DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The instant application is a CON of 18/442,567 filed on 02/15/2024 which has PRO 63/501,610 filed on 05/11/2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims depend on claim 11 but state that claim 11 is a method. The Examiner will treat these claims as being a non-transitory computer readable medium rather than a 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method and claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
generating a data snapshot file based on data records from a data source in a database system and data indicative of a characteristic associated with the data records; is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper.
The above analysis for claim 1 applies to all independent claims as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
storing the data snapshot file and a hash of the data snapshot file in a data storage; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
migrating the obtained data records from the data snapshot file to a data target in a second database system, the migrating including: is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
retrieving the data records from the data snapshot file; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
providing the retrieved data records to the data target according to a mapping between a characteristic of the data source and a characteristic of the data target. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for causing a computing system to perform operations for migrating data records to a database system, the operations including: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The above analysis for claim 1 applies to all independent claims as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2B (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
storing the data snapshot file and a hash of the data snapshot file in a data storage; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
migrating the obtained data records from the data snapshot file to a data target in a second database system, the migrating including: when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
retrieving the data records from the data snapshot file; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
providing the retrieved data records to the data target according to a mapping between a characteristic of the data source and a characteristic of the data target. when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for causing a computing system to perform operations for migrating data records to a database system, the operations including ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s)):
The above analysis for claim 1 applies to all independent claims as they contain similar limitations.
The above analysis applies to each dependent claim as they depend on the independent claims.
The dependent claims add limitations that do not overcome the abstract idea rejection. The dependent claim add limitations of clarifying the migrating, comparing, recalculating, determining, providing, masking, using governance, generating, and retrieving. The steps of migrating, providing, and retrieving are further additional elements while the other steps are mental processes. Therefore, the dependent claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-5, 9-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0219136 (hereinafter Nakamura) in view of Shetty et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0191903 (hereinafter Shetty).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches:
A method for migrating data records to a database system, the method including (Nakamura Paragraph [0090], data is migrated to the configuration location prior to data migration):
generating a data snapshot file based on data records from a data source in a database system and data indicative of a characteristic associated with the data records (Nakamura Paragraph [0057], access characteristics for access to the source volume vary depending on how a snapshot is to be used. For example, if a snapshot is used for test processing or batch processing or the like, for example, access to the source volume can be temporary or localized, and the effect on access performance also varies according to the snapshot usage method);
retrieving the data records from the data snapshot file (Nakamura Paragraph [0049], Management information, described subsequently, which is used to manage snapshots is also read from the storage devices 12 and stored and held in the cache memory 114);
Nakamura does not expressly disclose:
storing the data snapshot file and a hash of the data snapshot file in a data storage;
migrating the obtained data records from the data snapshot file to a data target in a second database system, the migrating including:
providing the retrieved data records to the data target according to a mapping between a characteristic of the data source and a characteristic of the data target.
However, Shetty teaches:
storing the data snapshot file and a hash of the data snapshot file in a data storage (Shetty Paragraph [0038], hash tree 140 may be stored in a “fingerprint” field of snapshot 130. In some embodiments, only root hash value 145 may be included with snapshot 130);
migrating the obtained data records from the data snapshot file to a data target in a second database system, the migrating including (Shetty Paragraph [0049], method 600 may include a step in which the computer system stores a set of data (captured in the snapshot) under a second database schema in response to determining that the root hash value of the first database schema and the root hash value of the second database schema match (Shetty teaches the multiple databases and snapshots while Nakamura teaches migrating)):
providing the retrieved data records to the data target according to a mapping between a characteristic of the data source and a characteristic of the data target (Shetty Paragraph [0029], as part of a tenant migration service, a tenant's data may be moved to a second database from a first database. Snapshot 130 may thus be created based on the first database. The second database 110, however, may have a different database schema 115 than the first database).
The claimed invention and Shetty are from the analogous art of snapshot systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Nakamura in view of Shetty to have combined Nakamura in view of Shetty. Shetty teaches the improvement of fixing issues such as data corruption and system crashes when a snapshot has a different schema (Paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 1, in which the migrating includes confirming that the data snapshot file that was stored in the data storage has not been edited (Nakamura Paragraph [0090], data is migrated to the configuration location prior to data migration), and wherein the retrieving of the data records from the data snapshot file is performed responsive to the confirming (Nakamura Paragraph [0049], Management information, described subsequently, which is used to manage snapshots is also read from the storage devices 12 and stored and held in the cache memory 114).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 2, in which confirming that the data snapshot file has not been edited includes (Nakamura Paragraph [0090], data is migrated to the configuration location prior to data migration):
recalculating the hash of the data snapshot file that was stored in the data storage (Shetty Paragraph [0055], The other computer system may be capable of generating a second hash tree based on the second database schema and comparing a second root hash value of the second hash tree to a first root hash value included with the particular tenant snapshot to determine whether the first database schema is different from the second database schema); and
comparing the recalculated hash to the generated hash (Shetty Paragraph [0020], The database system thereafter determines whether the database schema that is associated with the snapshot is different from the current database schema by comparing the root hash values of the two hierarchies).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 1, in which the migrating includes (Nakamura Paragraph [0090], data is migrated to the configuration location prior to data migration):
determining a correspondence between a first record format of the data records from the data source and the second record format of data records of the data target (Shetty Paragraph [0031], database system 120 may identify that the second database schema 115 defines an additional attribute for a database table that is defined by both database schemas 115);
when the first record format is different from the second record format, transforming the retrieved data records into the second record format in accordance with the correspondence (Shetty Paragraph [0031], database system 120 may identify that the second database schema 115 defines an additional attribute for a database table that is defined by both database schemas 115 (shows different formats by using different schemas)); and
providing the transformed data records to the data target (Shetty Paragraph [0031], database system 120 may identify that the second database schema 115 defines an additional attribute for a database table that is defined by both database schemas 115).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 1, including providing the retrieved data records to the data target according to a mapping between a naming convention used by the data source and a naming convention used by the data target (Nakamura Paragraph [0087], the snapshot configuration information 170 is configured from a volume name field 1701, a WWN field 1702, a host IF field 1703, a controller field 1704, and an LU field 1705. The volume name field 1701 stores volume names which are assigned to the source volume 120 or the target volumes 121).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 1, including generating data records for inclusion in the obtained data records prior to generating the data snapshot file (Nakamura Paragraph [0087], the snapshot configuration information 170 is configured from a volume name field 1701, a WWN field 1702, a host IF field 1703, a controller field 1704, and an LU field 1705. The volume name field 1701 stores volume names which are assigned to the source volume 120 or the target volumes 121), wherein the generation of data records based on a distribution of values in each of one or more fields of the data records obtained from the data source (Nakamura Paragraph [0087], the snapshot configuration information 170 is configured from a volume name field 1701, a WWN field 1702, a host IF field 1703, a controller field 1704, and an LU field 1705. The volume name field 1701 stores volume names which are assigned to the source volume 120 or the target volumes 121).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura in view of Shetty further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved data records are provided to the data target only after the confirming that the data snapshot file has not been edited (Nakamura Paragraph [0090], data is migrated to the configuration location prior to data migration).
Claims 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1-5, 9, and 10 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/non-transitory computer readable medium). Nakamura further teaches a CPU and memory (Paragraph 40).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Shetty and Ebrom et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0218884 (hereinafter Ebrom).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura in view of Shetty teaches parent claim 1.
Nakamura in view of Shetty does not expressly disclose:
in which generating the data snapshot file includes including data indicative of a data governance rule associated with the source system.
However, Ebrom teaches:
in which generating the data snapshot file includes including data indicative of a data governance rule associated with the source system (Ebrom Paragraph [0816], Each event definition is reported in a separate internal network message and is governed by snapshot rules).
The claimed invention and Ebrom are from the analogous art of snapshot systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Nakamura in view of Shetty and Ebrom to have combined Nakamura in view of Shetty and Ebrom. Ebrom teaches improved communication with an appliance about a consumable (Paragraph 10).
Claim 16 is rejected in the same manner as claim 6 but is merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Shetty and Chou et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0172625 (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Shetty teaches parent claim 1.
Nakamura in view of Shetty does not expressly disclose:
including masking sensitive data, such as data associated with personally identifying information, contained in one or more fields of the obtained data records prior to generating the data snapshot file, and in which generating a data snapshot file based on the obtained data records includes generating a data snapshot file that includes the masked data records.
However, Chou teaches:
including masking sensitive data, such as data associated with personally identifying information, contained in one or more fields of the obtained data records prior to generating the data snapshot file, and in which generating a data snapshot file based on the obtained data records includes generating a data snapshot file that includes the masked data records (Chou Paragraph [0033], masking the identified vehicles to form Record.sub.ss_mask, which is a record of a snapshot mask that retains only the information associated with the identified vehicles and filters out information associated with other vehicles in the traffic).
The claimed invention and Chou are from the analogous art of snapshot systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Nakamura in view of Shetty and Chou to have combined Nakamura in view of Shetty and Chou. Chou teaches the benefit of masking certain information (Paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura in view of Shetty and Chou further teaches:
The method of claim 7, in which generating the hash includes generating a hash of data indicative of a masking algorithm applied to mask the sensitive data (Chou Paragraph [0033], masking the identified vehicles to form Record.sub.ss_mask, which is a record of a snapshot mask that retains only the information associated with the identified vehicles and filters out information associated with other vehicles in the traffic).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected in the same manner as claims 7 and 8 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/non-transitory computer readable medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lingarajappa, Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0095112 (hereinafter Lingarajappa). Lingarajappa teaches accessing data incoming from a source as a snapshot which can be characterized as data originating from the source (Paragraph 29). This shows that Lingarajappa is analogous art as both the claimed invention and Lingarajappa are directed to snapshots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights