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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made in view of Umbehocker (U.S Pub # 20110246734).
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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11481393. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Instant Application
Patent 11481393
Claim 1.
A computer-implemented method comprising:
executing, by a processor, a query on an original database, thereby obtaining a query result;
tracking, by the processor, all query records that are touched while the query is executed;
tracking, by the processor, one or more records that are linked to the query records;
producing, by the processor, a stand-alone subset database consisting of the query records and the one or more records that are linked to the query records;
wherein:
the original database is stored in a storage device;
the original device has a structure and a schema;
the stand-alone subset database has a schema that is identical to the schema of the original database: and
the stand-alone subset database has fewer records than the original database.
Claim 2.
wherein when tracking the query records and the one or more records that are linked to the query records, the method further comprises:
creating, by the processor, a listener object;
registering, by the processor, the listener object with a record fetcher;
recording, by the processor, a record handle of each tracked record by the listener object; and
storing, by the processor, the record handles in a collection.
Claim 3.
wherein the original database is a relational database.
Claim 1.
A computing system comprising:
Execute a query on the database, thereby obtaining a query result;
Track: all query records that are touched while the query is executed; and
One or more records that are linked to the query records;
Produce a stand-alone subset database consisting of the query records and the one or more records that are linked to the query records;
Wherein:
The stand-alone subset database has a schema that is identical to the schema of the original database;
The stand-alone subset database has fewer records than the database;
Claim 2.
Wherein when tracking the query records and the one or more records that are linked to the query records, the processor executes the processor-executable program code in order to cause the computing system to:
Create a listener object;
Register the listener object with a record fetcher;
Record a record handle of each tracked record by the listener object; and
Store the record handles in a collection.
Claim 5.
Wherein the original database is a relational databse.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rotterdam (U.S Pat # 8965899) in view of Ganti (U.S Pub # 20140280287) and in further view of Umbehocker (U.S Pub # 20110246734).
With regards to claim 1, Van Rotterdam discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
executing, by a processor, a query on an original database, thereby obtaining a query result ([Col. 1-2 lines 61-09] database query);
wherein:
the original database is stored in a storage device ([Col. 2 lines 49-61] database);
the original device has a structure and a schema ([Col. 2 lines 49-61] database structure storing different data categories);
the stand-alone subset database has fewer records than the original database ([Col. 1-2 lines 61-09] partial index).
Van Rotterdam does not disclose however Ganti discloses:
the stand-alone subset database has a schema that is identical to the schema of the original database ([0109] generate sample database 104 (e.g., a subset of the original database 102) having an identical schema); and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Van Rotterdam by Ganti to generate a subset database that the same schema as the original database.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a sample database that may store less data than those in the original database but exhibit the same structural schema, tables and views with the same number of columns and identical column names and column definitions (Ganti [0052]).
Umbehocker discloses:
tracking, by the processor, all query records that are touched while the query is executed ([0058] associated with the query – of storage blocks determined to have been touched);
tracking, by the processor, one or more records that are linked to the query records ([0058] determine which storage blocks have been touched, changed, and/or written to); and
producing, by the processor, a stand-alone subset database consisting of the query records and the one or more records that are linked to the query records ([0061] As such, the storage related entity can request a transfer, e.g., during a backup procedure, a replication procedure of storage blocks determined to have been touched, changed, and or written to before such procedure was initiated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Van Rotterdam and Ganti by Umbehocker to track and isolate data touched by a query.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remotely compute a signature of data of each storage element of the storage device utilizing one or more algorithms, and copying the data of the storage element to the remote storage device if the signature of the data has changed (Umbehocker [0003]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rotterdam (U.S Pat # 8965899) in view of Ganti (U.S Pub # 20140280287) and in further view of Umbehocker (U.S Pub # 20110246734) and Peloski (U.S Pub # 20170262495).
With regards to claim 2, Van Rotterdam further discloses:
storing, by the processor, the record handles in a collection ([Col. 1-2 lines 61-09] progressively builds indexes as one or more ad-hoc queries "touch" the data).
Van Rotterdam does not disclose however Peloski discloses:
creating, by the processor, a listener object ([0037] creates a listener);
registering, by the processor, the listener object with a record fetcher ([0037] setup listeners to each virtual table so that when a data changes happens);
recording, by the processor, a record handle of each tracked record by the listener object ([0037] listener gathers and monitors only data necessary to satisfy the active query).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Van Rotterdam, Ganti and Umbehocker by Peloski to track data changes through listeners.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to invoke triggers automatically after a change is made to the data in tables (Peloski [0007]).
With regards to claim 3, Van Rotterdam does not disclose however Peloski discloses:
wherein the original database is a relational database ([0037] relational database).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Van Rotterdam, Ganti and Umbehocker by Peloski to track data changes through listeners.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to invoke triggers automatically after a change is made to the data in tables (Peloski [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights