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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computer-implement method for managing a database of claim 1, however, independent claim 1 is a database management system whereas independent claim 13 is a computer-implemented method. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Claim 1 is directed to a database management system comprising: a plurality of nodes. As described in the Applicant’s specification, page 27 discloses that computer systems may be implemented as software components. The claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,037,346; hereinafter Hsieh) in view of Dong et al. (CN-117811902-A; hereinafter Dong).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh discloses a database management system comprising: a plurality of nodes, at least one of the plurality of nodes configured to (Col. 1, Lines 35-55: distributed database system with a plurality of database replicas for processing data):
initiate a request to become a new leader of a lease (Col. 9, Lines 20-65: a database replica sends out a new leader request message for a lease);
receive a client write request (Col. 12, Lines 44-57: write transactions may be received by database clients).
Hsieh fails to disclose, however, Dong discloses service the client write request only if the lease belongs to a current term of the at least one node or if the lease belongs to another of plurality of nodes serving as an old leader and is expired; and decline the client write request if the lease belongs to the old leader and is not expired ([n0022], [n0026], [n0038], [n0039] when data needs to be written, the data write barrier is used to determine whether the conditions for writing data are met before writing the data; if the conditions for writing data are not met, a denial-of-service exception is generated; the data write barrier determines whether the conditions for writing data are met by querying the current status of the management node and the current status of the local lease; checks the holder of the lease to see if they are the current master node and if the lease has expired; the data write barrier prevents write data requests when the lease expires such that there are not two master nodes; the management node provides write services for the client requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Hsieh and Dong before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hsieh with the teachings of Dong. The motivation for doing so would combine the database leader and lease of Hsieh with the management node and lease of Dong to provide write data requests when a lease expires thereby preventing two master nodes as disclosed by Dong [n0026], [n0039].
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh discloses a computer-implemented method for managing a database comprising a plurality of nodes, the method comprising:
initiating a request by at least one of the plurality of nodes to become a new leader of a lease comprising a current term and an expiration time (Col. 9, Lines 20-65: a database replica sends out a new leader request message for a lease; the lease is based on a current time and has an expiration time);
receiving a client write request at the at least one node (Col. 9, Lines 20-65: a database replica sends out a new leader request message for a lease).
Hsieh fails to disclose, however, Dong discloses servicing the client write request at the at least one node if the lease belongs to the current term of the at least one node or if the lease belongs to another of the plurality of nodes serving as an old leader and is expired; and declining the client write request at the at least one node if the lease belongs to the old leader and is not expired ([n0022], [n0026], [n0038], [n0039] when data needs to be written, the data write barrier is used to determine whether the conditions for writing data are met before writing the data; if the conditions for writing data are not met, a denial-of-service exception is generated; the data write barrier determines whether the conditions for writing data are met by querying the current status of the management node and the current status of the local lease; checks the holder of the lease to see if they are the current master node and if the lease has expired; the data write barrier prevents write data requests when the lease expires such that there are not two master nodes; the management node provides write services for the client requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Hsieh and Dong before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hsieh with the teachings of Dong. The motivation for doing so would combine the database leader and lease of Hsieh with the management node and lease of Dong to provide write data requests when a lease expires thereby preventing two master nodes as disclosed by Dong [n0026], [n0039].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hsieh and Dong discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 13 further comprising a plurality of logs corresponding to the plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of logs comprising a plurality of entries (Hsieh: Col. 1, Lines 12-15; Col. 10, Lines 4-15).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,037,346; hereinafter Hsieh) in view of Dong et al. (CN-117811902-A; hereinafter Dong) and further in view of Perret et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20050188049; hereinafter Perret).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hsieh and Dong discloses the database management system of claim 1 wherein the old leader is configured to: receive a client read request (Hsieh: Col. 12, Lines 44-57: write transactions may be received by database clients), but fails to disclose, however, Perret discloses service the client read request if the lease belongs to the old leader and is not expired ([0054], [0062] a write request to a master establishes that a pre-existing master lease has not yet expired, and forwards the request to a host for determining the identity of the previous master for processing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Hsieh, Dong and Perret before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hsieh with the teachings of Perret. The motivation for doing so would combine the database leader and lease of Hsieh with the master host and lease of Perret to provide write data requests only to a current/unexpired lease holder to ensure data consistency as disclosed by Perret [0060].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hsieh and Dong discloses the computer-implement method for managing a database of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a client read request at the old leader (Hsieh: Col. 12, Lines 44-57), but fails to disclose, however, Perret discloses servicing the client read request if the lease belongs to the old leader and is not expired ([0054], [0062] a write request to a master establishes that a pre-existing master lease has not yet expired, and forwards the request to a host for determining the identity of the previous master for processing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Hsieh, Dong and Perret before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hsieh with the teachings of Perret. The motivation for doing so would combine the database leader and lease of Hsieh with the master host and lease of Perret to provide write data requests only to a current/unexpired lease holder to ensure data consistency as disclosed by Perret [0060].
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,037,346; hereinafter Hsieh) in view of Dong et al. (CN-117811902-A; hereinafter Dong) and further in view of Sukumaran et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,984,140; hereinafter Sukumaran).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hsieh and Dong discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 14, but fails to disclose, however, Sukumaran discloses further comprising permitting the at least one node to become the new leader only if the log corresponding to the at least one node comprises the plurality of entries of the log of the node that is the old leader (Col. 12, Lines 10-38: determines whether a log position of a requesting leader has caught up to a log position of a previous master before allowing the requestor to become the new master).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Hsieh, Dong and Sukumaran before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hsieh with the teachings of Sukumaran. The motivation for doing so would combine the database leader and lease of Hsieh with the master and lease of Sukumaran to provide a writable state to only a single master at any given point in time in order to prevent data inconsistencies and collisions as disclosed by Sukumaran, Col. 6, Lines 28-30.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hsieh, Dong and Sukumaran discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 15 further comprising ensuring that a portion of the plurality of entries of a first log of the plurality of logs corresponding to a first node of the plurality of nodes is the same as a portion of the plurality of entries of a second log of the plurality of logs corresponding to a second node of the plurality of nodes (Sukumaran: Col. 12, Line 64-Col. 13, Line 37).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hsieh, Dong and Sukumaran discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 16 further comprising ensuring that the plurality of entries in a log of the new leader is the same as a plurality of entities in a log of the old leader (Sukumaran: Col. 12, Line 64-Col. 13, Line 37).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hsieh, Dong and Sukumaran discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 17 further comprising extending the expiration time of the lease after the at least one node becomes the new leader (Hsieh: Col. 11, Line 40-Col. 12, Line 16).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hsieh, Dong and Sukumaran discloses the computer-implemented method for managing a database of claim 18 wherein the extending the expiration time of the lease comprises: getting one or more of the plurality of entries; and committing the one or more of the plurality of entries (Hsieh: Col. 1, Lines 12-15; Col. 10, Lines 4-15; Col. 13, Lines 1-54).
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights