DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Claims 3, 4 and 8-9 are objected to.
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 Instant Application, filed 05/07/2025, which claims foreign priority to CN 202410554129.0, filed 05/07/2024has an earliest effective filing date is 05/07/2024 for what was recited therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(2) as being unpatentable by Aggarwal et al. (“Aggarwal”), United States Patent 12,147,310.
As per claim 1, Aggarwal discloses a computer-implemented method for a graph data writing in a distributed graph database ([Col 4, lines 5-14] wherein the distributed data store can be a distributed graph database), comprising:
in response to receiving a graph data write request ([Col 4, lines 56-65] wherein write requests are received and a routing must be determined), initiating a graph data write operation to a graph data storage layer based on stored replica topology information of the distributed graph database, wherein the stored replica topology information of the distributed graph database comprises node cluster identification information and geographical location information of a primary replica node cluster and node cluster identification information and geographical location information of a secondary replica node cluster ([Col 6, lines 5-12] and {Col 6, lines 34-55] wherein a global table comprises cluster information (recognized as regions in the prior art) and replica information wherein the write can be routed to a primary node cluster (primary region) based on proximity and consistency) and wherein the graph data write operation comprises a graph data write operation for the primary replica node cluster and a graph data synchronization operation from the primary replica node cluster to the secondary replica node cluster ([Col 8, lines 19-57] wherein the write operation can be performed on a primary replication node cluster locally and also a secondary replica node cluster);
selecting, at least partially based on the geographical location information of the secondary replica node cluster in response to a failure of the graph data write operation ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein failure of a write, as such during a regional outage, a new secondary replica node cluster can become the primary based on geographical location information (proximity in the prior art)), a new primary replica node cluster from a first secondary replica node cluster set that completes a previous round of graph data synchronization operation, and synchronously updating replica topology information at an engine analysis layer ([Col 9. Lines 1-10] wherein the secondary replica node clusters have updated information and are synchronized); and obtaining updated replica topology information from the engine analysis layer ([Col 11, lines 17-28] wherein updated replica information is determined and obtained), and reinitiating the graph data write operation to the graph data storage layer based on the updated replica topology information ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein the system automatic reinitiates a graph data write if the region failure is detected).
As per claim 2, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selecting, at least partially based on the geographical location information of the secondary replica node cluster in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, a new primary replica node cluster from a first secondary replica node cluster set that completes a previous round of graph data synchronization operation, comprises: in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, determining first relative geographical location information of a first secondary replica node cluster in the first secondary replica node cluster set relative to the primary replica node cluster at least partially based on the geographical location information of the primary replica node cluster and the geographical location information of the secondary replica node cluster ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein as a result of a detected failure, a secondary cluster is determined based on geographic location information (proximity in the prior art), wherein proximity requires the geographic location of both the primary and the secondary node clusters); and selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the first relative geographical location information ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein the secondary node cluster transparently replaces the failed node cluster).
As per claim 5, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selecting a new primary replica node cluster from a first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the geographical location information of the secondary replica node cluster in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, comprises: selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on geographical location information of a first secondary replica node cluster and geographical location information of a client device in response to a failure of the graph data write operation ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein as a result of a detected failure, a secondary cluster is determined based on geographic location information (proximity in the prior art), wherein proximity requires the geographic location of the client and the secondary node clusters).
As per claim 6, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on geographical location information of a first secondary replica node cluster and geographical location information of a client device in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, comprises: in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, determining second relative geographical location information of the first secondary replica node cluster relative to the client device at least partially based on the geographical location information of the first secondary replica node cluster and the geographical location information of the client device ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein the client would select the region based on desired proximity and consistency requiring the location of the secondary replica node cluster).
As per claim 7, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, comprising: selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the second relative geographical location information ([Col 4, lines 50-55] wherein selecting the new primary replica is based on the second relative geographic location being in proximity).
As per claim 19, claim 19 is the non-transitory computer readable medium performing the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 20, Aggarwal discloses a computer-implemented system for a graph data writing in a distributed graph database, comprising:
one or more computers ([Col 13 lines 13-24] wherein computers are described); and
one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions ([Col 13, lines 25-37] wherein memory storing instructions are described) that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform the method of claim 1. Thus, Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning as claim 1.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Merriman, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0032010.
As per claim 10, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, and a failure of the graph data write operation (See the rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, receiving a primary replica election request from the first secondary replica node cluster. However, Merriman teaches in response to a failure, receiving a primary replica election request from the first secondary replica node cluster ([0017] wherein in responsive to a failure a secondary replica node cluster provides a primary replica election request in the form of a self-vote).
Both Aggarwal and Merriman describe a distributed database with primary and secondary nodes. One could use the secondary nodes election requests from Merriman with the geographic determination of clusters in Aggarwal to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of selecting primary and secondary node clusters by geography for a distributed graph database in Aggarwal with the secondary nodes election requests from Merriman in order to determine the next secondary node using the most recent local determination of election criteria.
As per claim 11, note the rejection of claim 10 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Merriman further teaches selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the second relative geographical location information, comprises: selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the second relative geographical location information and a receiving time of the primary replica election request ([0114] wherein factors in selecting a new primary replica node includes location and a receiving time of the request, wherein the freshness at the time of request is used to determine a new primary).
As per claim 12, note the rejection of claim 10 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11. Merriman further teaches wherein selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the second relative geographical location information and a receiving time of the primary replica election request, comprises: determining a communication status of each first secondary replica node cluster based on the receiving time of the primary replica election request ([0110]-[0111] wherein communication status is determined, described as the node who has been communicated with the freshest updates) .
As per claim 13, note the rejection of claim 10 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12. Merriman further teaches determining data communication overheads between each first secondary replica node cluster and the client device based on the communication status of each first secondary replica node cluster and the second relative geographical location information ([0114] wherein data communication overheads, recognized as election protocol requirements in the prior art, include communication status (freshness) and location).
As per claim 14, note the rejection of claim 10 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12. Merriman further teaches selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set based on the data communication overheads of each first secondary replica node cluster ([0114] wherein the new primary replica is selected as noted).
As per claim 15, Aggarwal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, and a failure of the graph data write operation (See the rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose in response to a failure of the graph data write operation, receiving a primary replica election request from the first secondary replica node cluster. However, Merriman teaches in response to a failure, receiving a primary replica election request from the first secondary replica node cluster ([0017] wherein in responsive to a failure a secondary replica node cluster provides a primary replica election request in the form of a self-vote).
Both Aggarwal and Merriman describe a distributed database with primary and secondary nodes. One could use the secondary nodes election requests from Merriman with the geographic determination of clusters in Aggarwal to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of selecting primary and secondary node clusters by geography for a distributed graph database in Aggarwal with the secondary nodes election requests from Merriman in order to determine the next secondary node using the most recent local determination of election criteria.
As per claim 16, note the rejection of claim 15 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15. Merriman further teaches selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the first relative geographical location information and a receiving time of the primary replica election request ([0114] wherein factors in selecting a new primary replica node includes location and a receiving time of the request, wherein the freshness at the time of request is used to determine a new primary).
.
As per claim 17, note the rejection of claim 15 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16. Merriman further teaches determining a communication status of each first secondary replica node cluster based on the receiving time of the primary replica election request ([0110]-[0111] wherein communication status is determined, described as the node who has been communicated with the freshest updates).
As per claim 18, note the rejection of claim 15 where Aggarwal and Merriman. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16. Merriman further teaches selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set based on the communication status of each first secondary replica node cluster and the first relative geographical location information relative to the primary replica node cluster ([0114] wherein data communication overheads, recognized as election protocol requirements in the prior art, include communication status (freshness) and location).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following limitations in claim 3 including, “wherein: the geographical location information comprises geographical area information and city information, and the first relative geographical location information comprises information about whether nodes are located in a same city, a same geographical area, or another geographical area; and selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the first relative geographical location information, comprises: determining a candidate secondary replica node cluster from the first secondary replica node cluster set at least partially based on the first relative geographical location information; and selecting the new primary replica node cluster from the candidate secondary replica node cluster, wherein in response to the first relative geographical location information indicating that there is a secondary replica node cluster located in the same city, the secondary replica node cluster located in the same city is determined as the candidate secondary replica node cluster, in response to the first relative geographical location information indicating that there is no secondary replica node cluster located in the same city but there is a secondary replica node cluster located in the same geographical area, the secondary replica node cluster located in the same geographical area is determined as the candidate secondary replica node cluster, or in response to the first relative geographical location information indicating that there is no secondary replica node cluster located in the same city and no secondary replica node cluster located in the same geographical area, a secondary replica node cluster located in the another geographical area is determined as the candidate secondary replica node cluster” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Thus, the claim is objected to. Claim 4 is objected to at least based on its dependency on claim 3.
The following limitations in claim 8 including, “wherein: the client device comprises at least two client devices, wherein each client device has a weight coefficient allocated based on a ratio of initiated graph data write request traffic” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Thus, the claim is objected to. Claim 9 is objected to at least based on its dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (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 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights