pages 2-3 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “responsive to determining, performing the type of operation on the data stored in the database”.
Response IV: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits (Busjaeger, .g., [0081-0083], “....in response to completing processing of query 560, updating delta token 540a corresponding to a given tenant... recent change event record indicated by updated delta token...”) and (Fuller, e.g., [0011-13], [0027-0029], and [0037-0039], “...creating transactionally consistent change notifications...perform operations... receiving transaction requests for executing corresponding transactions on the distributed system; and determining a change log load based on the received transaction requests. Each instance of the change log process is configured to store, on the memory hardware, a transaction history of transactions executed on the distributed system. When the change log load satisfies a threshold load, the system includes executing at least one subsequent instance of the change log process and determining whether multiple instances of the change log process are executing...”).
Issue V: Appllicant argued on pages 3-4 regarding to claims 4 and 15 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “one or more alarms include messages indicating the one or more changes to be performed on the data in the database, wherein the messages are stored in a distributed event streaming platform”.
Response V: The Examiner respectfully submits (Busjaeger, e.g., [0017], “... stream of change event records for a database on a server, and storing the received change event records...” and see [0020-0025], “...receive change event record stream 150 for database 125 on server 120...change event record stream 150 to computer system 101...change event record stream 150 may include a series of shards, a given shard including one or more change event records associated with a plurality of tenants over a particular period of time. As used herein, a “shard” refers to a portion of a change event record stream that includes change event records generated for a particular database partition during a particular time period...”).
Issue VI: Applicant argued on pages 4-5 regarding to claim 10 and 21 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Busjaeger and Fuller fails to disclose “update operation includes updating the data with a clear time as indicated in the clear alarm”.
Response VI: The Examiner respectfully submits (Busjaeger, e.g., [0023], [0037], [0067-0069], [0081-0083], ( ...processed using updated delta token 540aa to identify change event records that were received after the most recent shards indicated by delta token )), and further see (Muller, e.g., [0029], [0033-0035], [0039-0040], “...transmitting write access requests to update/change/mutate data stored in the datastore ...”).
For the above reasons, the rejection is maintains.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to database management system and data integration which is capturing the requested one or more change in a streaming job to generate one or more alarms related to the one or more change and then generating one or more logs related to the captured one or more change.
a. Thapliyal et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0096523, hereafter Thapliyal); “Rule Evaluation For Real Time Data Stream” disclose database systems and data processing, and more specifically to rule evaluation for a real-time data stream which receive a user input indicating a data stream, a data metric configured for a tenant of a multi-tenant database system, a rule associated with the data metric, the computing device may receive, from the data stream, a real-time data stream including information corresponding to the data metric configured for the tenant, where the real-time data stream may be associated with a first user profile stored at the multi-tenant database system and evaluate the rule, the trigger, or both based on ingesting the data stream and may perform the action based on the evaluation.
Thapliyal also teaches streaming device log data from a device (e.g., a vending machine or some other device) based on error codes to determine most frequent errors and determine if the device should be serviced relatively soon [0031], log [0033].
Thapliyal further teaches updates, streams changes, stream jobs per tenant managing rule jobs per tenant [0060-0063].
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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
If a reference indicated as being mailed on PTO-FORM 892 has not been enclosed in this action, please contact Lisa Craney whose telephone number is 571-272-3574 for faster service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights