DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on October 8, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘254 Patent anticipates the instant claims.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 state “detect, responsive to pushing the status of the data instance to the data stream, a difference between a first structure of a replicated data instance of the at least one replicated data instance and a second structure of a target database.”
However, the instant specification (throughout the specification, but for example paragraph [0065]) describes that the difference “is a difference between a data description language (DDL) of the replicated data instances and a DDL of a target database (step 708).” The instant specification does not seem to have support for a much broader interpretation as recited in the claims. Furthermore, while the Abstract of the current application does describe the language that is recited in the claims, the parent applications of the instant application do not describe such concepts.
That may mean that either the instant application should have been a continuation in part without benefits of priority to its parent applications or the Applicant meant something different, which would make the claims unclear.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 also state “identify a model configured to update the first structure of the replicated data instance to correspond to the second structure of the target database.” However, it is not clear how a model is identified in view of the instant specification. Furthermore, it is not clear where in the instant specification such a feature is described.
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not remedy the above issues.
Claim 8 states “identify a warning or alert associated with execution of the data replication tool on the at least one data instance, the alert or warning based on at least one of a memory usage, load average, disk space, or processing function of the data replication tool.” However, paragraph [0045] of the specification describes “controlling the health of the system such as RAM, load averages, disk spaces, and CPU function.” It is not clear if controlling may be analogous to identifying “a warning or alert” for items such as “a memory usage, load average, disk space” As such, the claim is unclear in view of the instant specification.
Claim 10 states “responsive to failing to identify the model from a plurality of models stored in a database, automatically build an additional model.” However, it is not clear which plurality of models are being discussed in view of the instant specification. Furthermore, it is not clear where in the instant specification such a feature is described nor does there seem to be support for building a model.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0285353) in view of Nguyen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129616) further in view of Ogrinz (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0293952) and further in view of Senra et al (US Patent 10,901,973).
Claims 1, 13 and 20: Rao discloses a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to:
automatically execute a data replication tool on at least one data instance to generate at least one replicated data instance [0119, 0135-0136]. [See at least migrating/copying different data instances.]
Rao alone does not explicitly disclose the rest of the limitations.
However, Nguyen and Ogrinz disclose:
push a status of a data instance of the at least one data instance to a data stream associated with the data replication tool [Nguyen [0036] discloses at least a status of migration and is updated in real-time (i.e. data stream).]
detect, responsive to pushing the status of the data instance to the data stream, a difference between a first structure of a replicated data instance of the at least one replicated data instance and a second structure of a target database [Ogrinz [0025] discloses triggering an update (triggering is based on a type of status) of a database.]
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Nguyen and Ogrinz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify when to update information.
Senra and Nguyen further discloses:
identify a model configured to update the first structure of the replicated data instance to correspond to the second structure of the target database (Col 3 ln 24-35). [See at least translating DDL from one instance to another instance based on detecting that a database accepts a specific type of DDL. The model is at least a DDL model.]
responsive to updating the first structure to correspond to the second structure using the model, provide the replicated data instance to the target database (Col 3 ln 24-35). [See at least translating DDL from one instance to another instance based on detecting that a database accepts a specific type of DDL and then the translated data is replicated and stored in an appropriate database.]
store, in a data storage, configuration information regarding at least one of a status, owner, or action associated with the target database responsive to providing the replicated data instance to the target database [Nguyen [0036] discloses at least storing of the status.]
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Senra and Nguyen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “data consistency.”
Claims 2 and 14: Rao as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 13 and Rao further discloses identify a schedule for replicating the at least one data instance; and automatically execute the data replication tool on the data instance according to the schedule [0110]. [See at least a schedule for copying/replicating data.]
Claims 3 and 15: Rao as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 13 and Senra, for the same reasons as above, further discloses detect the difference between the first structure of the replicated data instance and the second structure of the target database based on a first data description language (DDL) or schema that defines the first structure and a second DDL or schema that defines the second structure; and update the first structure to correspond with the second structure based on a translation, using the model, of the first DDL or schema of the replicated data instance to match the second DDL or schema of the target database (Col 3 ln 24-35). [See at least translating DDL from one instance to another instance based on detecting that a database accepts a specific type of DDL.]
Claims 7 and 19: Rao as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 13 and Rao further discloses wherein the one or more processors further: transmit, to a client device, data to cause the client device to display a user interface, the user interface comprising one or more controls associated with a plurality of data structures comprising the data instance and the target database; and responsive to an input via the one or more controls, execute at least one operation to stop replication of at least one data structure of the plurality of data structures, start replication of the at least one data structure, or delete the at least one data structure [Fig 8A, 0113, 0118-0119]. [See at least a user interface with various controls.]
Claim 11: Rao as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 and Rao further discloses wherein the configuration information regarding the at least one of the status, owner, or action associated with the target database comprises a time of successful data replication, and wherein the one or more processors further: replicate one or more additional data instances starting from the time of the successful data replication [0139, 0141].
Claims 4, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0285353) in view of Nguyen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129616) further in view of Ogrinz (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0293952) further in view of Senra et al (US Patent 10,901,973) and further in view of Rosier et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0173594).
Claims 4 and 16: Rao as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 13 and Rao further discloses import, using a network connection or interface, the at least one data instance from a source database associated with a system of record [0110]. [See at least the API.];
Rao alone does not explicitly disclose filter the at least one data instance based on a scope defined by a user, the scope comprising a selection of the data instance of the at least one data instance or a category associated with the data instance.
However, Rozier [0083, 0093] discloses using a replication filter defined by a user in order to identify subsets to replicate.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Rosier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to replicate items that a user selects.
Claim 12: Rao as modified discloses the system of Claim 1, but Rao alone does not explicitly disclose receive a first request to onboard a client, the first request comprising the at least one data instance; and responsive to receiving the first request, provide a second request to start replication of the at least one data instance to the data replication tool.
However, Rosier [0057, 0104] discloses receiving configuration for replication and beginning a replication process.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Rosier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to replicate items based on a particular configuration.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0285353) in view of Nguyen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129616) further in view of Ogrinz (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0293952) further in view of Senra et al (US Patent 10,901,973) and further in view of Schaffer (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0068718).
Claims 5 and 17: Rao as modified discloses the system and the method of Claims 1 and 13, but Rao alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the data storage comprises a non-relational database, and wherein to store the configuration information, the one or more processors further: persist the configuration information regarding the at least one of the status, owner, or action to the non-relational database using an application programming interface.
However, Schaffer [0068] discloses storing correct data, which is analogous to configuration data, in a non-relational database and see at least Nguyen [0036] for storing of the status.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Schaffer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to store particular data in a particular type of database.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0285353) in view of Nguyen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129616) further in view of Ogrinz (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0293952) further in view of Senra et al (US Patent 10,901,973) and further in view of Chandra et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0156598).
Claim 8: Rao as modified discloses the system of Claim 1, but Rao alone does not explicitly disclose identify a warning or alert associated with execution of the data replication tool on the at least one data instance, the alert or warning based on at least one of a memory usage, load average, disk space, or processing function of the data replication tool; and provide the warning or alert for presentation via a messaging system or interface.
However, Chandra [0023] discloses transmitting an alert message when issues occur with a replication operation.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Chandra. One would have been motivated to do so in order to alert at least an administrator so that further actions may be taken with regards to identified issues.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0285353) in view of Nguyen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0129616) further in view of Ogrinz (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0293952) further in view of Senra et al (US Patent 10,901,973) and further in view of Dantkale et al (US Patent Application Publication 9,170,928).
Claim 9: Rao as modified discloses the system of Claim 1, but Rao alone does not explicitly disclose distribute, using the data replication tool, the at least one data instance across one or more processing nodes, wherein distribution of the at least one data instance balances replication tasks across the one or more processing nodes to prevent the one or more processing nodes from being overloaded or idle.
However, Dantkale (Col 6 ln 54-63) discloses a load balancing operation for at least replication.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rao with Dantkale. One would have been motivated to do so in order to at least “prevent the types of delays, lock outs, I/O starvation…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zaslavsky et al (2021/0103567) describes at least migrating data based on a status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights