Response to Amendment
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 .
This action is responsive to amendment filed 12/23/25. Claims 1, and 3-21 are now pending.
The claimed system is interpreted in view of the specification especially figure 3 comprising intercepting a request to write data base on discrepancies.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12242509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application claims substantially the same subject matter using broader terminology.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holenstein et al (USPN. 11,748,212) in view of Holenstein et al (USPN. 10,216,820, herein after “Holenstein2”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-20, Holenstein discloses:
1, 8 and 16. A system and method comprising:
one or more processors (fig. 8); and
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to implement an event interceptor that performs operations comprising (fig. 8, col. 15, lines 13-15, ATF ensures consistent replication of changes from source DB to target DB which requires extracting data of changes while paired, see Table 4, col. 21, transactions and log):
receiving, by an event receptor executing on a computer system, event data extracted from a batch of events pertaining to changes made at a source database, wherein the event data is received from an event interceptor that is paired with the event receptor (figs. 2, Transaction Manager, figs. 5-6, and Table 4. Col. 22, lines 41-50, col. 14, line 63 to col. 15, line 15, ATF Engine configured to monitor Transaction Termination Directives from the Transaction Manager/or subsystem, the ATF responds to a first pairing in a replication target DB and receives all the changes made at the Source DB);
writing, by the event receptor, the event data to a target database to implement the changes at the target database (figs. 2, Transaction Manager, figs. 5-6, and Table 4. Col. 22, lines 41-50, col. 14, line 63 to col. 15, line 15, ATF Engine configured to monitor Transaction Termination Directives from the Transaction Manager/or subsystem, the ATF responds to a first pairing in a replication target DB and receives all the changes made at the Source DB, see Table 4: ATF Intercept does a BEGIN WORK… and Commits, Recovery Engine used to recover, col. 21-22. The receptor is able to write data based on the received source DB changes at the target);
after the writing, the event receptor detecting one or more discrepancies between the source database and the target database (fig. 7, items 7110 and 7200, event alert is detected and intervention required);
in response to the detecting of the one or more discrepancies, the event receptor sending, to the event interceptor, a request to restart transmission of particular event data of a subset of events of the batch of events, beginning with a selected event, wherein the request specifies an identifier of the selected event and causes the event interceptor to signal an event system to access the subset of events from a set of trail files based on the identifier of the selected event (col. 15, lines 9-23, use of ATF ensures the target DB can receive all the database changes made at the source, fig. 7, item 7300 and col. 23, lines 42-62, ATF recovery engine re-applies aborted data and applies transaction steps using log). To the degree that Holenstein comprises the database changes including trail/log and acts as an event receptor and event interceptor, it is common in the field to track trail/log of changes on both source system and target system. One such system, Holenstein2 teaches source side change log and target side change log (figs. 11 and 12, Holenstein2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply change log changes of either source side or target side systems into Holenstein ATF recovery engine wherein the event receptor and event interceptor are applications with access to source and target system (fig. 7, Holenstein). One would have been motivated to retrieve the most correct change log to replay and recover data.
Holenstein modified in view of Holenstein2 teach,
after receiving the particular event data, the event receptor writing the particular event data to the target database (fig. 7, item 7300, ATF recovery engine re-applies aborted data and commits, Holenstein, the re-applying taking place at Source or Target side system, fig. 12, Holenstein2).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the batch of events is associated with a set of system change numbers that define a sequential ordering of events in the batch of events, and wherein the identifier corresponds to a system change number of the selected event (fig. 8, item 8111-8113, col. 24, lines 6-12, the application makes changes to the database, the changes made to the database identify and address the selected event, Holenstein).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the particular event data includes event data from events of the batch of events that are associated with a system change number occurring sequentially after the system change number of the selected event (fig. 8, item 8111-8113, col. 24, lines 6-12, the application makes changes to the database, the changes made to the database impact the subsequent events as the recovery engine is notified, Holenstein).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the event data is received via a plurality of requests from the event interceptor, and wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the event receptor, one or more database statements based on the plurality of requests and executing, by the event receptor, the one or more database statements to write the event data to the target database (fig. 8, item 8111-8113, col. 24, lines 6-12, audit trail comprises logs of events which are used to “form transactions around the changes”, this requires the use of statements for recovery of data, Holenstein).
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by the event receptor, a pairing operation with the event interceptor to establish a connection that permits the event interceptor to send the event data to the event receptor, wherein the pairing operation includes exchanging security credentials to establish trust between the event receptor and the event interceptor (col. 22, lines 41-50, ATF watches, polls or waits for registered termination directives and if failed uses tools and reapplies rolled back data steps and operations to recover/reconnect the database and provide security credentials for reconnecting Holenstein).
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the event receptor and from the event interceptor, a shutdown request issued by a user to shut down, and sending, by the event receptor, an acknowledgment of the shutdown request to the event interceptor, wherein the acknowledgment permits the event interceptor to also shut down (fig. 7, items 7100 to 7300, col. 23, lines 48-62, undesired transaction termination, abort, and corrective actions, Holenstein).
Regarding medium claims 9-14 and system claims 16-20, they claim substantially the same subject matter as rejected method claims 2-7 and are therefore rejected on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-21 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.
The new ground of rejection now relies on event receptor and event interceptor acting as applications accessing either source and or target systems, rendering Applicant’s allegations moot.
Claim 21 would be allowable if amended into independent claim 1 and a filing of a TD.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the field of replication of data:
USPN. 2021/0182162: par. 17 -> heartbeat processing applications in replication environment.
USPN. 2018/0176307: figs. 11-13 -> load balancer in replication systems.
USPN. 10,216,820: fig. 9, overwriting previous changes
USPN. 10,025,845: figs. 18, 25, 26, source/target replication interception
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 MARCIN R FILIPCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-4019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
April 1, 2026
/MARCIN R FILIPCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights