5Notice 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
This Office Action corresponds to application 19/025,658 which was filed on 1/16/2025 and claims benefit of 63/636,236 filed 04/19/2024.
Response to Amendment
In the reply filed 12/8/2025, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No additional claims have been added or canceled. Accordingly claims 1-20 stand pending.
The 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that Gao does not teach a metadata-only zero-copy clone operation that generates a metadata object associated with a cloned table. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gao teaches, in figure 6 and paragraphs 92-104, generating synchronization attributes and metadata for remote and replica tables and that those attributes may include time-stamps indicating when the table or parts of the table were created. When combined with the other cited references this would be for the clone operations and dynamic table (DT) teachings of Arye, Norcott, and Goodwin Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
The applicant also argues that Gao does not teach the first version of the base table and the time of the clone operation being identified by the metadata object. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gao teaches, in figure 6 and paragraphs 92-104, using synchronization attributes and metadata to determine deltas for remote and replica tables and that the synchronization attributes and metadata may include time-stamps indicating when the tables or parts of the tables were created and/or cloned. When combined with the other cited references this would be for the versions and table teachings of Arye, Norcott, and Goodwin. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
Examiner’s note
Claims 15-20 falls within a statutory category, because paragraph 272 of the instant specification recites “The terms "machine-storage media," "computer- storage media," and "device-storage media" specifically exclude carrier waves, modulated data signals, and other such media,…”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arye et al. (US2020/0334254), hereinafter Arye, in view of Norcott et al. (US6334128), hereinafter Norcott, Goodwin et al. (US8874621), hereinafter Goodwin, and Gao et al. (US2025/0036650), hereinafter Gao.
Regarding Claim 1:
Arye teaches:
A system comprising: at least one hardware processor (Arye, figure 13, note processor);
and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations (Arye, figure 13, note memory) comprising:
performing a clone operation on a dynamic table (DT) to generate a cloned DT, the DT being based on a query applied on a base table, and the cloned DT being based on the query applied on a cloned base table corresponding to the base table (Arye, [0019, 0064, 0244, 0246], note replicating a materialized table, e.g., dynamic table; note materialized tables may be associated with queries applied on base tables; note replicas of base tables);
determining a first delta based on at least one change in the base table between a first version of the base table used by the DT at a time of the clone operation and a second version of the base table generated prior to the clone operation (Arye, abstract, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0205, 0235, 0246], note the materialized view, and therefore the materialized table, is updated when the base table is changed; note tracking changes to the base table. This means a delta based on at least one change on the base table is determined and therefore when a changed is made at the time of a replication the delta would be determined between a version of base table at the time of the replication and a version prior to the replication); and
performing a first refresh operation of the DT based on the first delta (Arye, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0235, 0246], note updating, e.g., refreshing, the materialized view based on changes, e.g., delta, to the base table).
While Arye teaches replicating and updating materialized tables, e.g., dynamic tables, Arye doesn’t specifically state the refresh is performed on the cloned DT. However, Norcott is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Norcott teaches:
performing a first refresh operation of the cloned DT based on the first delta (Norcott, column 2 lines 60-67, column 7 lines 4-12, note refreshing materialized views based on changes to their associated base table. When combined with the previously cited references this would mean when the replicated materialized tables as taught by Arye would be refreshed when a changed, e.g., delta, to the base table is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Norcott because all references are directed towards data management and because Norcott would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by performing incremental refreshes of the materialized views (Norcott, column 3 lines 23-27).
While Arye teaches replicating and updating materialized tables, e.g., dynamic tables, Arye doesn’t specifically state the tables are versioned. However, Goodwin is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Goodwin teaches:
performing a clone operation on a dynamic table (DT) to generate a cloned DT, the DT being based on a query applied on a base table, and the cloned DT being based on the query applied on a cloned base table corresponding to the base table (Goodwin, figure 3, column 17 lines 57-67, note creating version tables. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables and base tables as taught by Arye and Norcott);
a first version of the base table and a second version of the base table (Goodwin, figure 3, column 17 lines 57-67, note creating version tables. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables and base tables as taught by Arye and Norcott);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Goodwin because all references are directed towards data management and because Goodwin would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the reliability of the system by providing an audit trail for the full change history (Goodwin, column 17 lines 57-67).
