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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2008/0091737 A1), hereinafter “Lee”, and in view of Chan et al. (US 2004/0122868 A1), hereinafter “Chan”.
As per claim 1, Lee teaches a system comprising at least one hardware processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
“configuring a first dynamic table (DT) within a first failover group” at [0016] and Fig. 1;
(Lee teaches a first failover group comprising a primary database 103 and two standby database 113 and 121. The database information including database tables (i.e., “first dynamic table”))
“causing replication of the first DT from a primary deployment of a network-based database system to a second DT in a secondary deployment of the network-based database system” at [0016]-[0017];
(Lee teaches the data in the primary database 103 is replicated to multiple standby databases 113 and 121)
“configuring the second DT as a primary DT in the secondary deployment based on detecting a failover event in the primary deployment” at [0027], [0087]-[0090];
(Lee teaches because if the primary database system becomes absent, an automatic failover may occur, the standby database becomes the primary database)
“performing an automatic refresh of the primary DT in the secondary deployment based on a scheduling state of the first DT in the primary deployment prior to the failover event” at [0016]-[0017].
(Lee teaches updates made to the primary database 103 are transmitted via network 105 to replication system 108, which replicates the updates in databases 113 and 121. In replication system 108, redo log files 109 are applied against physical standby database 113)
Lee does not teach “the performing of the automatic refresh comprising performing a full refresh of the second DT prior to performing at least one incremental refresh operation on the second DT” as claimed. However, Chan teaches at [0108]-[0111] and Fig. 9 a method for refreshing of Materialized Query Table MQT (i.e., “second DT”) to reflect new data added to the base table by performing a forced full refresh of the MQT at step 902. The MQTJ.force_full flag is then reset at step 916 to prepare for the next refresh, which is an incremental refreshed because MQTj.force_full has been reset to “FALSE”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chan with Lee’s teaching by forcing a full refresh in order to provide “an efficient method of performing incremental constraint checking on MDC tables that takes into account the nature of MDC tables wherein new data is interspersed with old data” and provide “a method of maintaining MQTs dependent on MDC tables that does not lead to in correct results when refreshing the MQTs”, as suggested by Chan at [0012]
As per claim 4, Lee and Chan teach the system of claim 1 discussed above. Lee also teaches: “configuring a replication state of the second DT, the replication state indicating the second DT is one of a replica DT of the first DT or the primary DT” at [0106]-[0130] and Fig. 4.
As per claim 5, Lee and Chan teach the system of claim 4 discussed above. Lee also teaches: “setting a scheduling state of the second DT to be the same as the scheduling state of the first DT, wherein the scheduling state is one of an active state and a suspended state” at [0106]-[0130] and Figs. 4-7.
As per claim 6, Lee and Chan teach the system of claim 5 discussed above. Lee also teaches: “suspending refreshes of the second DT based on the replication state of the second DT being the replica DT” at [0106]-[0130] and Figs. 4-7.
As per claim 7, Lee and Chan teach the system of claim 1 discussed above. Lee also teaches: “activating refreshes of the second DT based on the replication state of the second DT being the primary DT and the scheduling state of the second DT being the active state” at [0106]-[0130] and Figs. 4-7.
Claims 11, 14-17, 20 recite similar limitations as in claims 1, 4-7 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, 12-13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Chan as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 11, 14-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Arye et al. (US 2020/0334232 A1), hereinafter “Arye”.
As per claim 2, Lee and Chan teach the system of claim 1 discussed above. Lee does not teach: “creating the first DT using a table definition, the table definition comprising a query into a first base table and a lag duration value, the lag duration value indicating a maximum time period that a result of a prior refresh of the query lags behind a current time instance” as claimed. However, Arye teaches a method for maintaining materialized view for a database including creating a first materialized view (i.e., “first DT”) using a table definition, the table definition comprising a query into a fist base table and a lag duration value at [0062]-[0069]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Arye with Lee’s teaching to provide a dynamic table which stores query results from another table, in order to “speeding up response times for aggregation queries performed by the user”, as suggested by Arye at [0009]-[0010].
As per claim 3, Lee-Chan and Arye teach the system of claim 2 discussed above. Arye also teaches: “performing the automatic refresh as an incremental refresh of the primary DT in the secondary deployment, the incremental refresh based on a delta of the first base table between a time of the replication and a time of the failover event” at [0068]-[0072].
As per claim 8, Lee-Chan and Arye teach the system of claim 2 discussed above. Arye also teaches: “configuring the first failover group with a first database, the first database including the first DT and the first base table; and replicating the first database to a second database in the secondary deployment of the network-based database system, the second database including the second DT and a second base table, the second base table being a replica of the first base table” at [0245]-[0251].
As per claim 9, Lee-Chan and Arye teach the system of claim 8 discussed above. Arye also teaches: “revising an input edge of the second base table based on a name of the second database, the name of the second database being different than a name of the first database” at [0062]-[0066], [0201]-[0203].
As per claim 10, Lee-Chan and Arye teach the system of claim 2 discussed above. Arye also teaches: “configuring a second failover group with the first base table; generating a second base table as a replica of the first base table based on the failover event; truncating the primary DT to a DT version having a table creation time that is common with a table creation time of a base table version for the second base table; and performing an incremental refresh of the primary DT based on a delta of the second base table posted after the common table creation time” at [0063]-[0076], [0245]-[0251].
Claims 12-13, 18-19 recite similar limitations as in claims 2-3, 8-10 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argued that Lee does not teach “configuring a replication state of the second DT, the replication state indicating the second DT is one of a replica DT of the first DT or the primary DT”. On the contrary, Lee teaches at Fig. 4 a plurality of configuration states which include “OBSERVED SYNCHRONIZED” 411, which indicates that the standby/second DT is a replica DT of the primary DT.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argued that Lee does not disclose “setting a scheduling state of the second DT to be the same as the scheduling state of the first DT, wherein the scheduling state is one of an active state and a suspended state”. On the contrary, as seen at Lee’s Fig. 4 above, the scheduling sate of the second DT is set to “SUPENDED” when the primary become absent.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argued that Lee does not teach “suspending refreshes of the second DT based on the replication state of the second DT being the replica DT”. On the contrary, as seen in Lee’s Fig. 4 above, Lee teaches the state of the standby/second DT is “OBSERVED SYNCHROZISED”, or “replica”, and refreshing state of the standby/second DT is set to “SUPPENDED”.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argued that Lee does not teach “activating refreshes of the second DT based on the replication state of the second DT being the primary DT and the scheduling state of the second DT being the active state”. On the contrary, Lee teaches at [0121]-[0130] and Fig. 4 the steps of refreshing the second DT based on replication state of the second DT is primary (i.e., after the failover) and the state of the second DT is active (i.e., “Not Suspended”).
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 KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
February 12, 2026