DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on March 04, 2025. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 .
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority to 202410245829.1, filed 03/04/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on September 10, 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its use of the word “embodiment” and “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the following places, reference characters “ID” should be enclosed within parentheses following the spelled-out version of the word or phrase being referenced so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m):
Claim 1, line 4 and 9, respectively
Claim 3, line 2
Claim 4, line 2
Claim 8, line 7 and 12, respectively
Claim 10, line 2
Claim 11, line 2
Claim 15, line 5 and 10, respectively
Claim 17, line 2
Claim 18, line 2
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 each recite the limitation “wherein the key-value pair is stored in the data dictionary in a data structure of a dictionary object, and wherein the primary key ID is a dictionary character string obtained by performing dictionary mapping on the primary key”. It is understood the key-value pair is stored in the data dictionary; however, it is unclear how the primary key, the primary key ID, and the data dictionary are related. Therefore, claims 4, 11, and 18 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 & 20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 4, 11, and 18, respectively.
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.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-7), a machine (claims 8-14), and a manufacture (claims 15-20). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold: deleting the key-value pair”. Both determining that a deadline is approaching and deleting expiring data can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“obtaining maintenance duration of a key-value pair maintained by a data dictionary, wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database, a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key ID obtained by mapping the primary key” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“at least one processor” (claims 8 and 15) and “a memory” (claim 8) may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering and post-solution activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“obtaining maintenance duration of a key-value pair maintained by a data dictionary, wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database, a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key ID obtained by mapping the primary key”. Obtaining maintenance duration is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [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)].
“writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [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].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 each recite additional elements of “determining the maintenance duration of the key-value pair based on a difference between the latest use moment indicated by the timestamp and a current moment”. Similar to the independent claims above, this “determining …” can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
Dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “determining” in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 each recite additional elements of “in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment”. Similar to the independent claims above, this “determining …” can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process. The additional elements of “obtaining a new data record; retrieving the data dictionary to determine whether a second key-value pair corresponding to a primary key of the new data record exists” constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g). In Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional under 2106.05(d)(ii) as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 above.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 each recite additional elements that generally link the abstract idea to a technological area – a distributed graph database, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG & LIU (CN114329633A, 2021-12-31), in view of ZHENG et al. (US 20210117443 A1).
With regard to claim 1,
WANG & LIU teaches
a method for data maintenance (Page 1, Abstract), comprising:
obtaining maintenance duration of a key-value pair maintained by a data dictionary (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 29-30; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 25-30: obtain the key value and valid time corresponding to the key. Page 6, lines 21-29 & 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: data is stored in the form of key-value pair data in the data dictionary), wherein … a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key ID obtained by mapping the primary key (Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: the value of the key-value pair includes a data identifier that is generated for the stored data and corresponds to the key, wherein the data identifier is “a primary key ID” of the stored data); and
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 31-33; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 27-30: verify whether the key value has expired based on the valid time):
WANG & LIU does not teach
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database,
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold:
deleting the key-value pair; and
writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated.
ZHENG teaches
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database (Fig. 2; [0037]; [0051]: the key ID may be a pointer or other reference that uniquely identifies the corresponding value, wherein storage nodes 202-212 in Fig. 2 are examples of a database),
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold: deleting the key-value pair; and writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0056]: delete the local copy of the unsuccessful key-value entry, and place the key ID in the removal list 218 to recycle the key IDs for future data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU to incorporate the teachings of ZHENG delete the key-value pair and write the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database. Doing so would avoid the need to generate an extremely large number of key IDs for data—the key IDs associated with unsuccessful key-value entries can be recycled for use for other data as taught by ZHENG ([0056]).
With regard to claim 2,
As discussed regarding claim 1, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the value of the key-value pair further comprises a timestamp indicating a latest use moment of the key-value pair; and the obtaining maintenance duration of the key-value pair comprises:
determining the maintenance duration of the key-value pair based on a difference between the latest use moment indicated by the timestamp and a current moment (Page 6, lines 30-37: set the effective time of the target data when storing the target data and identify a piece of data as normal available data if it is within a specific period of time, otherwise, considers it to be expired and unusable. Page 2, Background technique: using timestamp to add timeliness to stored data was in the prior art).
With regard to claim 3,
As discussed regarding claim 2, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the method according to claim 2, wherein the value of the key-value pair is a value obtained by concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp (Page 8, lines 27-42: the encapsulated V value includes the generated id identifier of the target data and the valid time. As the sole role of the timestamp is to determine whether or not the stored data has expired, the format of its storage is of no patentable significance, and it is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the timestamp in various forms for the same purpose including concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp).
With regard to claim 4,
As discussed regarding claim 1, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the key-value pair is stored in the data dictionary in a data structure of a dictionary object, and wherein the primary key ID is a dictionary character string obtained by performing dictionary mapping on the primary key (due to the indefiniteness as discussed in the 112(b) rejections above, this limitation is broadly interpreted to mean obtaining the primary key ID via a map to the primary key, which is taught in Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42 as discussed in the parent claim).
With regard to claim 5,
As discussed regarding claim 4, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the method according to claim 4, wherein the dictionary character string is a numeric character string (Page 8, lines 43-44: the data types of the target data Key and Value can support all basic data types, including but not limited to String, Int, Float, Double, Char, Boolean, and Long data types, wherein Int and Long data types are examples of a numeric character string).
With regard to claim 8,
WANG & LIU teaches
an electronic device (Page 1, Abstract), comprising:
at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Page 3, lines 34-35: a processor and a memory) storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining maintenance duration of a key-value pair maintained by a data dictionary (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 29-30; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 25-30: obtain the key value and valid time corresponding to the key. Page 6, lines 21-29 & 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: data is stored in the form of key-value pair data in the data dictionary), wherein … a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key ID obtained by mapping the primary key (Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: the value of the key-value pair includes a data identifier that is generated for the stored data and corresponds to the key, wherein the data identifier is “a primary key ID” of the stored data); and
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 31-33; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 27-30: verify whether the key value has expired based on the valid time):
WANG & LIU does not teach
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database,
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold:
deleting the key-value pair; and
writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated.
ZHENG teaches
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database (Fig. 2; [0037]; [0051]: the key ID may be a pointer or other reference that uniquely identifies the corresponding value, wherein storage nodes 202-212 in Fig. 2 are examples of a database),
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold: deleting the key-value pair; and writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0056]: delete the local copy of the unsuccessful key-value entry, and place the key ID in the removal list 218 to recycle the key IDs for future data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU to incorporate the teachings of ZHENG delete the key-value pair and write the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database. Doing so would avoid the need to generate an extremely large number of key IDs for data—the key IDs associated with unsuccessful key-value entries can be recycled for use for other data as taught by ZHENG ([0056]).
With regard to claim 9,
As discussed regarding claim 8, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the value of the key-value pair further comprises a timestamp indicating a latest use moment of the key-value pair; and the obtaining maintenance duration of the key-value pair comprises:
determining the maintenance duration of the key-value pair based on a difference between the latest use moment indicated by the timestamp and a current moment (Page 6, lines 30-37: set the effective time of the target data when storing the target data and identify a piece of data as normal available data if it is within a specific period of time, otherwise, considers it to be expired and unusable. Page 2, Background technique: using timestamp to add timeliness to stored data was in the prior art).
With regard to claim 10,
As discussed regarding claim 9, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 9, wherein the value of the key-value pair is a value obtained by concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp (Page 8, lines 27-42: the encapsulated V value includes the generated id identifier of the target data and the valid time. As the sole role of the timestamp is to determine whether or not the stored data has expired, the format of its storage is of no patentable significance, and it is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the timestamp in various forms for the same purpose including concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp).
With regard to claim 11,
As discussed regarding claim 8, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the key-value pair is stored in the data dictionary in a data structure of a dictionary object, and wherein the primary key ID is a dictionary character string obtained by performing dictionary mapping on the primary key (due to the indefiniteness as discussed in the 112(b) rejections above, this limitation is broadly interpreted to mean obtaining the primary key ID via a map to the primary key, which is taught in Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42 as discussed in the parent claim).
With regard to claim 12,
As discussed regarding claim 11, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the dictionary character string is a numeric character string (Page 8, lines 43-44: the data types of the target data Key and Value can support all basic data types, including but not limited to String, Int, Float, Double, Char, Boolean, and Long data types, wherein Int and Long data types are examples of a numeric character string).
With regard to claim 15,
WANG & LIU teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions for execution by at least one processor (Page 3, lines 34-35: a processor and a memory) to perform operations comprising:
obtaining maintenance duration of a key-value pair maintained by a data dictionary (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 29-30; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 25-30: obtain the key value and valid time corresponding to the key. Page 6, lines 21-29 & 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: data is stored in the form of key-value pair data in the data dictionary), wherein … a value of the key-value pair comprises a primary key ID obtained by mapping the primary key (Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42: the value of the key-value pair includes a data identifier that is generated for the stored data and corresponds to the key, wherein the data identifier is “a primary key ID” of the stored data); and
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold (Page 3, lines 14-17 & 31-33; Page 4, lines 4-7; Page 8, lines 27-42; Page 9, lines 27-30: verify whether the key value has expired based on the valid time):
WANG & LIU does not teach
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database,
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold:
deleting the key-value pair; and
writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated.
ZHENG teaches
wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database (Fig. 2; [0037]; [0051]: the key ID may be a pointer or other reference that uniquely identifies the corresponding value, wherein storage nodes 202-212 in Fig. 2 are examples of a database),
in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold: deleting the key-value pair; and writing the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0056]: delete the local copy of the unsuccessful key-value entry, and place the key ID in the removal list 218 to recycle the key IDs for future data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU to incorporate the teachings of ZHENG delete the key-value pair and write the primary key ID into a list of IDs to be allocated in response to determining that the maintenance duration reaches a predetermined duration threshold wherein a key of the key-value pair comprises a primary key comprised in a data record stored in a database. Doing so would avoid the need to generate an extremely large number of key IDs for data—the key IDs associated with unsuccessful key-value entries can be recycled for use for other data as taught by ZHENG ([0056]).
With regard to claim 16,
As discussed regarding claim 15, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the value of the key-value pair further comprises a timestamp indicating a latest use moment of the key-value pair; and the obtaining maintenance duration of the key-value pair comprises:
determining the maintenance duration of the key-value pair based on a difference between the latest use moment indicated by the timestamp and a current moment (Page 6, lines 30-37: set the effective time of the target data when storing the target data and identify a piece of data as normal available data if it is within a specific period of time, otherwise, considers it to be expired and unusable. Page 2, Background technique: using timestamp to add timeliness to stored data was in the prior art).
With regard to claim 17,
As discussed regarding claim 16, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 16, wherein the value of the key-value pair is a value obtained by concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp (Page 8, lines 27-42: the encapsulated V value includes the generated id identifier of the target data and the valid time. As the sole role of the timestamp is to determine whether or not the stored data has expired, the format of its storage is of no patentable significance, and it is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the timestamp in various forms for the same purpose including concatenating the primary key ID and the timestamp).
With regard to claim 18,
As discussed regarding claim 15, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the key-value pair is stored in the data dictionary in a data structure of a dictionary object, and wherein the primary key ID is a dictionary character string obtained by performing dictionary mapping on the primary key (due to the indefiniteness as discussed in the 112(b) rejections above, this limitation is broadly interpreted to mean obtaining the primary key ID via a map to the primary key, which is taught in Page 6, lines 38-42; Page 7, lines 4-6; Page 8, lines 27-42 as discussed in the parent claim).
With regard to claim 19,
As discussed regarding claim 18, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 18, wherein the dictionary character string is a numeric character string (Page 8, lines 43-44: the data types of the target data Key and Value can support all basic data types, including but not limited to String, Int, Float, Double, Char, Boolean, and Long data types, wherein Int and Long data types are examples of a numeric character string).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG & LIU (CN114329633A, 2021-12-31), in view of ZHENG et al. (US 20210117443 A1), and in further view of Shivanna et al. (US 20200394196 A1).
With regard to claim 6,
As discussed regarding claim 1, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the key-value pair is a first key-value pair, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a new data record; retrieving the data dictionary to determine whether a second key-value pair corresponding to a primary key of the new data record exists (in the same manner as discussed in the parent claim);
WANG & LIU and ZHENG do not teach
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment.
Shivanna teaches
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment ([0021]; [0046]: to identify updates 258, the stream processor compares the latest timestamp associated with a given key-value pair in the state to the time of the most recent write to data repository 234. If the latest timestamp is greater than the time of the most recent write, the stream processor includes the key-value pair in updates 258 and subsequently writes updates 258 to data repository 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU and ZHENG to incorporate the teachings of Shivanna to update a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists. Doing so would reduce processing, network usage, and/or overhead by allowing each write of in-memory state to the data store to be performed only for key-value pairs that have been updated since the previous write as taught by Shivanna ([0022]).
With regard to claim 13,
As discussed regarding claim 8, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the key-value pair is a first key-value pair, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a new data record; retrieving the data dictionary to determine whether a second key-value pair corresponding to a primary key of the new data record exists (in the same manner as discussed in the parent claim);
WANG & LIU and ZHENG do not teach
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment.
Shivanna teaches
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment ([0021]; [0046]: to identify updates 258, the stream processor compares the latest timestamp associated with a given key-value pair in the state to the time of the most recent write to data repository 234. If the latest timestamp is greater than the time of the most recent write, the stream processor includes the key-value pair in updates 258 and subsequently writes updates 258 to data repository 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU and ZHENG to incorporate the teachings of Shivanna to update a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists. Doing so would reduce processing, network usage, and/or overhead by allowing each write of in-memory state to the data store to be performed only for key-value pairs that have been updated since the previous write as taught by Shivanna ([0022]).
With regard to claim 20,
As discussed regarding claim 19, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU further teaches
the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, wherein the key-value pair is a first key-value pair, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a new data record; retrieving the data dictionary to determine whether a second key-value pair corresponding to a primary key of the new data record exists (in the same manner as discussed in the parent claim);
WANG & LIU and ZHENG do not teach
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment.
Shivanna teaches
in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists, updating a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment ([0021]; [0046]: to identify updates 258, the stream processor compares the latest timestamp associated with a given key-value pair in the state to the time of the most recent write to data repository 234. If the latest timestamp is greater than the time of the most recent write, the stream processor includes the key-value pair in updates 258 and subsequently writes updates 258 to data repository 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU and ZHENG to incorporate the teachings of Shivanna to update a timestamp in a value of the second key-value pair to update a latest use moment of the second key-value pair to a current moment in response to determining that the second key-value pair exists. Doing so would reduce processing, network usage, and/or overhead by allowing each write of in-memory state to the data store to be performed only for key-value pairs that have been updated since the previous write as taught by Shivanna ([0022]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG & LIU (CN114329633A, 2021-12-31), in view of ZHENG et al. (US 20210117443 A1), and in further view of WANG et al. (US 20220067047 A1).
With regard to claim 7,
As discussed regarding claim 1, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU and ZHENG do not teach
the method according to claim 1, wherein the database comprises a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database.
WANG teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the database comprises a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database (Abstract: a distributed graph database. Fig. 6 & 7; [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU and ZHENG to incorporate the teachings of WANG to apply the technology to a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database. Doing so would benefit from the Key-Value storage format that affords fast query speed, a large amount of data storage, supporting high concurrency, supporting horizontal extension of cluster mode, and supporting complex data structures such as hash, list, aggregation, ordered aggregation and so on as taught by WANG ([0112]).
With regard to claim 14,
As discussed regarding claim 8, WANG & LIU and ZHENG teach all the limitations therein.
WANG & LIU and ZHENG do not teach
the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the database comprises a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database.
WANG teaches
the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the database comprises a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database (Abstract: a distributed graph database. Fig. 6 & 7; [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG & LIU and ZHENG to incorporate the teachings of WANG to apply the technology to a distributed graph database, and wherein the primary key is a primary key of attribute data comprised in a node and an edge in graph data stored in the graph database. Doing so would benefit from the Key-Value storage format that affords fast query speed, a large amount of data storage, supporting high concurrency, supporting horizontal extension of cluster mode, and supporting complex data structures such as hash, list, aggregation, ordered aggregation and so on as taught by WANG ([0112]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168