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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/04/2026 has been entered.
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 Sharma et al. (US 2022/0100740 A1), hereinafter “Sharma”.
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 that reinitializes the second DT prior to performing at least one incremental refresh operation on the second DT, the reinitializing being based on discarding one or more table versions of the second DT and populating the second DT with result of executing a query associated with the second DT against one or more base tables in the secondary deployment” as claimed.
However, Sharma teaches at [0095]-[0101] a method for refreshing a second copy of a base table, wherein the performing of the automatic refresh comprising “performing a full refresh of the second DT that reinitializes the second DT prior to performing at least one incremental refresh operation on the second DT, the reinitializing being based on discarding one or more table versions of the second DT and populating the second DT with result of executing a query associated with the second DT against one or more base tables in the secondary deployment” at [0101]. In particular, Sharma teaches data table 142 (mapped to the claimed “second DT”) stores data extracted from data store 150 in response to a query. Sharma teaches at [0101] that if the refresh type is full refresh, the existing data in the electronic data table 142 is deleted and the new extracted data is added to the table and therefore reinitializing the data table. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sharma with Lee’s teaching by perform a full refresh in order to maintain data integrity by performing full refresh to retrieved and replace obsoleted data with new data, as suggested by Sharma at [0095]-[0101].
As per claim 4, Lee and Sharma 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 Sharma 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 Sharma 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 Sharma 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, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Sharma 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- Sharma 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- Sharma 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].
Claims 12-13 recite similar limitations as in claims 2-3, 8 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 18-19, 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights