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 .
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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMME et al (“KEMME” US 2017/0161282 A1), published on June 08, 2017, in view of Chretien et al (“Chretien” US 20250124046 A1), published on April, 17, 2025.
As to claim 1, KIMME teaches “storing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a connected graph comprising a plurality of node data structures corresponding to a plurality of content items, each node data structure comprising an identifier, a plurality of neighbor pointers linking to a plurality of neighbor node data structures, and a delta value corresponding to a change in an attribute of a corresponding content item” in par. 0009 (“…a graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each node representative of a point of interest in an information domain, each edge linking a first one of the plurality of nodes and a second one of the plurality of nodes and representative of a relationship between a first point of interest and a second point of interest in the information domain…”), in par. 0010 (“A value of the at least one node attribute and a value of the at least one edge attribute change over time”, and in par. 0012 (“…the at least one node attribute is a unique identifier associated with each node”).
It appears KIMME does not explicitly teach “wherein each neighbor pointer embeds a similarity value between a content item corresponding to the node data structure and a neighbor content item corresponding to the neighbor node data structure linked by the neighbor pointer”.
However, Chretien teaches “wherein each neighbor pointer embeds a similarity value between a content item corresponding to the node data structure and a neighbor content item corresponding to the neighbor node data structure linked by the neighbor pointer” in par. 0036 (“…the similarity threshold for the network graph 500 may be 0.1, such that only edges with a similarity index greater than or equal to 0.1 may be generated between nodes…”. Edges with a similarity index corresponding to each neighbor pointer embeds a similarity value between a content item corresponding to the node data structure and a neighbor content item corresponding to the neighbor node data structure linked by the neighbor pointer).
Chretien and KEMME are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graph data structure application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to create similarity edge between nodes (disclosed by KEMME) including “wherein each neighbor pointer embeds a similarity value between a content item corresponding to the node data structure and a neighbor content item corresponding to the neighbor node data structure linked by the neighbor pointe” in order to connect similar nodes (see Chretien par. 0036).
KEMME teaches “detecting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a change in the attribute of a node data structure in the plurality of node data structures, the change in the attribute being represented by a delta value of the node data structure” in par. 0016 (“…in response to a change in the information domain, dynamically modifying the graph comprising at least one of adding one or more nodes, removing one or more nodes, adding one or more edges, removing one or more edges, modifying the at least one node attribute of one or more nodes, and modifying the at least one edge attribute of one or more edges, and reevaluating one or more subscriptions to the graph accordingly”) or in par. 0074 (node has value that change over time).
KEMME teaches “designating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the node data structure as a transmitter node” in par. 0058 (“The path a subscription takes from a peer to the root is the reverse to the path any publication will then take from the root to this subscriber”).
KEMME teaches “and propagating, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the change in the attribute of the node data structure to connected node data structures in the connected graph” in par. 0058, par. 0128 (“…it is desirable for changes to the underlying graph to be propagated to all brokers…”).
KEMME teaches “wherein propagating the change in the attribute comprises performing one or more iterations of: identifying one or more receiver nodes directly connected to the transmitter node, the one or more receiver nodes corresponding to one or more one node data structures linked to the transmitter node via one or more neighbor pointers of the transmitter node” in par. 0009 (“…a graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each node representative of a point of interest in an information domain, each edge linking a first one of the plurality of nodes and a second one of the plurality of nodes and representative of a relationship between a first point of interest and a second point of interest in the information domain…”).
KEMME teaches “determining one or more receiver delta values for the one or more receiver nodes based at least in part on a transmitter delta value of the transmitter node” in par. 0011 (“the at least one edge attribute comprises at least one of an edge type and an edge weight, the edge type indicative of a relationship between the first one of the plurality of nodes and the second one of the plurality of nodes linked by each edge, and the edge weight indicative of a degree of relatedness between the first one of the plurality of nodes and the second one of the plurality of nodes”).
Chretien teaches “and one or more similarity values embedded in the one or more neighbor pointers” in par. 0036 (“…the similarity threshold for the network graph 500 may be 0.1, such that only edges with a similarity index greater than or equal to 0.1 may be generated between nodes…”).
KIMME teaches “performing a subsequent iteration of the one or more iterations for each receiver node in the one or more receiver nodes based at least in part on a determination that at least one termination condition is not met, wherein the subsequent iteration designates the receiver node as the transmitter node” in par. 0018 (“…the first request is indicative of a request to publish content on a subgraph formed as a union of selected ones of the plurality of nodes and selected ones of the plurality of edges. The second request is correlated with the first request to determine whether the subset of the plurality of nodes and the subset of the plurality of edges overlap the subgraph. The content is notified to the at least one subscriber if the subset of the plurality of nodes and the subset of the plurality of edges overlap the subgraph”).
As to claim 8, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
As to claim 3, KIMME teaches “wherein each receiver delta value for each receiver node is determined as a dot product of the transmitter delta value and a similarity value embedded in a neighbor pointer linking the transmitter node to that receiver node” in paragraphs [0079-0080].
As to claim 10, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 3.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 3.
As to claim 4, KIMME teaches “maintaining, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, a propagation cache configured to store a list of all node data structures visited during a propagation event corresponding to a change in an attribute” in par. 0110 (“…This is a hash NST table where each entry is a tuple (nodeId, [subId1, subId2, . . . ]), where the node identifier is the key, and the value is the list of identifiers of subscriptions that contain this node…”).
As to claim 11, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 4.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 4.
As to claim 5, KIMME teaches “wherein each iteration in the one or more iterations further comprises: determining whether a receiver node in the one or more receiver nodes is in the propagation cache” in par. 0110 (“Furthermore, in order to facilitate fast matching, a node subscription table is maintained. This is a hash NST table where each entry is a tuple (nodeId, [subId1, subId2, . . . ]), where the node identifier is the key, and the value is the list of identifiers of subscriptions that contain this node…”).
KIMME teaches “and removing the receiver node from the one or more receiver nodes based at least in part on a determination that the receiver node is in the propagation cache” in par. 0016 (“…using a social network graph where nodes are modeled with a profession attribute, a software developer could express interest in all publications from the immediate friends of a social network member m1 who also happen to be software developers…”), and in par. 0111 (“Unsubscribing removes the corresponding entry from ST and the subscription identifiers from the NST entries. As publications indicate exactly one node on which the publication is made, matching requires to look up the corresponding node entry in NST to determine all subscriptions that need to be notified…”).
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 5.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 5.
As to claim 6, KIMME teaches “wherein the at least one termination condition comprises one or more of: a predetermined time period passing since detection of the change in the attribute of the node data structure; a predetermined quantity of iterations being performed; the transmitter delta value falling below a predetermined threshold; or a determination that there are no receiver nodes directly connected to the transmitter node” in par. 0052, par. 0119.
As to claim 13, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMME et al (“KEMME” US 2017/0161282 A1), published on June 08, 2017, in view of Chretien et al (“Chretien” US 20250124046 A1), published on April, 17, 2025, in further view of Buscaglia et al (“Buscaglia” US 2025/0335849 A1), published on October 30, 2025.
As to claim 2, KIMME teaches “wherein detecting a change in the attribute of a node data structure in the plurality of node data structures comprises: receiving an update corresponding to the node data structure from a model configured to compute the attribute for a content item corresponding to the node data structure” in par. 0108 (“…The server requires a graph database system in the form of a library. By using the library, GRAPS offers an application program interface (API) to store a graph, delete a graph, and manipulate an existing graph (e.g. delete and add edges and nodes, changing attribute values, etc.) …).
It appears KIMME and Chretien do not explicitly teach “the update being received via a webhook Application Programming Interface (API)”.
However, Buscaglia teaches “the update being received via a webhook Application Programming Interface (API)” in par. 0021 (“…a computing system can automatically generate one or more interfaces (e.g., graphical user interfaces, webhooks, APIs, file upload interfaces, etc.) for creating, reading, updating, and/or deleting a data record corresponding to the custom data object type…”).
Chretien, KEMME and Buscaglia are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, attribute propagation application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to update the data structure (disclosed by KEMME) including “the update being received via a webhook Application Programming Interface (API)”, as suggested by Buscaglia in order to optimized workflow automation (see Buscaglia par. 0021).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Claims 7, 14 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMME et al (“KEMME” US 2017/0161282 A1), published on June 08, 2017, in view of Chretien et al (“Chretien” US 20250124046 A1), published on April, 17, 2025, in further view of Yang et al (“Yang” US 2016/0140253 A1), published on May 19, 2016.
As to claim 7, it appears KEMME and Chretien do not explicitly teach “determining, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, whether a predetermined time period has passed since a change in a delta value of a second node data structure in the plurality of node data structures”.
However, Yang teaches “determining, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, whether a predetermined time period has passed since a change in a delta value of a second node data structure in the plurality of node data structures” in par. 0028 (“…The consistent snapshot mechanism of this disclosure may effectively batches operations in a small epoch window to strike a balance between reasonable timeliness and be able to handle high incoming rate of updates: the higher the rate, the more effective this batching may be”).
Chretien, KEMME and Yang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, attribute propagation application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to determine time since a node data structure (disclosed by KEMME) has changed to include “determining, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, whether a predetermined time period has passed since a change in a delta value of a second node data structure in the plurality of node data structures”, as suggested by Yang, in order to improve data batching effectiveness (see Yang par. 0028).
Yang teaches “and removing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the second node data structure from the connected graph based at least in part on a determination that the predetermined time period has passed since a change in the delta value of the second node data structure” in par. 0020 (“…Periodically, the snapshooter 112 may instruct the graph nodes 108 to take a snapshot based on a current vector indicated by sequence numbers in the global progress table 110. The current vector may be used as a global logical clock to define an end of an epoch. After the epoch is defined, the graph nodes 108 may execute and commit all stored local graph updates in this epoch to produce a graph-structure snapshot. In various embodiments, these local graph updates may be executed following a pre-determined order”).
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 7.
As to claim 21, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is 571-272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (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 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights