Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/081,262, filed on 3/17/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 18/106,904 filed 02/07/2023 is now US PAT 12253979 18/106,904 is a CON of 16/891,347 filed 06/03/2020 is now US PAT 11573930 16/891,347 has DOM PRO 62/856,702 filed 06/03/2019
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 3/17/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 62/856,702 filed on 06/03/2019under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Statutory Review under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method and have been reviewed.
Claims 1-8 perform the method steps, determined to be directed to significantly more than an abstract idea based on currently known judicial exceptions
Claims 9-16 are directed to a system and have been reviewed
Claims 9-16 appear to be statutory, as the system includes hardware (at least one data processor) as disclosed in ¶ fig 5, 0079-0088 of the applicant’s specification referring to physical processor cores
Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium readable by a processing circuit, the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the processing circuit to cause a method to be performed, have been reviewed
Claim 17 appear to be statutory, as computer program product comprising non-statutory computer-readable medium readable (fig 5, 0016, 0079-0088) by a processing directed to significantly more than an abstract idea based on currently known judicial exceptions (claim says non-transitory).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9,17, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,9,17:
A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include a missed set of one or more particular data change events occurring in the first database during the period of time, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records;
synchronizing the first set of data records from the first database to the second database, the synchronizing possibly failing to synchronize a failed subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a failed subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events and successfully synchronizing a success subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a success subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events;
writing in a synchronization store sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
writing in a failure store sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
reviewing a bin log of the first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records;
accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records;
accessing the failure store to retrieve the sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
removing the failed subset of one or more data change events from the third set of one or more data change events to generate a fourth set of one or more data change events corresponding to a fourth set of one or more data records; and
synchronizing the fourth set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example receiving a first set of data change events, synchronizing the first set of data records, writing in a synchronization, writing in a failure store, reviewing a bin log, accessing the synchronization, comparing the second set of data change events………. in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere synchronizing, writing failure records, reviewing log records, comparing data and like
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of synchronizing data change events, writing failure records and/or data, reviewing log records, accessing synchronization, comparing change events and like, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 1, fig 5, 0078-0087 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 1, fig 5, 0078-0087 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,10, further elaborates “wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,11, further elaborates “wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the missed set of one or more particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,12, further elaborates
“ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events; and
identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5,13, further elaborates
“monitoring, by the upstream data service, the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,14, further elaborates “wherein the missed set of one or more particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data service during at least a portion of the period of time”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,15, further elaborates
“determining the failed subset of one or more data records by receiving sync failure information indicating a failure to synchronize a failed data record of the failed subset of one or more data records and storing an identifier of each failed data record of the failed subset of one or more data records”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8,16, further elaborates “wherein each data record in the first set of data records is a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-17 of US Application No. 19/081,262 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/081,262
US Patent No. 11,573,930
Claim 1,9,17, A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include a missed set of one or more particular data change events occurring in the first database during the period of time, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records;
synchronizing the first set of data records from the first database to the second database, the synchronizing possibly failing to synchronize a failed subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a failed subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events and successfully synchronizing a success subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a success subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events;
writing in a synchronization store sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
writing in a failure store sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
reviewing a bin log of the first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records;
accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records;
accessing the failure store to retrieve the sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
removing the failed subset of one or more data change events from the third set of one or more data change events to generate a fourth set of one or more data change events corresponding to a fourth set of one or more data records; and
synchronizing the fourth set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database
Claim 2, 10,wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service
Claim 3, 11, wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service.
Claim 4, 12, ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events; and
identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time
Claim 5, 13, monitoring, by the upstream data service, the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events
Claim 6, 14, wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data service during at least a portion of the period of time.
Claim 7, 15, accessing the second store to identify the failed subset of one or more data records
Claim 8, 16, wherein each data record in the first set of data records is a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time.
Claim 1, 9,17, A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include particular data change events occurring in the first database during the period of time;
storing the first set of data change events in a synchronization store, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records;
synchronizing the first data of data records from the first database to the second database;
reviewing a bin log of the first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records;
accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the first set of data change events;
comparing the second set of data change events against the first set of data change events to determine the particular data change events, the particular data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records;
determining a fourth set of one or more data records that failed to successfully sync to the second database;
writing sync failure information to a failure store;
removing the fourth set of one or more data records from the third set of one or more data records; and
synchronizing the third set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database.
Claim 2, wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service.
Claim 3, wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service
Claim 4, ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events; and
identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time
claim 5, monitoring, by the upstream data service, the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events
claim 6, wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data service during at least a portion of the period of time
claim 7, accessing the second store to identify the fourth set of one or more data records
claim 8, wherein each data record in the first set of data records are a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,930 to arrive at the claims 1-17 of the instant application 19/081,262 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1 instant application 19/081,262 comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,930, comparing the second set of data change events against the first set of data change events to determine the particular data change events, the particular data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records is absent of the limitation from instant application 19/081,262 claim 1, 9,17 Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, furthermore, claims 2-8 of the instant application 19/081,262 is identical to the claims 2-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,930
Claims 1-17 of US Application No. 19/081,262 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/081,262
US Patent No. 12,253,979
Claim 1,9,17, A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include a missed set of one or more particular data change events occurring in the first database during the period of time, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records;
synchronizing the first set of data records from the first database to the second database, the synchronizing possibly failing to synchronize a failed subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a failed subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events and successfully synchronizing a success subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to a success subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events;
writing in a synchronization store sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
writing in a failure store sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
reviewing a bin log of the first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records;
accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events;
comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records;
accessing the failure store to retrieve the sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events;
removing the failed subset of one or more data change events from the third set of one or more data change events to generate a fourth set of one or more data change events corresponding to a fourth set of one or more data records; and
synchronizing the fourth set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database
Claim 2, 10,wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service
Claim 3, 11, wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service.
Claim 4, 12, ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events; and
identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time
Claim 5, 13, monitoring, by the upstream data service, the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events
Claim 6, 14, wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data service during at least a portion of the period of time.
Claim 8, 16, wherein each data record in the first set of data records is a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time.
Claim 1, 9,17, A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include particular data change events occurring in the first database during the period of time;
storing the first set of data change events in a synchronization store, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records;
synchronizing the first set of data records from the first database to the second database, the synchronizing possibly failing to synchronize a failed subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records;
reviewing a bin log of the first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records;
accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the first set of data change events;
comparing the second set of data change events against the first set of data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the particular data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records;
determining the failed subset of one or more data records;
writing sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data records to a failure store;
removing any data records of the failed subset of one or more data records from the third set of one or more data records; and
synchronizing the third set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database.
Claim 2, wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service.
Claim 3, wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service
Claim 4, ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events; and
identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time
claim 5, monitoring, by the upstream data service, the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events
claim 6, wherein the particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data service during at least a portion of the period of time
claim 8, wherein each data record in the first set of data records are a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,979 to arrive at the claims 1-17 of the instant application 19/081,262 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1 instant application 19/081,262 comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,979, comparing the second set of data change events against the first set of data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the particular data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records; is absent of the limitation from instant application 19/081,262 claim 1, 9,17 Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, furthermore, claims 2-6,8 of the instant application 19/081,262 is identical to the claims 2-6,8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,979
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, US Pub.No. 2012/0143819 in view of Vivian et al., (hereafter Vivian), US Pub. No. 2007/0198700 Published Aug, 2007
As to Claim 1,9,17, Tan teaches a system which including “A computer-implemented method for syncing data from a first database accessible by a first computing system to a second database accessible by a second computing system, the method comprising” (Tan: (fig 6, para 0056 – Tan teaches computer system having tenant data storage, processors, connected to the user systems in a network environment, each user system element 612 corresponds to first, second computing system) :
PNG
media_image1.png
226
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receiving a first set of data change events occurring in the first database over a period of time, the first set of data change events possibly failing to include a missed set of one or more particular data change events occurring, the first set of data change events corresponding to a first set of data records” (Tan: 0022,0027, 0031-0032 fig 1,3 - Tan teaches databases maintains data objects as set of data establishing synch relationship in identifying respective change events and/or object fields allows dynamically synchronization of fields between object types, particularly initiating 1st trigger condition, 2nd trigger condition and like to identify change of events that not only identify data change(s), but also maintains map(ing) record where lookup relationship may identify first field of first record, second field of the second record, in the event of synchronization process, any of the field does not have an existing relationship may not be synchronized, thereby relationship handler component generates “message” may corresponds to failing data change events
PNG
media_image2.png
153
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“synchronizing the first set of data records from the first database to the second database, the synchronizing possibly failing to synchronize of one or more data records of the first set of data records corresponding to, one or more data change events of the first set of data change events and successfully synchronizing a success subset of one or more data records of the first set of data records” corresponding to a success subset of one or more data change events of the first set of data change events” (Tan: fig 1-2, 0025,0035-0036 – Tan teaches synchronize relationship from the relationship handler, accordingly generates mapping table in identifying respective record sets associated with the field of the respective records, while update handler configured updating data satisfying triggering conditions);
“sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events” (Tan: fig 4, element 406,408 – 0038,0041 – Tan teaches synchronize relationship determines the respective data fields and update date in the fields);
“first database to identify a second set of data change events occurring in the first database over the period of time, the second set of data change events corresponding to a second set of data records” (Tan: fig 4, 0037-0038,0042 – Tan teaches synchronize relationship is a bi-directional between data fields, identifies relationship and synchronize data between fields, accordingly generates mapping table in identifying respective record sets associated with the field of the respective records, while update handler configured updating data satisfying triggering conditions) ;
“accessing the synchronization store to retrieve the sync success information regarding the success subset of one or more data change events” (Tan: fig 2, fig 5 – Tan teaches database structure defining data records and respective fields associated with the synchronizing service module element 202, the prior art of Tan also teaches identifying first field, from the first record, second field from the second record is part of defining database structure defining data records, establishing relationship configured for receiving the indications identifying the respective data record fields);
“comparing the second set of data change events against the success subset of one or more data change events to determine a third set of data change events, the third set of data change events including at least the missed set of one or more particular data change events and the failed subset of one or more data change events, the third set of data change events corresponding to a third set of one or more data records” (Tan: fig 2-3,0027-0028 - Tan teaches defining objects having records and respective fields particularly first object, 2nd object, …..nth object fields corresponds to element 214 corresponds to each data record from each object having respective records defining triggering condition to satisfy set condition of comparing fields and generating synchronization relationship);
“removing the subset of one or more data change events from the third set of one or more data change events to generate a fourth set of one or more data change events corresponding to a fourth set of one or more data records” (Tan: fig 4, 0036-0038 – Tan teaches automatically updating data records particularly updating may either inserting, or adding, or deleting corresponds to removing data record(s));; and
“synchronizing the fourth set of one or more data records from the first database to the second database” (Tan: fig 1-2, 0023-0024)
It is however, noted that Tan does not teach “change events occurring in the first database during the period of time”, failed subset, reviewing a bin log of the first database”, “writing in a synchronization store”,” writing in a failure store sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events”, accessing the failure store to retrieve the sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events “although Tan teaches synchronizing data in databases (Tan: fig 1-2, Abstract).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
150
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Vivian disclosed “change events occurring in the first database during the period of time” (Vivian: 0148-0149,0153, fig 4 – Vivian teaches in the event of automatic failover, transition element 414 is initiated particularly first database system that determines the transition i.e., primary database system is inviting based on the change event(s), that including providing required state for the transition and acknowledges to the initiating database system).
PNG
media_image4.png
167
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Vivian disclosed “failed subset, reviewing a bin log of the first database” (Vivian: 0030,0071-0073, fig 3 – Vivian teaches primary database and standby database system particularly during primary database become absent, an automatic failover of the database during synchronization, however, automatic failover is being monitored in the log records. It is noted that replicated database system maintains “redo log files element 109 and redo may be applied to the standby database element 211. Vivian teaches observer process that uniquely identifies observed records for review over the automatic failover and propagates to the data guard, i.e, passes information as metadata eminent 329)
PNG
media_image5.png
210
166
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Vivian disclosed “writing in a synchronization store“ (Vivian: 0025,0146, fig 5 – Vivian teaches write operations on primary database element 103)
PNG
media_image6.png
215
221
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Vivian disclosed “writing in a failure store sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events” (Vivian: 0138-0139, 0145-0147, fig 4-5 – Vivian teaches storing failover records as redo logs, maintaining properties of state transition in ordering writes via quorum to make transition as change event(s))
Vivian disclosed “accessing the failure store to retrieve the sync failure information regarding the failed subset of one or more data change events” (Vivian: 0093-0096,0104 – Vivian teaches storing and retrieving failure data records from the database system and maintains state specific conditions observer as unique identifier)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention database system configured for automatic failover with user limited data loss, particularly propagating the most recent version of the state among the databases of Vivian et al., into synchronizing data in a database system particularly synchronize relationship in a mapping fields of object types of Tan because both Tan, Vivian teaches synchronization of databases (Tan: Abstract, fig 1-2; Vivian: Abstract, fig 3). and they both Tan, Vivian are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Tan, Vivian teaches synchronization of databases, it would have been obvious to substitute and/or modify one method with other particularly maintaining automatic failover database records, applying redo data logically against standby database (Vivian: 0018), while propagating the configuration state as observer records resolving the synchronization of databases, thereby recovering the failed database, while standby database performing synchronization function (Vivian: 0093-0096), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the database synchronization
As to Claim 2,10, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “wherein the receiving the first set of data change events occurs in real time and comes from an upstream data service” ( Tan: 0029 – Tan teaches collection of objects in a multi-tenant environment);
As to Claim 3,11, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “wherein the upstream data service is configured to convert tabular data to object data, and wherein the missed set of one or more particular data change events are due, at least in part, to a data conversion error by the upstream data service” (Tan: 0032-0034).
As to Claim 4,12, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “ordering bin log files from the bin log based at least in part on respective timestamps associated with the second set of data change events (Vivian: fig 6, 0156-0161); and
“identifying each data change event of the second set of data change events having a respective timestamp that falls within the period of time” (Vivian: 0164-0170)
As to Claim 5,13, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “monitoring, by the upstream data service, (Tan: fig 1-2, 0027-0028) “the bin log over the period of time to identify the first set of data change events” (Vivian: 0170-0172),
As to Claim 6,14, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “wherein the missed set of one or more particular data change events are due, at least in part, to downtime of the upstream data” (Tan: 0029-0030). On the other hand, Vivian disclosed “data service during at least a portion of the period of time” (Viviian: 0170-0171, 0173-0174)
As to Claim 7,15, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “determining the failed subset of one or more data records by receiving sync failure information indicating a failure to synchronize a failed data record of the failed subset of one or more data records and storing an identifier of each failed data record of the failed subset of one or more data records” (Vivian: 0030,0071-0073, fig 3)
As to Claim 8,16, the combination of Tan, Vivian disclosed “wherein each data record in the first set of data records is a new data record created during the period of time or a modification to existing data record during the period of time” (Vivian: 0016-0017, 0030-0031)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2012/0143819
b. US Pub. No. 2007/0198700
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.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights