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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 4, 13, 19 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the reprocessing schedule" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the reprocessing schedule" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the reprocessing schedule" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayanthi et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0,216,509 A1) [hereafter Jayanthi].
As per claim 1, Jayanthi teaches:
A system, comprising: a memory operable to store: historical failure data associated with historical failed interactions between a plurality of source systems and a plurality of target systems; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0072], errors in logs; a knowledge-based vector representation, ¶ [0082])
a queue configured to store data associated with a plurality of failed interactions with one or more target systems during operation of distributed computer systems; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0093], list of failed transaction IDs for read and/or write operations)
a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to: access, from the queue, a first data associated with a first failed interaction with a first target system; (Jayanthi, ¶ [0030-0031], CPU, memory, ¶ [0068], logs may include information about errors, ¶ [0072-0081], ¶ [0088])
determine, based on an analysis of the accessed first data and the historical failure data by one or more first machine-learning models, that the first failed interaction is associated with a data failure; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0088], error such as data mismatch/comparison error)
based on determining that the first failed interaction is associated with a data failure: determine by one or more second machine-learning models a category of the data failure, wherein the determining comprises analyzing the accessed first data by the one or more second machine-learning models to output a probability of the category of the data failure among a plurality of categories; (Jayanthi, ¶ [0087], errors are classified into either recoverable errors or unrecoverable errors and further classified into sub-types, ¶ [0088], identifying patterns in the vectors using supervised learning, ¶ [0091], classifying errors by determining the minimum distance (score) between a vector point is analogous to a probability of the category, ¶ [0086])
determine by the one or more second machine-learning models, based on the category, whether the data failure can be fixed by updating the first data, wherein the determining comprises comparing the category of the data failure to a plurality of fixable categories; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0088-0089], error classification predictive model further classifying recoverable errors into sub-types)
based on determining whether the data failure can be fixed: if the data failure can be fixed: update the first data by the one or more second machine-learning models; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0093], various remediation action performed based on the classified recoverable action)
reprocess the first failed interaction based on the updated first data; (Jayanthi, ¶ [0093], transaction failure recovery job with list of failed transaction IDs for read and/or write operations)
if the data failure cannot be fixed: delete the first data from the queue; and (Jayanthi, ¶ [0092], unrecoverable errors are not scheduled for reprocessing)
transmit a notification comprising the category of the data failure to the first target system (Jayanthi, ¶ [0092], notify and alert a database analysis)
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Jayanthi further teaches:
wherein the system trend comprises an availability of the first target system, and wherein the reprocessing schedule is based on the availability of the first target system (Jayanthi, ¶ [0093], when the recoverable error is a resources error, error recovery job controller triggers a Resource Exceed recovery job; when the resource is scaled up, the resource becomes available)
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Jayanthi further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate the one or more first machine-learning models based on contextual and behavioral signals collected over a period of time from a plurality of applications (Jayanthi, ¶ [0088], sub-types such as data mismatch error, transaction failure, data mismatch error, sequence error of transactions, etc. are examples of contextual and/or behavioral data collected, ¶ [0082], determining pattern means data collected over a period of time are analyzed for a matching pattern)
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Jayanthi further teaches:
wherein updating the first data by the one or more second machine-learning models comprises one or more of correcting the first data, supplementing the first data, or replacing the first data (Jayanthi, ¶ [0093], recovery actions for recoverable errors)
Claims 10, 13, 15 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 1, 4, 6 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6 above.
Claims 16, 19 are computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1, 4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of claims 1, 4 above, and Jayanthi further teaches a computer-readable storage medium (Jayanthi, ¶ [0066]).
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(s) 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayanthi, and further in view of Johansson et al. (US Pat. 10,540,223 B1) [hereafter Johansson].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Jayanthi does not teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to encrypt the data associated with the plurality of failed interactions with the one or more target systems
However, Johansson in an analogous art teaches:
encrypt and decrypt communications between the error servers and other computing devices (Johansson, col. 21, lines 14-16)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Johansson into the method of Jayanthi to provide a method wherein the processor is further configured to encrypt the data associated with the plurality of failed interactions with the one or more target systems. The modification would be obvious because encryption and decryption are essential for data security and privacy.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Jayanthi does not teach:
wherein the first data associated with the first failed interaction with the first target system is encrypted, and wherein the processor is further configured to decrypt the first data associated with the first failed interaction with the first target system
However, Johansson in an analogous art teaches:
encrypt and decrypt communications between the error servers and other computing devices (Johansson, col. 21, lines 14-16)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Johansson into the method of Jayanthi to provide a method wherein the first data associated with the first failed interaction with the first target system is encrypted, and wherein the processor is further configured to decrypt the first data associated with the first failed interaction with the first target system. The modification would be obvious because encryption and decryption are essential for data security and privacy.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Jayanthi does not teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first data comprises no sensitive data prior to updating the first data if the data failure can be fixed
However, Johansson in an analogous art teaches:
removing sensitive data not relevant to the error (Johansson, col. 4, lines 15-23)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Johansson into the method of Jayanthi to provide a method wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first data comprises no sensitive data prior to updating the first data if the data failure can be fixed. The modification would be obvious because such security features may be used to protect at least a portion of the communications (Johansson, col. 4, lines 31-33).
Claims 11, 12 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 2, 3 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of claims 2, 3 above.
Claims 17, 18 are computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims 2, 3 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of claims 2, 3 above.
Claim(s) 5, 9,14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayanthi and further in view of Cristofi et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0,117,251 A1) [hereafter Cristofi].
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated:
Jayanthi does not teach:
generate, based on the one or more second machine-learning models, an availability query;
transmit, to the first target system, the availability query; and
receive, from the first target system, the availability of the first target system
However, Cristofi in an analogous art teaches:
generate, based on the one or more second machine-learning models, an availability query; (Cristofi, ¶ [0351], resource monitor communicates with a node for a status update, ¶ [0356], pinging indexing nodes)
transmit, to the first target system, the availability query; and (Cristofi, ¶ [0351], status identifier sent from the indexing nodes, ¶ [0356])
receive, from the first target system, the availability of the first target system (Cristofi, ¶ [0351], status identifier received by the resource monitor, ¶ [0356])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Johansson into the method of Jayanthi to provide a method wherein the processor is further configured to encrypt the data associated with the plurality of failed interactions with the one or more target systems. The modification would be obvious because encryption and decryption are essential for data security and privacy.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Jayanthi does not teach:
transmit, to the one or more target systems, a plurality of queries for status associated with a plurality of interactions; receive, from the one or more target systems, a plurality of HTTP response codes associated with the plurality of interactions; and determine, based on the plurality of HTTP response codes, one or more of the plurality of interactions failed
However, Jayanthi teaches:
user systems communicating with database system using HTTP (Jayanthi, ¶ [0026])
In addition, Cristofi in an analogous art teaches:
HTTP status code and connection status such as response time, failure, etc. (Cristofi, ¶ [0178])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Cristofi into the method of Jayanthi to provide a method to transmit, to the one or more target systems, a plurality of queries for status associated with a plurality of interactions; receive, from the one or more target systems, a plurality of HTTP response codes associated with the plurality of interactions; and determine, based on the plurality of HTTP response codes, one or more of the plurality of interactions failed. The modification would be obvious because network performance data indicating performance of the network can be transmitted to a data intake and query system for analysis (Cristofi, ¶ [0178]).
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the system claim 5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of claim 5 above.
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 nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,862 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the patent. The only difference in the independent claims of the instant application from the independent claims of the patent is that the independent claims of the instant application only recites determining only data failure from the monitored failed interactions to determine recoverability and taking remedial actions according to the determination, while the independent claims of the patent recites determining both the system failure and the data failure and taking remedial action. Since the limitations of the independent claims of the patent encompass the data failure aspect of the limitations recited in the independent claims of the instant application, the claims of the instant application are fully anticipated by the claims of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. 2023/0,305,919 A1 discloses a method of obtaining error information based on an error that occurs in an application, identifying a type of the error and a cause of the error at least based on the obtained error information, and obtaining a solution for solving the error from a reference data set by using the identified type of the error and the identified cause of the error.
US Pat. 8,898,109 B2 discloses techniques for recovering from session failures between clients and database servers using a transaction log.
CN 108664359 B discloses a database recovery method by obtaining REDO log in the database to be recovered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights