DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to communications filed on 5/30/2026 in which claims 1-12, and 14-21 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202211513575.4, filed on 11/30/2022.
Drawings
Drawings have been acknowledged and are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
Specification has been acknowledged and is acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 21, the phrase "and/or" renders the claims indefinite because it isn’t clear whether all of the limitations following that phrase are necessary to complete the function. See 2173.05(h) “In the instance where the list of potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises, then it is proper to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and explain why there is confusion.”
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 of this title, 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 1-10, 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruanes et al. US 20200201881 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Cruanes”) in view of Danz et al. US 11947568 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Danz”).
As per claim 1, Cruanes teaches:
A data processing system, comprising:
a plurality of computing groups, wherein computing resources of each computing group are mutually isolated (Cruanes, [0059] – May include any number of virtual warehouse groups, each associated with any number of virtual warehouses. The number of virtual warehouse groups in a particular environment is dynamic and may change based on the changing needs of the users and other systems in the environment),
wherein a computing group with a write function maintains a first memory table, and the computing group with the write function is configured to write data to be stored into a data storage into the first memory table (Cruanes, [0016] – Available for data read and data write operations, even when some of the nodes are offline for maintenance or have suffered a failure. [0076] – The metadata associated with the file pieces may include a file name, a file size, a table to which the file belongs, a column size, a column location, and the like. [0081] – Various drives may also be included in mass storage device(s) 908 to enable reading from and/or writing to the various computer readable media), and
Cruanes doesn’t explicitly teach multiple tables with differentiations between at least a first and second memory table, however, Danz teaches:
write the data in the first memory table into a physical table in the data storage corresponding to the first memory table (Danz, column 5, lines 21-26 – A client 250 (e.g., a database service client) may encompass an application such as a database application (or user interface thereof), a media application, an office application or any other application that may make use of persistent storage resources to store and/or access one or more database tables); and
wherein each computing group further maintains at least one second memory table respectively, each second memory table corresponds to a respective first memory table in other computing groups with a write function, and the computing group is configured to synchronize the second memory table with its corresponding first memory table (Danz, column 16, lines 49-55 – A timestamp for the operation (e.g., associated with the receipt of a request, a commit of a change to a data item, an agreement or synchronization between multiple processes, the time of the write to the fixed-size array, etc.) may be written into the determined column and row of the two-dimensional, fixed-size array, in some embodiments).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cruanes’s invention in view of Danz in order to include multiple tables for synchronization; this is advantageous because if, for instance, two different threads want to write timestamps to the same column in the same row, the later thread may overwrite a previously written value of the other thread without harming the accuracy of the estimated working set determined using that timestamp entry (Danz, column 16, lines 60-67).
As per claim 2, Cruanes as modified teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a gateway, configured to allocate a task request to a computing group corresponding to the task request (Cruanes, [0027] – Provides multiple computing resources that execute various data storage and data retrieval tasks); and/or
a metadata storage, configured to manage metadata of a physical table in the data storage, and provide metadata services for the plurality of computing groups, wherein the plurality of computing groups share the metadata (Cruanes, [0026] – Resource manager 102 is also coupled to metadata 110, which is associated with the entirety of data stored throughout data processing platform 100. In some embodiments, metadata 110 includes a summary of data stored in remote data storage systems as well as data available from a local cache); and/or
the data storage, configured to store the physical table (Cruanes, [0076] – The metadata associated with the file pieces may include a file name, a file size, a table to which the file belongs, a column size, a column location, and the like).
As per claim 3, Cruanes as modified teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 2, wherein the metadata storage is further configured to manage computing group configuration information (Cruanes, [0036] – Additionally, resource manager 102 includes a configuration and metadata manager 222, which manages the information related to the data stored in the remote data storage devices and in the local caches (i.e., the caches in execution platform 112). As discussed in greater detail below, configuration and metadata manager 222 uses the metadata to determine which data files need to be accessed to retrieve data for processing a particular query), and
the system further comprises:
a data engine controller, configured to, in response to an instruction of a user or the number of task requests (Cruanes, [0079] – Include one or more processors or controllers that execute instructions),
perform at least one of the following operations:
creating a computing group, and storing the computing group configuration information into the metadata storage (Cruanes, [0057] – The new virtual warehouse may be in the same virtual warehouse group or may be created in a different virtual warehouse group at a different geographic location);
enabling a new computing group to perform corresponding data processing based on the computing group configuration information in the metadata storage (Cruanes, [0030] – Data processing platform 100 is dynamic and supports regular changes to meet the current data processing needs);
suspending the computing group, so that the computing group no longer performs the data processing (Cruanes, [0036] – A monitor and workload analyzer 224 oversees the processes performed by resource manager 102 and manages the distribution of tasks (e.g., workload) across the virtual warehouses and execution nodes in execution platform);
destroying the computing group, and releasing computing resources allocated to the computing group (Danz column 2, lines 62-67 – Techniques that allow the allocation of storage for an application, such as a database system, to react to changes in workload in real time to predict the correct allocation of storage for items (e.g., the correct buffer pool size) will balance good application performance while also avoiding costly over-provisioning);
adjusting the computing resources allocated to the computing group (Danz, column 15, lines 21-25 – Scaling actions may include increasing (or decreasing) other computing resources by changing those computing resource allocations through modifications to host system configurations or settings, or to a group of systems implementing the application);
adjusting computing resources allocated to each computing subgroup in the computing group (Cruanes, [0053] – Each virtual warehouse 408-412 is configured to communicate with a subset of all databases 414-424); and
adding or reducing computing subgroups in the computing group (Danz, column 15, lines 21-25 – Scaling actions may include increasing (or decreasing) other computing resources by changing those computing resource allocations through modifications to host system configurations or settings, or to a group of systems implementing the application),
wherein the computing resources of each computing subgroup are mutually isolated, and each computing subgroup maintains the first memory table and/or the second memory table respectively (Danz, column 5, lines 46-50 – A client 250 (e.g., a database service client) may be may provide access to network-based storage of database tables to other applications in a manner that is transparent to those applications).
As per claim 4, Cruanes as modified teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 1, wherein, the physical table stores data in a way of row-column coexistence, and row data and column data corresponding to the same data are written into the same physical table through a writing task (Danz, column 16, lines 49-54 – As indicated at 850, a timestamp for the operation (e.g., associated with the receipt of a request, a commit of a change to a data item, an agreement or synchronization between multiple processes, the time of the write to the fixed-size array, etc.) may be written into the determined column and row of the two-dimensional, fixed-size array),
to ensure atomicity of a row data writing operation and a column data writing operation corresponding to the same data (Danz, column 12, lines 24-31 – This component may be responsible for ensuring the Atomicity, Consistency, and Isolation properties of the database and the transactions that are directed that the database instance, such as determining a consistent view of the database applicable for a query, applying undo log records to generate prior versions of tuples of a database).
As per claim 5, Cruanes as modified teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 1, wherein the computing group comprises at least one of the following:
a computing group for offline writing (Cruanes, [0016] – This new platform is always available for data read and data write operations, even when some of the nodes are offline for maintenance or have suffered a failure);
a computing group for real-time writing (Cruanes, [0038] – Execution platform 112 can add new virtual warehouses and drop existing virtual warehouses in real time based on the current processing needs of the systems and users);
a computing group for providing a data query service (Cruanes, [0031] – These queries are managed by resource manager 102 to determine when and how to execute the queries); and
a computing group for providing a data analysis service.
As per claim 6, Cruanes as modified teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 1, wherein, the computing group with the write function maintains a plurality of first memory tables, wherein the plurality of first memory tables in the data storage correspond to a plurality of physical tables (Danz, column 4, lines 42-47 – The provider network 200 may be implemented in a single location or may include numerous provider network regions that may include one or more data centers hosting various resource pools, such as collections of physical and/or virtualized computer servers, storage devices, networking equipment and the like);
each computing group maintains a corresponding number of second memory tables, to correspond to a plurality of first memory tables in other computing groups with the write function (Danz, column 9, lines 43-50 – Each segment may store a collection of one or more data pages and a change log (also referred to as a redo log) (e.g., a log of redo log records) for each data page that it stores. Storage nodes 360 may receive redo log records and to coalesce them to create new versions of the corresponding data pages and/or additional or replacement log records (e.g., lazily and/or in response to a request for a data page or a database crash)).
Claims 8-11, 14-16 are directed to a data processing method performing steps recited in claims 1-6 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1-6 are applied to claims 8-11, 14-16.
Claims 12, 17-21 are directed to a computing device performing steps recited in claims 1-6 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1-6 are applied to claims 12, 17-21.
Claims 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Dee et al. US 20140258256 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Dee”).
As per claim 7, Cruanes as modified doesn’t explicitly teach redirecting a task when a computing group is unavailable, however, Dee teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 1, wherein, in response to unavailability of the computing group, in a case that other computing groups performing the same task exist, a task request directed to an unavailable computing group is redirected to a computing group performing the same task, or a new computing group is enabled based on computing group configuration information of the unavailable computing group in the metadata storage to perform a corresponding task request; and/or
in response to unavailability of a computing subgroup in the computing group, a new computing subgroup is created in the computing group and/or a task request directed to the unavailable computing subgroup is switched to other computing subgroups in the computing group; and/or
in response to unavailability of a computing node in the computing group, a task request directing to the unavailable computing node is switched to other computing nodes in the computing group, and the first memory table and/or
the second memory table already existed in the unavailable computing node are rebuilt in other computing nodes (Dee, [0010] – The DB2 subsystem may be one of a plurality of DB2 subsystems in the data sharing group and the redirect subsystem may be further configured to determine that the DB2 subsystem identified in the request is unavailable and queue the second buffer to a DB2 connection task with another DB2 subsystem from the plurality of DB2 subsystems).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cruanes’s invention as modified in view of Dee in order to allow for a redirect when a group is unavailable; this is advantageous because if a client program requests data from a specific DB2 system and the specific DB2 system is not responding, the redirection system may select another DB2 system from the data sharing group to process the request (Dee, [0013]).
Claim 11 is directed to a data processing method performing steps recited in claim 7 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 7 is applied to claim 11.
Claim 21 is directed to a computing device performing steps recited in claim 7 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 7 is applied to claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Danilov et al. US 20210103526 A1 teaches balancing workload between cluster nodes via redistribution of metadata data structures (e.g., memory tables corresponding to directory table partitions) (Abstract).
Saxena et al. US 10922316 B2 teaches database query may be assigned to resources used for database queries of the determined size (Abstract).
Tan et al., 2013, “Coupling Task Progress for MapReduce Resource-Aware Scheduling”, https://web.archive.org/web/20150701124003id_/http://www.utdallas.edu:80/~cxl137330/courses/spring14/AdvRTS/protected/slides/34.pdf
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to the current examiner working on this case, name: Matthew Ellis, telephone number: (571)270-3443, email: matthew.ellis@uspto.gov, normal business hours Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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://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). 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.
June 12, 2026
/MATTHEW J ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights