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 .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 22 July 2026, claims 1-12 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 5 and 9 are presented in independent form. The Examiner acknowledges that no claims were amended, cancelled, or newly.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
All objections and/or rejections issued in the previous Office Action, mailed 22 April 2026, have been withdrawn, unless otherwise noted in this Office Action. That is, arguments and/or amendments presented by the Applicant were deemed persuasive and therefore have been withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection will be held in abeyance, until allowable subject matter has been identified. For the purposes of prosecution, the Examiner will maintain a copy of the double patenting rejection in subsequent correspondences.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Dageville does not teach or suggest the feature of ‘process by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events, each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node,’ as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in corresponding independent claims 5 and 9.
The Examiner disagrees. Dageville discloses process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data. Additionally, see paragraph [0046], which discloses a new version of the tables is generated after each transaction is executed, where each version of the table may include metadata indicating what transaction generated the table, when the transaction was ordered, when the transaction was fully executed, and how the transaction altered one or more rows in the table. The Examiner notes that such versions includes node and transaction identifiers and where the Examiner equates this as characteristics of a release event, where the release event, see Applicant’s disclosure Figure 7, where the release event includes a transaction ID and node ID.), each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0046-0049], which discloses a database table that may store data in a plurality of micro-partitions, where after a transaction is fully executed, any original micro-partitions that were recreated may then be removed from the database. The table may undergo many versions over a period of time if the data in the table undergoes many changes. Additionally, see paragraph [0046], which discloses a new version of the tables is generated after each transaction is executed, where each version of the table may include metadata indicating what transaction generated the table, when the transaction was ordered, when the transaction was fully executed, and how the transaction altered one or more rows in the table, are instances of the release event information.).
Dageville does not teach or suggest the feature of ‘continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster, providing the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed,’ as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in corresponding independent claims 5 and 9.
The Examiner disagrees. Dageville discloses continuously update (e.g. Dageville, see paragraph [0046], which discloses the table may under many versions over a time period if the data in the table undergoes many changes, such as inserts, deletes, and/or merges.), by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster (e.g. Dageville, see paragraph [0049], which discloses table versions data set includes a mapping of table versions to lists of added micro-partitions and removed micro-partitions. See further paragraph [0107-0108], which discloses tracking the new version of table T, which includes a list of nodes, in which they are executed on, as further illustrated in paragraph [0083].), provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.).
Dageville does not teach or suggest the feature of ‘generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version,’ as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in corresponding independent claims 5 and 9.
The Examiner disagrees. Dageville discloses generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0101-0105], which discloses a snapshot that is associated to a transaction log that logs the multiple times transactions were processed, including a rollback flag indicating the latest version of the data. See further paragraphs [0110-0111], which discloses the transaction writes the transaction log record to the database which can be considered a hard point of no return, the committing state is entered and a new version becomes readable.).
No other argument was presented by the Applicant and therefore the Examiner maintains the rejection below.
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 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,971 (known hereinafter as ‘971). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claims in ‘971 recites the limitations that anticipate all of the limitations of the instant claims.
Instant Application 19/233,024
12,360,971
Claim 9:
A computer-implemented method for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the method comprising:
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the method comprising:
process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events, each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node;
sending, by each database node that no longer needs a respective version, a release event to an event log, thereby producing a plurality of release events in the event log, the release event comprising a version number of the respective version, a database node identifier of the respective database node, and a transaction ID;
continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster,
continuously consuming, by a version reclaim-leader, the plurality of release events from the event log including, obtaining, by the version reclaim-leader, an unprocessed event from the event log;
obtaining, by the version reclaim-leader, the respective version from a payload of the unprocessed event;
provided the respective version is other than recognized by the version-reclaim leader,
obtaining, by the version reclaim-leader, a respective transaction ID from the payload of the unprocessed event;
replicating a state of the database node, by the version reclaim-leader, based on sequentially applying all transactions preceding the respective transaction ID for recognizing the respective version;
where the respective version remains other than recognized by the version-reclaim leader, obtain a next unprocessed event;
provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed;
provided the respective version is recognized by the version-reclaim leader and other than reclaimed,
obtaining, by the version reclaim-leader, the respective database node from the payload of the unprocessed event;
adding, by the version-reclaim leader, to a received events map, the respective database node, provided the respective database node is not present in the received events map;
determining, by the version reclaim-leader, whether a version has been released by each database node of the plurality of database nodes;
generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version;
generating, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version when the version reclaim-leader determines that the version has been released by each database node;
commit, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log;
committing, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log;
continuously replicate, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log; and
continuously replicating, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log; and
apply, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version.
applying, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version.
Claims 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,810 (known hereinafter as ‘810). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claims in ‘810 recites the limitations that anticipate all of the limitations of the instant claims.
Instant Application 19/233,024
12,306,810
Claim 9:
A computer-implemented method for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the method comprising:
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the method comprising:
process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events, each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node;
sending, by each database node in response to each of said database node having decreased a respective reference count associated with that no longer needs a respective version to a minimum threshold, a release event to an event log,
continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster,
continuously consuming, by a version reclaim-leader, the plurality of release events from the event log including, obtaining, by the version reclaim-leader, an unprocessed event from the event log;
provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed;
thereby producing a plurality of release events in the event log, the release event comprising a version number of the respective version and a database node identifier of the respective database node, wherein each of the respective reference count of each of the respective database node is private to the respective database node
determining, by the version reclaim-leader, whether a version has been released by each database node of the plurality of database nodes;
generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version;
generating, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version when the version reclaim-leader determines that the version has been released by each database node;
commit, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log;
committing, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log;
continuously replicate, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log; and
continuously replicating, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log; and
apply, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version.
applying, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Dageville, Beniot, et al (U.S. 2020/0012659 and known hereinafter as Dageville).
As per claim 1, Dageville teaches a system for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to:
process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.), each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0046-0049], which discloses a database table that may store data in a plurality of micro-partitions, where after a transaction is fully executed, any original micro-partitions that were recreated may then be removed from the database. The table may undergo many versions over a period of time if the data in the table undergoes many changes.);
continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster (e.g. Dageville, see paragraph [0049], which discloses table versions data set includes a mapping of table versions to lists of added micro-partitions and removed micro-partitions.), provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.);
generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0101-0105], which discloses a snapshot that is associated to a transaction log that logs the multiple times transactions were processed, including a rollback flag indicating the latest version of the data.);
commit, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0103-0107], which discloses a transaction log that is associated with database replication in which the transaction includes one or more commits or modifications indicating a cleanup transaction.);
continuously replicate, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0105-0109], which discloses the transaction log may be stored on a primary and secondary storage, thereby indicating a replication, in which the transaction log contains one or more commits, where each commit may be a cleanup transaction.); and
apply, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0108-0111], which discloses successfully writing to the remote storage the transaction log indicating the appropriate table version after the write to remote storage has occurred.).
As per claim 5, Dageville teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.), each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0046-0049], which discloses a database table that may store data in a plurality of micro-partitions, where after a transaction is fully executed, any original micro-partitions that were recreated may then be removed from the database. The table may undergo many versions over a period of time if the data in the table undergoes many changes.);
continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster (e.g. Dageville, see paragraph [0049], which discloses table versions data set includes a mapping of table versions to lists of added micro-partitions and removed micro-partitions.), provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.);
generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0101-0105], which discloses a snapshot that is associated to a transaction log that logs the multiple times transactions were processed, including a rollback flag indicating the latest version of the data.);
commit, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0103-0107], which discloses a transaction log that is associated with database replication in which the transaction includes one or more commits or modifications indicating a cleanup transaction.);
continuously replicate, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0105-0109], which discloses the transaction log may be stored on a primary and secondary storage, thereby indicating a replication, in which the transaction log contains one or more commits, where each commit may be a cleanup transaction.); and
apply, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0108-0111], which discloses successfully writing to the remote storage the transaction log indicating the appropriate table version after the write to remote storage has occurred.).
As per claim 9, Dageville teaches a computer-implemented method for distributed version reclaim in a database cluster comprising a plurality of database nodes, the method comprising:
process, by a version reclaim-leader, a release event from a sequence of release events (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.), each release event comprising information about a database node and a version released by the database node (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0046-0049], which discloses a database table that may store data in a plurality of micro-partitions, where after a transaction is fully executed, any original micro-partitions that were recreated may then be removed from the database. The table may undergo many versions over a period of time if the data in the table undergoes many changes.);
continuously update, by the version reclaim-leader, a list of database nodes that have released the version until the version has been released by each of the database nodes in the database cluster (e.g. Dageville, see paragraph [0049], which discloses table versions data set includes a mapping of table versions to lists of added micro-partitions and removed micro-partitions.), provided the version is recognized by the version reclaim leader and provided the version is not reclaimed (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.);
generate, by the version reclaim-leader, one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0101-0105], which discloses a snapshot that is associated to a transaction log that logs the multiple times transactions were processed, including a rollback flag indicating the latest version of the data.);
commit, by the version reclaim-leader, the one or more cleanup transactions to a transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0103-0107], which discloses a transaction log that is associated with database replication in which the transaction includes one or more commits or modifications indicating a cleanup transaction.);
continuously replicate, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions from the transaction log (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0105-0109], which discloses the transaction log may be stored on a primary and secondary storage, thereby indicating a replication, in which the transaction log contains one or more commits, where each commit may be a cleanup transaction.); and
apply, by each database node, the one or more cleanup transactions for the version (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0108-0111], which discloses successfully writing to the remote storage the transaction log indicating the appropriate table version after the write to remote storage has occurred.).
As per claims 2, 6, and 10, Dageville teaches the system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, and the method of claim 9, respectively, wherein when the version is not initially recognized by the version reclaim-leader during processing of the release event, the system is further configured to:
obtain, by the version reclaim-leader from the release event, a transaction ID associated with the release event (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0046-0049], which discloses a database table that may store data in a plurality of micro-partitions, where after a transaction is fully executed, any original micro-partitions that were recreated may then be removed from the database. The table may undergo many versions over a period of time if the data in the table undergoes many changes.); and
replicate, by the version reclaim-leader, a state of the database node based on sequentially applying all transactions preceding the transaction ID, thereby enabling recognition of the version by the version reclaim-leader (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.).
As per claims 3, 7, and 11, Dageville teaches the system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, and the method of claim 9, respectively, wherein when releasing the version by the database node, the system is further configured to:
decrease, by the database node, a reference count for the version until the reference count reaches a minimum threshold (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.).
As per claims 4, 8, and 12, Dageville teaches the system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, and the method of claim 9, respectively, wherein the release event comprises a version number of the version, and a database node identifier of the database node (e.g. Dageville, see paragraphs [0074-0077], which discloses a resource manager that manages data replication requests, database failover, and database fail back, where the manager may manage, where when, see paragraphs [0088-0094], the manager includes determine the snapshot and version of the particular data.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights