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 .
This action is in response to Application filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application is claimed as a continuation of International Application PCT/CN2024/116223 filed 09/02/2024 and claims foreign priority to Chinese Application No. 202311178386.0 filed on 09/13/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Applicant on 10/15/2025 has been considered. A copy of the considered IDS is enclosed with this Office action.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the application" in line 4, the limitation “the applications” in line 6, and the limitation “the database objects” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein sequentially determining the data object subset" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the database object subset” in that limitation should be changed to plural form “the database object subsets” for being properly reference to the limitation recited in claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the database object" in line 5, and the limitation “the database objects” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the object identifier set" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the object identifier" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the application" in line 6, the limitation “the applications” in line 9, and the limitation “the database objects” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "when sequentially determining the data object subset" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the database object subset” in that limitation should be changed to plural form “the database object subsets” for being properly reference to the limitation recited in claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the database object" in line 5, and the limitation “the database objects” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the application" in line 5, the limitation “the applications” in line 7, and the limitation “the database objects” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Other dependent claims are rejected as incorporating and failing to resolve the deficiency of the rejected independent claims 1 and 14 upon which they depend correspondingly.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-16, 18 and 20 (effective filing date is 10/15/2025 or 09/02/2024 (if perfected) or 09/13/2023 (if perfected)) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawali et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0235770, Publication date 08/17/2017), and further in view of Kruglikov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116334, Publication date 04/27/2017).
As to claim 1, Gawali et al. teaches:
“A database recovery method, performed by an electronic device” (see Gawali et al., Abstract), comprising:
“obtaining object identifier sets corresponding to a plurality of applications, respectively, each object identifier set including object identifiers corresponding to a plurality of database objects called during operation of the application corresponding to the object identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0011]-[0012] for obtaining and processing containers in a database, wherein each container in the database includes a subset of objects available in the database, wherein each object must include an identifier in order to identify and monitor the object as disclosed, and wherein each container must associated with an application/code that is used to access data/objects in the container, as such, each container can be considered as representing an application and a set of objects (i.e., object identifiers) in each container can be interpreted as an object identifier set corresponding to an application as recited);
“determining respective key indexes of the plurality of applications, the key indexes indicating importance of the applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] for deciding the restore priorities of containers of a database or determining importance of containers, wherein the restore priorities or importance of the containers can be interpreted as respective key indexes of the plurality of application as recited);
“determining a recovery order of database object subsets corresponding to the object identifier sets based on an order indicated by the key indexes, each database object subset being determined based on the database objects corresponding to the object identifiers in the object identifier set corresponding to the database object subset” (see Gawali et al., [0012]-[0013] for generating the container restore sequence (i.e., a recovery order) based on identifying importance of containers, wherein each container is interpreted as a database object subset as recited; also see [0015] for determining a priority list or a restoring sequence for restoring containers on the database); and
“sequentially performing data recovery on the database object subsets based on the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0017]-[0020]).
In case that Gawali et al. does not explicitly teach that a container is associated with an application.
Kruglikov et al. explicitly teaches that a container is associated with an application (see Kruglikov et al., [0010]-[0011] wherein every pluggable database (PDB) is considered a container, and each PDB can potentially be used to store data related to a different application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kruglikov et al.'s teaching to Gawali et al.’s system by implementing containers in database for managing data of different applications. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, as suggested by Kruglikov et al. (see [0011]), to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way to manage application data separately in the database. In addition, both of the references (Gawali et al. and Kruglikov et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, database system implemented with containers. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein determining the recovery order includes” (see Gawali et al., [0015] for determining a priority list or a restoring sequence):
“sequentially determining the database object subsets corresponding to the object identifier sets based on the order indicated by the key indexes” (see Gawali et al., [0015]-[0016] for determining a priority (i.e., key index) associated with each container (i.e., a database object subset or an object identifier set)); and
“determining the order indicated by the key indexes as the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0015] for determining the priority list or a restoring sequence based on priorities of containers).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 2 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein sequentially determining the database object subset includes sequentially performing the following based on the order indicated by the key indexes until the database object subsets corresponding to all of the object identifier sets are determined” (see Gawali et al., [0015] and [0020] for sequentially restoring the containers according to the priority list or a restoring sequence):
“obtaining one object identifier set from the object identifier sets as a current identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for obtaining and restoring one container (i.e., one object identifier set) of the containers in the database at a time); and
“performing a database object subset determination operation on the current identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for restoring each container of the containers according to a sequence/order of restoring the containers).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications includes” (see Gawali et al., [0011] for determining the restore priorities (i.e., key indexes) of containers (i.e., applications)):
“obtaining a preset priority order corresponding to the plurality of applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] and [0017] for obtaining the restore priorities or a priority list (i.e., a preset priority order) from a user/administrator); and
“determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications based on the preset priority order (see Gawali et al., [0011] and [0017] for obtaining the restore priorities (i.e., key indexes) or a priority list from a user/administrator).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications includes” (see Gawali et al., [0016] for determining priorities (i.e., key indexes) for containers (i.e., applications)):
“obtaining a plurality of identifier quantities each being a quantity of object identifiers in the object identifier set corresponding to one of the plurality of applications” (see Gawali et al., [0015]-[0016] for determining numbers/quantities of hits); and
“determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications based on the plurality of identifier quantities” (see Gawali et al., [0015]-[0016] for determining priorities based on numbers/quantities of hits or volumes).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein sequentially performing data recovery on the database object subsets includes” (see Gawali et al., [0017] and [0020]):
“grouping M database object subsets based on recovery task quantities corresponding to the M database object subsets, respectively, to obtain N target object subsets to be recovered, M being an integer greater than or equal to 1, and N being an integer less than or equal to M and greater than or equal to 1” (see Gawali et al., [0019] for grouping objects in the database into containers (i.e., M or N subsets));
“obtaining reference recovery information corresponding to the N target object subsets” (see Gawali et al., [0019] for obtaining priority list for restoring the containers); and
“determining a target order matching the recovery order based on the reference recovery information corresponding to the N target object subsets” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for setting the counter equal to the number of containers (i.e., N subsets)), and
“sequentially performing data recovery on the N target object subsets based on the target order” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for sequentially restoring the containers according to the sequence/order of restoring the containers).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 8 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“wherein determining the target order and sequentially performing data recovery on the N target object subsets based on the target order includes” (see Gawali et al., [0020]):
“determining data buffers corresponding to the N target object subsets, respectively, the data buffers not overlapping with each other” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for restoring each container by running the computer program, wherein memory must be allocated for storing the container for restoring, wherein the allocated memory are data buffers as recited); and
“sequentially performing data recovery on the N target object subsets based on the target order in the data buffers corresponding to the N target object subsets, respectively” (see Gawali et al., [0020]).
As to claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“after sequentially performing data recovery on the database object subsets” (Gawali et al., [0020]):
“transmitting recovery prompt information in response to the database object subset associated with a target application among the plurality of applications completing data recovery, the recovery prompt information indicating that the target application is currently in a runnable state” (see Gawali et al., [0020] after step 105, the respective one of the containers (i.e., a target application) is restored and available for use; also see [0010]).
As to claim 14, Gawali et al. teaches:
“An electronic device” (see Gawali et al., Abstract) comprising:
“a memory storing a computer program” (see Gawali et al., [0022]); and
a processor configured to execute the computer program to” (see Gawali et al., [0022]):
“obtain object identifier sets corresponding to a plurality of applications, respectively, each object identifier set including object identifiers corresponding to a plurality of database objects called during operation of the application corresponding to the object identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0011]-[0012] for obtaining and processing containers in a database, wherein each container in the database includes a subset of objects available in the database, wherein each object must include an identifier in order to identify and monitor the object as disclosed, and wherein each container must associated with an application/code that is used to access data/objects in the container, as such, each container can be considered as representing an application and a set of objects (i.e., object identifiers) in each container can be interpreted as an object identifier set corresponding to an application as recited);
“determine respective key indexes of the plurality of applications, the key indexes indicating importance of the applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] for deciding the restore priorities of containers of a database or determining importance of containers, wherein the restore priorities or importance of the containers can be interpreted as respective key indexes of the plurality of application as recited);
“determine a recovery order of database object subsets corresponding to the object identifier sets based on an order indicated by the key indexes, each database object subset being determined based on the database objects corresponding to the object identifiers in the object identifier set corresponding to the database object subset” (see Gawali et al., [0012]-[0013] for generating the container restore sequence (i.e., a recovery order) based on identifying importance of containers, wherein each container is interpreted as a database object subset as recited; also see [0015] for determining a priority list or a restoring sequence for restoring containers on the database); and
“sequentially perform data recovery on the database object subsets based on the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0017]-[0020]).
In case that Gawali et al. does not explicitly teach that a container is associated with an application.
Kruglikov et al. explicitly teaches that a container is associated with an application (see Kruglikov et al., [0010]-[0011] wherein every pluggable database (PDB) is considered a container, and each PDB can potentially be used to store data related to a different application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kruglikov et al.'s teaching to Gawali et al.’s system by implementing containers in database for managing data of different applications. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, as suggested by Kruglikov et al. (see [0011]), to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way to manage application data separately in the database. In addition, both of the references (Gawali et al. and Kruglikov et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, database system implemented with containers. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claim 15, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 14 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“when determining the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0015] for determining a priority list or a restoring sequence):
“sequentially determine the database object subsets corresponding to the object identifier sets based on the order indicated by the key indexes” (see Gawali et al., [0015]-[0016] for determining a priority (i.e., key index) associated with each container (i.e., a database object subset or an object identifier set)); and
“determine the order indicated by the key indexes as the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0015] for determining the priority list or a restoring sequence based on priorities of containers).
As to claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 15 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“when sequentially determining the database object subset, sequentially perform the following based on the order indicated by the key indexes until the database object subsets corresponding to all of the object identifier sets are determined” (see Gawali et al., [0015] and [0020] for sequentially restoring the containers according to the priority list or a restoring sequence):
“obtaining one object identifier set from the object identifier sets as a current identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for obtaining and restoring one container (i.e., one object identifier set) of the containers in the database at a time); and
“performing a database object subset determination operation on the current identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0020] for restoring each container of the containers according to a sequence/order of restoring the containers).
As to claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 14 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches:
“when determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] for determining the restore priorities (i.e., key indexes) of containers (i.e., applications)):
“obtain a preset priority order corresponding to the plurality of applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] and [0017] for obtaining the restore priorities or a priority list (i.e., a preset priority order) from a user/administrator); and
“determine the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications based on the preset priority order” (see Gawali et al., [0011] and [0017] for obtaining the restore priorities (i.e., key indexes) or a priority list from a user/administrator).
As to claim 20, Gawali et al. teaches:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes an electronic device including the processor to” (see Gawali et al., Abstract and [0022]-[0023]):
“obtain object identifier sets corresponding to a plurality of applications, respectively, each object identifier set including object identifiers corresponding to a plurality of database objects called during operation of the application corresponding to the object identifier set” (see Gawali et al., [0011]-[0012] for obtaining and processing containers in a database, wherein each container in the database includes a subset of objects available in the database, wherein each object must include an identifier in order to identify and monitor the object as disclosed, and wherein each container must associated with an application/code that is used to access data/objects in the container, as such, each container can be considered as representing an application and a set of objects (i.e., object identifiers) in each container can be interpreted as an object identifier set corresponding to an application as recited);
“determine respective key indexes of the plurality of applications, the key indexes indicating importance of the applications” (see Gawali et al., [0011] for deciding the restore priorities of containers of a database or determining importance of containers, wherein the restore priorities or importance of the containers can be interpreted as respective key indexes of the plurality of application as recited);
“determine a recovery order of database object subsets corresponding to the object identifier sets based on an order indicated by the key indexes, each database object subset being determined based on the database objects corresponding to the object identifiers in the object identifier set corresponding to the database object subset” (see Gawali et al., [0012]-[0013] for generating the container restore sequence (i.e., a recovery order) based on identifying importance of containers, wherein each container is interpreted as a database object subset as recited; also see [0015] for determining a priority list or a restoring sequence for restoring containers on the database); and
“sequentially perform data recovery on the database object subsets based on the recovery order” (see Gawali et al., [0017]-[0020]).
In case that Gawali et al. does not explicitly teach that a container is associated with an application.
Kruglikov et al. explicitly teaches that a container is associated with an application (see Kruglikov et al., [0010]-[0011] wherein every pluggable database (PDB) is considered a container, and each PDB can potentially be used to store data related to a different application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kruglikov et al.'s teaching to Gawali et al.’s system by implementing containers in database for managing data of different applications. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, as suggested by Kruglikov et al. (see [0011]), to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way to manage application data separately in the database. In addition, both of the references (Gawali et al. and Kruglikov et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, database system implemented with containers. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
Claims 4 and 17 (effective filing date is 10/15/2025 or 09/02/2024 (if perfected) or 09/13/2023 (if perfected)) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawali et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0235770, Publication date 08/17/2017), in view of Kruglikov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116334, Publication date 04/27/2017), and further in view of Terazumi (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0168974, Publication date 06/01/2023).
As to claims 4 and 17, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches all limitations of claims 3 and 16 respectively including restoring containers of the database (see Gawali et al., [0020]).
However, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. does not teach a feature of excluding objects that have been restored as equivalently recited as follows:
“performing the database object subset determination operation on the current identifier set includes:
determining, in response to the current identifier set not including object identifiers in a historical identifier set, the database object corresponding to each object identifier in the current identifier set as the database object in the database object subset corresponding to the current identifier set; or
determining, in response to the current identifier set including one or more historical object identifiers in the historical identifier set, the database objects corresponding to the object identifiers in the current identifier set except the one or more historical object identifiers as the database objects in the database object subset corresponding to the current identifier set; and
the historical identifier set is an object identifier set before the current identifier set according to the order indicated by the key indexes”.
On the other hand, Terazumi explicitly teaches a feature of excluding objects that have been restored (see Terazumi, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Terazumi's teaching to Gawali et al.’s system (as modified by Kruglikov et al.) by implementing a feature of excluding objects that have been restored from subsequent download/restore. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so as suggested by Terazumi (see [0073]) to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way for efficiently restoring data. In addition, excluding already restored/available objects from being transferred/restored again is well-known and well-used in the art in saving resources in data storage and management.
Claims 6 and 19 (effective filing date is 10/15/2025 or 09/02/2024 (if perfected) or 09/13/2023 (if perfected)) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawali et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0235770, Publication date 08/17/2017), in view of Kruglikov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116334, Publication date 04/27/2017), and further in view of Aronovich (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0155644, Publication date 05/23/2019).
As to claims 6 and 19, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively including determining the priorities (i.e., respective key indexes) of containers (i.e., applications) (see Gawali et al., [0011] and [0016]).
However, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. does not explicitly teach a feature of prioritizing or determining key indexes of a plurality of applications based on dependencies between the plurality of applications as equivalently recited as follows:
“wherein determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications includes:
obtaining application dependencies of the plurality of applications during operation, and
determining the respective key indexes of the plurality of applications based on the application dependencies”.
On the other hand, Aronovich explicitly teaches a feature of prioritizing or determining key indexes of a plurality of applications based on dependencies between the plurality of applications (see Aronovich, Abstract and [0072] for determining priorities for applications based on dependencies of applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Aronovich's teaching to Gawali et al.’s system (as modified by Kruglikov et al.) by implementing a feature of prioritizing applications based on application dependencies. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective alternative way to determine priorities of containers/applications. In addition, determining priorities of objects/items based on their dependencies is well-known and well-used in the art for providing an effective way to retrieval/restore information and/or applications.
Claim 10 (effective filing date is 10/15/2025 or 09/02/2024 (if perfected) or 09/13/2023 (if perfected)) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawali et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0235770, Publication date 08/17/2017), in view of Kruglikov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116334, Publication date 04/27/2017), and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,372,734, Patent date 06/28/2022).
As to claim 10, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches all limitations as recited in claim 8 including grouping database objects in containers of the database (see Gawali et al., [0010]).
However, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. does not explicitly teach a feature of grouping database objects based on log quantities (e.g., number of log records) as recited as follows:
“wherein grouping the M database object subsets includes:
determining the recovery task quantities corresponding to the M database object subsets based on log quantities each being a quantity of recovery logs corresponding to one of the M database object subsets, the recovery logs recording a database operation set generated after a starting time point of a data recovery operation indicated in a data recovery request; and
grouping the M database object subsets based on the recovery task quantities to obtain the N target object subsets, a difference in the log quantities corresponding to any two of the N target object subsets being less than or equal to a target threshold”.
On the other hand, Zhang et al. explicitly teaches a feature of grouping database objects based on log quantities (e.g., number of log records) (see Zhang et al., [column 5, line 30 to column 6, line16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang et al.'s teaching to Gawali et al.’s system (as modified by Kruglikov et al.) by implementing a feature of grouping database objects based on log quantities . Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way to manage database objects and log records. In addition, both of the references (Gawali et al. and Zhang et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, database system including grouping database objects and restoring based on workload priorities. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
Claims 11-12 (effective filing date is 10/15/2025 or 09/02/2024 (if perfected) or 09/13/2023 (if perfected)) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawali et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0235770, Publication date 08/17/2017), in view of Kruglikov et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116334, Publication date 04/27/2017), and further in view of Rielau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0342322, Publication date 11/04/2021).
As to claim 11, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. teaches all limitations as recited in claim 1.
However, Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. does not explicitly teach:
“wherein obtaining the object identifier sets includes performing the following until all of the plurality of applications are traversed: obtaining one of the plurality of applications as a current application; and performing an object identifier set determination operation on the current application”.
On the other hand, Rielau et al. explicitly teaches a feature of identifying database objects associated with an application (see Rielau et al., Abstract, [0032] and [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Rielau et al.'s teaching to Gawali et al.’s system (as modified by Kruglikov et al.) by implementing a feature of identifying database objects associated with an application. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Gawali et al.’s system with an effective way to manage database objects and log records. In addition, both of the references (Gawali et al. and Zhang et al.) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, database system including grouping database objects and restoring based on workload priorities. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 11 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Gawali et al. as modified by Kruglikov et al. and Rielau et al. teaches:
“wherein performing the object identifier set determination operation includes” (see Gawali et al., [0011]; see Kruglikov et al., [0010]; also see Rielau et al., Abstract and [0032]):
“determining a database operation statement from one or more running statements associated with the current application” (see Rielau et al., [0032] and [0074]); and
“determining a database object identifier included in the database operation statement as the object identifier in the object identifier set corresponding to the current application” (see Rielau et al., [0032] and [0074]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights