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 .
The instant application having Application No. 19/092,627 filed on 09/14/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings filed 03/27/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 06/27/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,298,859 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,298,859 B2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting evaluate potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions with wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the resource of the repository is changed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edward Bortnikov (US-2017/0220617-A1).
As per claim 1, Bortnikov teaches “A resource repository system comprising:
“a processor,” (fig. 1); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed, cause the resource repository system to perform operations comprising:
“receiving a request for a transaction on a resource of a repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“creating a snapshot of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“performing reads and/or writes of the transaction against the snapshot,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“evaluating potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions, wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the resource of the repository is changed,” ([0028]-[0030]);
responsive to no conflict being found, committing the transaction to a write-ahead log; and
updating the repository based on the changes recorded in the write-ahead log,” ([0028]-[0030]).
As per claim 2, Bortnikov further shows “wherein committing the transaction to the
write-ahead log comprises”:
“creating a log entry containing the changes to be committed with the transaction,” ([0082]-[0083]); and
“persisting the log entry into the write-ahead log,” ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 3, Bortnikov further shows “wherein updating the repository comprises”:
“reading a transaction's changes from the write-ahead log,” ([0082]-[0083]); and
“based on the changes of the transaction, applying the transaction to the repository by
performing the recorded changes,” ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 4, Bortnikov further shows “wherein the operations further comprise
deleting the snapshot after committing the transaction to the write-ahead log,” ([[0030]-[0031]).
As per claim 5, Bortnikov further shows “wherein evaluating the potential conflicts
comprises”:
“checking transactions logged in the write-ahead log to determine whether the resource is changed by a concurrent transaction that committed concurrently against the repository,’ ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 6, Bortnikov further shows “wherein the operations further comprise blocking writes into the repository while the snapshot is created to maintain consistency,” ([0028]-[0029]).
As per claim 7, Bortnikov further shows “wherein if a crash occurs while one or more transactions have been committed to the write-ahead log but not yet fully applied to the repository, the operations further comprise recovering committed transactions from the write-ahead log and update the repository accordingly,” ([0028]-[0030]).
As per claim 8, Bortnikov further shows “wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a second request for a second transaction on a second resource of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“creating a second snapshot of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“performing reads and/or writes of the second transaction against the second snapshot,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“evaluating potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the second transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions, wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the second resource of the repository is changed,” ([0028]-[0030]); and
“responsive to a conflict being found, discarding the second transaction and deleting the second snapshot associated with the second transaction,” ([0065]).
As per claim 9, Bortnikov further shows “wherein the operations further comprise providing an alert associated with the second transaction responsive to the conflict being found,” ([0077]).
As per claim 10, Bortnikov further shows “wherein creating the snapshot of the repository comprises”:
“copying a directory structure of the repository into a temporary directory and hard linking resources of the repository to the temporary directory or using a copy-on-write functionality of a filesystem to create a clone of the repository into a temporary directory,” ([0079]-[0080]).
As per claim 11, Bortnikov teaches “A method for performing a transaction on a resource on a database, the method comprising”:
“receiving a request for a transaction on a resource of a repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“creating a snapshot of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“performing reads and/or writes of the transaction against the snapshot,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“evaluating potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions, wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the resource of the repository is changed,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“responsive to no conflict being found, committing the transaction to a write-ahead log,” ([0028]-[0030]); and
“updating the repository based on the changes recorded in the write-ahead log,” ([0028]-[0030]).
As per claim 12, Bortnikov further shows “wherein committing the transaction to the write-ahead log comprises”:
“creating a log entry containing the changes to be committed with the transaction,” ([0082]-[0083]); and
“persisting the log entry into the write-ahead log,” ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 13, Bortnikov further shows “wherein updating the repository comprises”:
“reading a transaction's changes from the write-ahead log,” ([0082]-[0083]); and
“based on the changes of the transaction, applying the transaction to the repository by performing the recorded changes,” ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 14, Bortnikov further shows “deleting the snapshot after committing the transaction to the write-ahead log,” ([[0030]-[0031]).
As per claim 15, Bortnikov further shows “wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises checking transactions logged in the write-ahead log to determine whether the resource is changed by a
concurrent transaction that committed concurrently against he repository,” ([0082]-[0083]).
As per claim 16, Bortnikov further shows “blocking writes into the repository while one or more snapshots are created to maintain consistency,” ([0028]-[0029]).
As per claim 17, Bortnikov further shows “if a crash occurs while one or more transactions have been committed to the write-ahead log but not yet fully applied to the repository, recovering committed transactions from the write-ahead log and updating the repository accordingly,” ([0028]-[0030]).
As per claim 18, Bortnikov further shows “receiving a second request for a second transaction on a second resource of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“creating a second snapshot of the repository,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“performing reads and/or writes of the second transaction against the second snapshot,” ([0028]-[0030]);
“evaluating potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the second transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions, wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the second resource of the repository is changed,” ([0028]-[0030]); and
“responsive to a conflict being found, discarding the second transaction and delete the second snapshot associated with the second transaction,” ([0065]).
As per claim 19, Bortnikov further shows “wherein creating the snapshot of the repository comprises”:
“copying a directory structure of the repository into a temporary directory and hard linking resources of the repository to the temporary directory or using a filesystem's copy-on-write functionality to create a clone of the repository into a temporary directory,” ([0079]-[0080]).
As per claim 20, Bortnikov taches “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations including”:
“creating a snapshot of a repository that includes a resource,” ([0028]-[0030]).;
“performing reads and/or writes of a transaction involving the resource against the snapshot,” ([0028]-[0030]).;
“evaluating potential conflicts between the reads and/or the writes of the transaction and those of other concurrently committed transactions, wherein evaluating the potential conflicts comprises determining whether the resource of the repository is changed,” ([0028]-[0030]).;
“responsive to no conflict being found, committing the transaction to a write-ahead log,” ([0028]-[0030]).; and
“updating the repository based on the changes recorded in the write-ahead log,” ([0028]-[0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1757. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 6-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (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 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://pairdirect.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jan. 18, 2026
/KIM T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153