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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2024/0256569 A1), hereinafter “Muller”, and in view of Andreakis (“DBLog: A Watermark Based Change-Data-Capture Framework”), hereinafter “Andreakis”.
As per claim 1, Muller teaches a database synchronization method comprising:
“reading an incremental log stream of a first database and caching the incremental log stream into a memory” at [0048];
(Muller teaches reading a stream of data changes and creating in the secondary transaction log 17 a log entry that represents the received data change)
“in any round of iteration, sending incremental log data in the incremental log stream to a second database in sequence from first position in the incremental log stream cached in the memory” at [0049];
(Muller teaches sending data changes from the transaction log 17 to external database systems 20 for applying data changes. If the log entry represents an insert of a record of a new table, the external database system inserts the new record in the table)
“marking a second position of incremental log data which is latest sent to the second database in real time, wherein the first position is a start position of sending the incremental log data to the second database in the round of iteration” at [0062]-[0065] and Fig. 7A-C;
(Muller teaches a set of log entries may be created in the secondary transaction log, each log entry is associated with a sequence number indicating the order in which it is applied. The set of log entries further comprise two log entries indicating the start (i.e., “first position”) and the end (i.e., “second position”) of the transaction TxA (i.e., “the round of iteration”) respectively)
“reading any to-be-read data block in the first database
(Muller teaches the table 701A is updated to become table 701B, reading the table 701B comprising 5 rows with RowID 1, 6, 3, 4, 5 and reloading table 703B with the updated rows data)
“filtering out old version data in the to-be-read data block based on the incremental log data between first position and the second position and a preset filtering rule, and sending the filtered data to the second database” at [0063]-[0065] and Figs. 7B-7C;
(Muller teaches log entries with having sequence number 11-13 and 16-18 correspond to rows that are unchanged (i.e., “old version data”) is filtered out. Muller teaches at Fig. 7C the incremental log has been filtered to include only changed rows between first position (i.e., “Begin TxA”) and second position (i.e., “End TxA”))
“moving the first position to a current second position and continuing a next round of iteration” at [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 7A-7C.
(Muller teaches continuing a next round of iteration by moving the log entry “Begin TXB” to the current second position after the log entry “End TxA”)
Muller does not explicitly teach “pausing sending the incremental log data to the second database” as claimed. However, Andreakis teaches a similar method for processing incremental transaction log by interleaving transaction log events with rows that are directly selected from tables., Andreakis also teaches while reading any to-be-read data block in the first database, “pausing sending the incremental log data to the second database” at section 3.2 and Fig. 3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Andreakis with Muller’s teaching in order to unchanged rows are filtered out before sending the incremental transaction data to the second database, and therefore reduce the time and resource required to update the data in the second database.
As per claim 2, Muller and Andreakis teach the method according to claim 1 discussed above. Andreakis also teaches: wherein “filtering out the old-version data in the to-be- read data block based on the incremental log data between the first position and the second position and the preset filtering rule comprises: filtering out data in the to-be-read data block whose primary key is comprised in the primary key of the incremental log data between the first position and the second position; and filtering out data in the to-be-read data block whose primary key is not comprised in the primary key of the incremental log data between the first position and the second position and whose time stamp is not greater than the time stamp corresponding to a first identification” at Section 3.2 .and Figs. 3, 4.
As per claim 3, Muller and Andreakis teach the method according to claim 1 discussed above. Muller also teaches: wherein “sending the filtered data to the second database comprises: determining data in the to-be-read data block whose primary key is not comprised in the primary key of the incremental log data between the first position and the second position and whose time stamp is greater than the time stamp corresponding to a first identification as the filtered data, and sending the filtered data to the second database” at [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 7A-7C.
As per claim 4, Muller and Andreakis teach the method according to claim 1 discussed above. Andreakis also teaches: “ending the iteration process after all data blocks in the first database are completely read, and continuing to send the incremental log data to the second database” at section 3.2 and Algorithm 1.
As per claim 5, Muller and Andreakis teach the method according to claim 1 discussed above. Andreakis also teaches: “in a case that there is no incremental log data in the incremental log stream to be sent to the second database and there is still a remaining to-be-read data block in the first database, ending the iteration process and sending the remaining to-be-read data block to the second database; and continuing to send new incremental log data to the second database in a case that the new incremental log data is read from the incremental log stream” at section 3.2 and Algorithm 1.
As per claim 7, Muller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein “before reading any to-be-read data block in the first database, the method further comprises: dividing data in the first database into multiple data blocks, wherein any data block comprises at least one row of data” at [0062].
Claims 8-12, 14-19 recite similar limitations as in claims 1-5, 7 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 20 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.
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
February 24, 2026