While Arye as modified teaches cloned DTs, Arye as modified doesn’t specifically teach generating metadata objects associated with the clone DTs. However, Gao is in the same field of endeavor, data management, and Gao teaches:
performing a metadata-only zero-copy clone operation on a dynamic table (DT) to generate a metadata object associated with a cloned DT (Gao, figure 6, [0092-0104], note synchronization attributes and metadata for remote and replica tables; note synchronization attributes may include time-stamps indicating when the table or parts of the table were created. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the clone and DT teachings of Arye, Norcott, and Goodwin);
determining a first delta based on at least one change in the base table between a first version of the base table used by the DT at a time of the clone operation and a second version of the base table generated prior to the clone operation, the first version of the base table and the time of the clone operation being identified by the metadata object (Gao, figure 6, [0092-0104], note using synchronization attributes and metadata to determine deltas for remote and replica tables; note synchronization attributes and metadata may include time-stamps indicating when the tables or parts of the tables were created and/or cloned. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the versions and table teachings of Arye, Norcott, and Goodwin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Gao because all references are directed towards data management and because Gao would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by determining changes before performing updates (Gao, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 2:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
generating the cloned DT and the cloned base table during the performing of the clone operation (Arye, [0019, 0064, 0244, 0246], note replicas of materialized tables and base tables means clones are created during clone operations).
Regarding Claim 3:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
updating prior to the first refresh operation, an offset associated with the cloned DT to point to the first version of the base table (Gao, [0064-0069], note the use of materialized views/tables; note changing/updating the table pointer for a table that references data from other tables such as a materialized table; note the change may take place at any time, e.g., before the first refresh operation. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables as taught by Arye and Norcott).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Gao because all references are directed towards data management and because Gao would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by determining changes before performing updates (Gao, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 4:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
performing the first refresh operation to generate a second cloned DT based on the cloned DT (Arye, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0205, 0235, 0246], note updating, e.g., refreshing, the materialized view based on changes, e.g., delta, to the base table. The updated materialized table is interpreted as a second cloned DT based on the cloned DT since it was the first cloned DT before it was updated) (Norcott, column 2 lines 60-67, column 7 lines 4-12, note refreshing materialized views based on changes to their associated base table. When combined with the previously cited references this would mean when the replicated materialized tables as taught by Arye would be refreshed when a changed, e.g., delta, to the base table is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Norcott because all references are directed towards data management and because Norcott would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by performing incremental refreshes of the materialized views (Norcott, column 3 lines 23-27).
Regarding Claim 5:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
merging the first delta into the second cloned DT (Arye, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0205, 0235, 0246], note updating the materialized view based on changes, e.g., delta, to the base table, which is interpreted as merging the first delta into the second cloned DT. The updated materialized table is interpreted as a second cloned DT based on the cloned DT since it was the first cloned DT before it was updated) (Norcott, column 2 lines 60-67, column 7 lines 4-12, note refreshing materialized views based on changes to their associated base table. When combined with the previously cited references this would mean when the replicated materialized tables as taught by Arye would be refreshed when a changed, e.g., delta, to the base table is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Norcott because all references are directed towards data management and because Norcott would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by performing incremental refreshes of the materialized views (Norcott, column 3 lines 23-27).
Regarding Claim 6:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
updating an offset associated with the second cloned DT to point to a first version of the cloned base table corresponding to the second version of the base table (Goodwin, figure 3, column 17 lines 57-67, note creating version tables. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables and base tables as taught by Arye and Norcott) (Gao, [0064-0069], note the use of materialized views/tables; note changing/updating the table pointer for a table that references data from other tables such as a materialized table. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables as taught by Arye and Norcott).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Goodwin because all references are directed towards data management and because Goodwin would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the reliability of the system by providing an audit trail for the full change history (Goodwin, column 17 lines 57-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Gao because all references are directed towards data management and because Gao would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by determining changes before performing updates (Gao, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 7:
Arye as modified shows the system as disclosed above;
Arye as modified further teaches:
determining a second delta based on at least one change in the cloned base table between the first version of the cloned base table at the time of the clone operation and a second version of the cloned base table generated after the first refresh operation (Arye, abstract, [0064, 0067, 0205, 0235, 0244, 0246], note tracking changes to the base table, e.g., replica of the base table. This means a delta based on at least one change on the base table is determined and therefore when a changed is made between the time of a replication operation and after refresh operation, the delta would be determined between a version of base table at the time of the replication and a version after the refresh) (Goodwin, figure 3, column 17 lines 57-67, note creating version tables. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables and base tables as taught by Arye and Norcott);
performing a second refresh operation of the second cloned DT to generate a third cloned DT (Arye, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0235, 0246], note updating, e.g., refreshing, the materialized view based on changes, e.g., delta, to the base table. The updated materialized table is interpreted as a third cloned DT based on the second cloned DT since it was the second cloned DT before it was updated) (Norcott, column 2 lines 60-67, column 7 lines 4-12, note refreshing materialized views based on changes to their associated base table. When combined with the previously cited references this would mean when the replicated materialized tables as taught by Arye would be refreshed when a changed, e.g., delta, to the base table is determined);
merging the second delta into the third cloned DT (Arye, [0015-0016, 0064, 0067, 0235, 0246], note updating the materialized view based on changes, e.g., delta, to the base table, which is interpreted as merging the second delta into the third cloned DT) (Norcott, column 2 lines 60-67, column 7 lines 4-12, note refreshing materialized views based on changes to their associated base table. When combined with the previously cited references this would mean when the replicated materialized tables as taught by Arye would be refreshed when a changed, e.g., delta, to the base table is determined); and
updating an offset associated with the third cloned DT to point to the second version of the cloned base table (Gao, [0064-0069], note the use of materialized views/tables; note changing/updating the table pointer for a table that references data from other tables such as a materialized table. When combined with the previously cited references this would be for the materialized tables as taught by Arye and Norcott).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Norcott because all references are directed towards data management and because Norcott would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by performing incremental refreshes of the materialized views (Norcott, column 3 lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Goodwin because all references are directed towards data management and because Goodwin would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in data management which would improve the reliability of the system by providing an audit trail for the full change history (Goodwin, column 17 lines 57-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the cited references to incorporate the teachings of Gao because all references are directed towards data management and because Gao would expand upon the teachings of the previously cited references in information retrieval which would improve the performance of the system by determining changes before performing updates (Gao, [0009]).
Claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 8 is directed to a method while claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 9 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 9 is directed to a method while claim 2 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 10 is directed to a method while claim 3 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 3.
Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 11 is directed to a method while claim 4 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
Claim 12 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 12 is directed to a method while claim 5 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6 respectively, except claim 13 is directed to a method while claim 6 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 6.
Claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 7 respectively, except claim 14 is directed to a method while claim 7 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 7.
Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1 respectively, except claim 15 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2 respectively, except claim 16 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claim 2 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 2.
Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3 respectively, except claim 17 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claim 3 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 3.
Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4 respectively, except claim 18 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claim 4 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 4.
Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5 respectively, except claim 19 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claim 5 is directed to a system. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claim 5.
Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 6 and 7 respectively, except claim 20 is directed to a computer-storage medium while claims 6 and 7 are directed to a system. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale set forth for claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He et al. (US20110270871) teaches clone DT operations;
Nadeau et al. (US20230098227) teaches table metadata object generation;
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 JOHN J MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00-2:00 PM EST.
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.
/JOHN J MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2152 3/17/2026
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152