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 application has been examined. Claims 1 – 21 are pending in this office action.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2026/0010523 A1) (‘Xu’ herein after) further in view of Vasudevan et al. (US 2019/0102418 A1) (‘Vasudevan’ herein after).
With respect to claim 1, 11, 12,
Xu discloses a method for updating backup data for a database, the method comprising: initiating a merging operation for a defined time interval (figure 2, 5, 6, paragraph 12, 13 teaches the application data tables may include additional metadata columns that include information associated with the snapshot from which the data is captured as well as a hash value of the data in the row, which supports deduplication and immutability check, Xu); obtaining change data capture (CDC) data (figure 2, 5, 6, paragraph 12, 13 teaches the application data tables may include additional metadata columns that include information associated with the snapshot from which the data is captured as well as a hash value of the data in the row, when changes are made to the source system, corresponding rows of the backup system are updated to indicate these changes and additional rows are added to reflect the changed data, Xu); aggregating and ordering the CDC data by a key value (paragraph 63, records or rows are individual entries in a table, each record includes a unique identifier known as a primary key, Xu); identifying backup data associated with the ordered CDC data (figure 2, 5, 6, paragraphs 92, 94 teach the backup system may update the backup database tables and/or the metadata tables based on the comparison, the backup system may update, in response to the comparison indicating that data of a row of a relational database table of the relational database changed between the prior snapshot and the new snapshot, a field of the respective second versioning control column of a corresponding row of a corresponding backup database table of the set of backup database tables to indicate a version of the new snapshot, the backup system may add, in response to the comparison indicating that the data of the row of the relational database table changed, an additional row to the corresponding backup database table, wherein a field of the respective first versioning control column of the additional row includes an indication of the version of the new snapshot, Xu); generating a candidate data object that represents data modified during the defined time interval deduplicating the candidate data object by comparing a hash identifier of the candidate data object with a plurality of hash identifiers stored in a repository (figure 2, 5, paragraph 92, 94 teaches each backup database table of the set of backup database tables may include a hash column that includes hash values resulting from a hash of each row of the backup database table, the hash values may support deduplication of data in the backup database table, Xu); storing the candidate data object when the comparison determines that no matching hash identifier exists in the repository and updating backup metadata to associate the key value with the candidate data object (figure 5, 6, paragraph 100 teaches row adding component may support a means for adding, in response to the comparison indicating that the data of the row of the relational database table changed, an additional row to the corresponding backup database table, where a field of the respective first versioning control column of the additional row includes an indication of the version of the new snapshot, Xu).
Xu does not explicitly disclose as claimed obtaining change data during the defined time interval.
However, Vasudevan teaches obtaining change data during time intervals in paragraphs 113 and 253 teaching that the position is committed at periodic intervals and that position file is updated at a configurable intervals.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Xu in view of Vasudevan with the backup of the data chunk and the data intervals because it would allow a timely and orderly management of the data. Furthermore, the change data capture system includes support for features such as distributed source topology-awareness, initial load, deduplication, and recovery, which enables capture of incremental changes from a distributed data source, for use with heterogeneous targets, automatic deduplication of the data provided by the distributed data source and automatic discovery of the distributed source topology.
With respect to claim 2, 13,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the merging operation begins in response to at least one of expiration of a timer or a volume of CDC data exceeding a predefined threshold (paragraphs 47 – 51 and 113, Vasudevan).
With respect to claim 3, 14,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein ordering the CDC data further comprises: sorting a plurality of aggregated records by the key value, wherein the key value is used to segment data objects referenced by the backup data (paragraphs 90, 92, 94 teaching he backup system 510 may update, in response to the comparison indicating that data of a row of a relational database table of the relational database changed between the prior snapshot and the new snapshot, a field of the respective second versioning control column of a corresponding row of a corresponding backup database table of the set of backup database tables to indicate a version of the new snapshot, Xu).
With respect to claim 4, 15,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein updating the backup metadata further comprises: storing a new version of a manifest while retaining at least one earlier version of the manifest such that both versions remain available for recovery (figures 2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 69, and 94, Xu).
With respect to claim 5, 16,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the CDC data further comprises: retaining only a last recorded change that occurred within the defined time interval and discarding earlier changes of the key value (paragraphs 47 – 51 and 113, Vasudevan).
With respect to claim 6, 17,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the backup data comprises evaluating a manifest that maps one or more ranges corresponding to the key value to data objects stored in a repository (figures 2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 69, and 94, Xu).
With respect to claim 7, 18,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the CDC data in successive files captured at the defined time interval, wherein the time interval is fifteen minutes or less (paragraphs 47 – 51 and 113, Vasudevan).
With respect to claim 8,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: integrating the updated backup data with previously stored backup data to generate an updated full backup of a database (figures 2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 90, 92 and 94, Xu).
With respect to claim 9,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: generating rollback data that enables reconstruction of the backup data that existed prior to the updated full backup of the database (figures 2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 31 – 32, and 43, Xu).
With respect to claim 10,
Xu as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a baseline backup and verifying its integrity by recomputing at least a strong hash identifier for at least one data object prior to generating the updated backup data (paragraphs 69, and 94, Xu and paragraphs 47 – 51 and 113, Vasudevan).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230237043 A1 teaches techniques that can accelerate change data capture determinations such as stream reads, which show changes made to a table between two points in time. Three distinct row bit sets that mark deleted, updated, inserted, rows in micro-partitions can be added as metadata for the table. These bit sets can be generated during DML operations and then stored as metadata of the new partition generated by the DML operations. The bit sets can then be used to generate streams showing the changes in the table between two points in time (changes interval).
US 20210216504 A1 teaches accessing an original change data capture (CDC) dataset comprising information describing changes to a source database, the original CDC dataset comprising a plurality of entries; identifying a first entry of the plurality of entries comprising a primary-key, a first operation and entry data; identifying a set of entries in the plurality of entries that includes the primary-key; comparing the first operation of the first entry with a second operation of a second entry in the set of entries; updating the first operation and the entry data based on the comparison; generating a new entry based on the updating of the first operation and the entry data; storing the new entry in a consolidated CDC dataset; and applying the consolidated CDC dataset to a target database.
US 20250384047 A1 teaches each executor filters a baseline data table based on the extracted primary keys to generate a baseline match data frame with all primary keys matching the extracted primary keys, and a baseline unmatched data frame with all primary keys not matching the extracted primary keys. Each executor receives a partitioned incremental CDC changeset and applies the changes to the baseline match data frame to produce a baseline change data frame, which is merged with the baseline unmatched data frame to produce a final changed baseline data table.
US 20140188805 A1 teaches techniques that can use deduplication information on a source computer platform to improve the process of performing data backups or restoration from/to the computer platform. In one example aspect, a data backup operation can re-use some of the work already done by a source computer's deduplication system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVNEET K GMAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-5636.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SANJIV SHAH can be reached on . 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.
/NAVNEET GMAHL/Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Dated: 5/29/2026
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights