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 .
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 14 are currently amended; claims 4, 11-13 and 15 are previously presented; claims 7 and 9 are canceled.
Remarks
Applicant is reminded that citing to documents not included in the image file wrapper (including the US-PGPUB) for arguments and/or support for amendments is improper and that future citations should refer to the documents included in the image file wrapper.
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 1-6, 8 and 10-15 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 force” in line 13. It is unclear whether this is supposed to be interpreted to refer to the force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex recited in line 3 or to the force between vertices recited in line 5. See also remarks page 5 bottom submitted on 05/11/2026 where Applicant argues that "a force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex" is not the same as "a force between vertices". For purposes of examination, this is interpreted to refer to the force between vertices. Claim 14 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-6, 8, 10-13 and 15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
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 1-6, 8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-6, 8 and 10-13 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claim 14 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A computer implemented method for generating a force-directed layout for a graph comprising a plurality of vertices, wherein the force-directed layout is dependent on a force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex, the method comprising:
generating an initial layout of the plurality of vertices;
determining an effect of global interactions based on a force between vertices by:
grouping vertices based on a respective location of each vertex in the initial layout by:
subdividing the initial layout into a first plurality of subdivisions defined by a grid; and
grouping vertices that are located in a common subdivision of the first plurality of subdivisions, and
determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices as a whole;
determining, for each vertex, an effect of local interactions based on the force with the vertices located in a region of the initial layout proximate to the vertex;
determining, for each vertex, an adjustment to the location of the vertex based, at least in part, on combined effects of the global interactions and the local interactions on the vertex;
applying the respective determined adjustment to each vertex of the plurality of vertices in the initial layout to generate the force-directed layout of the graph; and
displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph.
The above underlined limitations of generating a force-directed layout for a graph amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “generating”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining” and “applying” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses manually generating an initial layout of a graph comprising six vertices as shown in Fig. 3; determining an effect of global interactions between the vertices by grouping vertices that are on the same grid and calculating an aggregate effect of each group of vertices as shown in Figs. 4-5 where vertices 310(1)-310(3) are in the same grid and represented as 510(1) with a weight of 3; 310(4) represented by 510(2) with a weight of 1; and 310(5)-310(6) represented by 510(3) with a weight of 2; determining an effect of local interactions of the vertices in the same grid similar to the determination of the global interactions with the exception that interactions with any vertices located outside the grid are not evaluated; combining the global and local interactions; and adjusting the location of the vertices based on the combined global and local interaction as described in the specification using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph. However, the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use where a visualization of the result of the abstract idea is displayed. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. At most, the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use where a visualization of the result of the abstract idea is displayed. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. At most, the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity. See Hennessy et al. “Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface”, Fifth Edition (2004) Chapter 1 including Fig. 1 and page 16-17 which discloses the classic components of a computer including an output device such as a display device for conveying the result of a computation to a user. See also Mi et al. (NPL – “Interactive Graph Layout of a Million Nodes”) section 2.2 first paragraph which discloses “Force-directed algorithms are commonly used to support visual analysis of graphs, because they are conceptually simple and able to produce aesthetically pleasing layouts” which provides evidence that displaying a visualization of a generated force-directed layout of a graph is a well-understood routine and conventional. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 2-6, 8 and 10-13 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 2 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the force between vertices comprises a repulsive force, and wherein the global interactions and the local interactions result from an effect of the repulsive force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex”; claim 3 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the force between vertices comprises an attractive force, and wherein the global interactions and the local interactions result from effect of the attractive force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex”; claim 4 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the adjustment of the location of at least some of the vertices is further based on effects of one or more additional forces acting on those vertices”; claim 5 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the one or more additional forces between vertices comprise one or more attractive forces acting between respective vertices of the graph”; claim 6 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the one or more additional forces between vertices comprise one or more repulsive forces acting between respective vertices of the graph”; claim 8 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “determining the effect of global interactions comprises determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices as a whole on each of the first plurality of subdivisions”; claim 10 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “determining the effect of local interactions comprises: subdividing the layout into a second plurality of subdivisions; grouping vertices that are located in a common subdivision of the second plurality of subdivisions; and determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices the subdivisions of each of the second plurality of subdivisions adjoining the subdivision in which the group is located”; claim 11 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the second plurality of subdivisions is defined by a second grid”; claim 12 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the global interactions are determined at a lower resolution than the local interactions”; claim 13 recites further details of the abstract idea wherein “the method is performed iteratively until an equilibrium is reached” which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 2-6, 8 and 10-13 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, regarding claim 14, it is directed to a computer system comprising a processor and a memory storing computer program code for causing the processor to implement the method of claim 1. All steps performed by the processor of claim 14 is included in the method of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 14. Regarding claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to carry out a method according to claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 15.
Under step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites the following additional elements: a processor and a memory storing computer program code; claim 15 recites the following additional elements: one or more processors. However, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory” in claim 14; and “one or more processors” in claim 15 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component for storing the instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claims 14 and 15 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory” in claim 14; and “one or more processors” in claim 15 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component for storing the instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. The claims do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-6, 8, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mi et al. (NPL - Interactive Graph Layout of a Million Nodes”), hereinafter Mi.
Regarding claim 1, Mi teaches a computer implemented method for generating a force-directed layout for a graph comprising a plurality of vertices, wherein the force-directed layout is dependent on a force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex, the method comprising (Mi page 6 section 4 “This section describes how the GPU is utilized to accelerate the approximated force-directed layout algorithm”; Fig. 3; section 2.2 “The spring-electrical model [12] is a popular force-directed layout algorithm, which generates graph layouts based on two types of forces: attractive force and repulsive force”; section 3.1):
generating an initial layout of the plurality of vertices (Mi page 6 section 3.2 “any graph layout algorithm can be applied to obtain the initial pre-processed graph layout”);
determining an effect of global interactions based on a force between vertices by (Mi section 3.1 “the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force”; effect of global interactions - external-electric-force):
grouping vertices based on a respective location of each vertex in the initial layout by (Mi section 3.1 and 3.2 and Figs. 2 “Given an undirected graph G = G0 = (V, E), we first use a multi-level coarsening or clustering algorithm to generate serially successive coarser graphs (G1, G2, …), where each (super)node in the next upper level represents a cluster of nodes in its lower level. Figure 2 shows a two-level graph, and the original graph is coarsened based on its topology structure”):
subdividing the initial layout into a first plurality of subdivisions defined by a grid (Mi section 3.2 “we adopt the solar merger algorithm to build multi-level graphs … where each sub-graph is simulated as a solar system. Each node of a sub-graph is classified as sun, planet or moon. The solar system collapses a sub-graph into the sun node of the next level graph. Since a sun node is always the center of a sub-graph, it can represent all nodes within its sub-group for repulsive force computation”; first plurality of subdivisions - solar system in a finer level cluster; page 13 second paragraph “We generate successive grid-meshes, which can be evenly partitioned by the solar merger. Thus, the repulsive force computation of mesh-like graphs avoids the workload imbalance problem”; section 2.2 “Fruchterman et al. [12) propose a grid-variant algorithm that accelerates repulsive force computation by splitting nodes into grids”); and
grouping vertices that are located in a common subdivision of the first plurality of subdivisions (Mi section 3.2 “In the placement stage, we keep the positions of all parent nodes and initialize their child nodes along a circle, the center of which is their parent node. This design is based on the solar system where child nodes are either planet nodes or moon nodes”), and
determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices as a whole (Mi section 3.1 “the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force … the external-electric force is used for capturing the overview of a graph… To compute the repulsive forces on all nodes, we begin at the coarsest graph and work our way down. Each node's total repulsive force in level i with graph Gi is computed as the sum of the external-electric-forces inherited from graph Gi+1 plus the sum of the internal-electric-forces within its parent cluster. Thus, we calculate the internal-electric forces at each level of the graph and pass the total repulsive forces down to the next level as external-electric-forces until we reach the finest level of the graph G0”; section 2.2 “Global optimal layout is obtained from a small graph, which is then used as a starting layout for the next level, until the finest graph layout has been achieved”);
determining, for each vertex, an effect of local interactions based on the force with the vertices located in a region of the initial layout proximate to the vertex (Mi section 3.1 “The internal-electric-force refers to the repulsive force between pairs of nodes within the same cluster … The internal-electric-force is used to obtain the local structure of a graph … To compute the repulsive forces on all nodes, we begin at the coarsest graph and work our way down. Each node's total repulsive force in level i with graph Gi is computed as the sum of the external-electric-forces inherited from graph Gi+1 plus the sum of the internal-electric-forces within its parent cluster. Thus, we calculate the internal-electric forces at each level of the graph and pass the total repulsive forces down to the next level as external-electric-forces until we reach the finest level of the graph G0”);
determining, for each vertex, an adjustment to the location of the vertex based, at least in part, on combined effects of the global interactions and the local interactions on the vertex (Mi section 3.1 “we add the attractive force to the approximated repulsive force of the finest level graph and update each node's position”); and
applying the respective determined adjustment to each vertex of the plurality of vertices in the initial layout to generate the force-directed layout of the graph (Mi section 3.1 “we add the attractive force to the approximated repulsive force of the finest level graph and update each node's position”; section 3.2 “We use our approximated force-directed layout algorithm to update graph layout of each level”); and
displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph (Mi section 2.2 first paragraph “Force-directed algorithms are commonly used to support visual analysis of graphs, because they are conceptually simple and able to produce aesthetically pleasing layouts”; section 5 “We choose … to evaluate the performance and visual results of our algorithm”; section 5.1 “The visual results generated by our method can achieve at least the same visual quality as those from FM3”; section 8 second paragraph “We evaluated our method, which generates visually pleasing graph layouts for five benchmark graphs”).
Regarding claim 2, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the force between vertices comprises a repulsive force, and wherein the global interactions and the local interactions result from an effect of the repulsive force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex (Mi section 3.1 “In total, repulsive forces have two components: internal-electric-force and external-electric-force. The internal-electric-force refers to the repulsive force between pairs of nodes within the same cluster, and the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force. The internal-electric-force is used to obtain the local structure of a graph, while the external-electric force is used for capturing the overview of a graph”).
Regarding claim 3, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the force between vertices comprises an attractive force, and wherein the global interactions and the local interactions result from effect of the attractive force exerted by each vertex on every other vertex (Mi page 2 section 1 “we focus on optimizing a force-direct algorithm based on the spring-electrical model [12]. This model depicts the graph drawing problem as a physical system, where the spring-like attractive forces are generated by each edge, and each charged node repels others via electrical force”; section 2.2 “The spring-electrical model [12) is a popular force-directed layout algorithm, which generates graph layouts based on two types of forces: attractive force and repulsive force”; section 4.2 “Each thread in the attractive forces kernel and updated position kernel is responsible for one node of the selected level graph, which calculates its attractive force and updates its position based on its total force”; Algorithm 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the adjustment of the location of at least some of the vertices is further based on effects of one or more additional forces acting on those vertices (Mi section 3.1 “we add the attractive force to the approximated repulsive force of the finest level graph and update each node's position”; section 4.2 “Each thread in the attractive forces kernel and updated position kernel is responsible for one node of the selected level graph, which calculates its attractive force and updates its position based on its total force”; one or more additional forces - attractive force or approximated repulsive force).
Regarding claim 5, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the one or more additional forces between vertices comprise one or more attractive forces acting between respective vertices of the graph (Mi page 2 section 1 “we focus on optimizing a force-direct algorithm based on the spring-electrical model [12]. This model depicts the graph drawing problem as a physical system, where the spring-like attractive forces are generated by each edge”; section 2.2 “The spring-electrical model [12) is a popular force-directed layout algorithm, which generates graph layouts based on two types of forces: attractive force and repulsive force”; section 4.2 “Each thread in the attractive forces kernel and updated position kernel is responsible for one node of the selected level graph, which calculates its attractive force and updates its position based on its total force”; Algorithm 1).
Regarding claim 6, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the one or more additional forces between vertices comprise one or more repulsive forces acting between respective vertices of the graph (Mi section 3.1 “In total, repulsive forces have two components: internal-electric-force and external-electric-force. The internal-electric-force refers to the repulsive force between pairs of nodes within the same cluster, and the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force. The internal-electric-force is used to obtain the local structure of a graph, while the external-electric1orce is used for capturing the overview of a graph”; algorithm 2).
Regarding claim 8, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein determining the effect of global interactions comprises determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices as a whole on each of the first plurality of subdivisions (Mi section 3.2 “Since a sun node is always the center of a sub-graph, it can represent all nodes within its sub-group for repulsive force computation”; section 3.1 “the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force … the external-electric force is used for capturing the overview of a graph… To compute the repulsive forces on all nodes, we begin at the coarsest graph and work our way down. Each node's total repulsive force in level i with graph Gi is computed as the sum of the external-electric-forces inherited from graph Gi+1 plus the sum of the internal-electric-forces within its parent cluster. Thus, we calculate the internal-electric forces at each level of the graph and pass the total repulsive forces down to the next level as external-electric-forces until we reach the finest level of the graph G0”).
Regarding claim 10, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein determining the effect of local interactions comprises:
subdividing the layout into a second plurality of subdivisions (Mi section 3.2 “we adopt the solar merger algorithm to build multi-level graphs … where each sub-graph is simulated as a solar system. Each node of a sub-graph is classified as sun, planet or moon. The solar system collapses a sub-graph into the sun node of the next level graph. Since a sun node is always the center of a sub-graph, it can represent all nodes within its sub-group for repulsive force computation”; second plurality of subdivisions - solar system in a coarser level cluster);
grouping vertices that are located in a common subdivision of the second plurality of subdivisions (Mi section 3.2 “In the placement stage, we keep the positions of all parent nodes and initialize their child nodes along a circle, the center of which is their parent node. This design is based on the solar system where child nodes are either planet nodes or moon nodes”); and
determining an aggregate effect of each group of vertices the subdivisions of each of the second plurality of subdivisions adjoining the subdivision in which the group is located (Mi section 3.2 “Since a sun node is always the center of a sub-graph, it can represent all nodes within its sub-group for repulsive force computation”; section 3.1 “the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force … the external-electric force is used for capturing the overview of a graph… To compute the repulsive forces on all nodes, we begin at the coarsest graph and work our way down. Each node's total repulsive force in level i with graph Gi is computed as the sum of the external-electric-forces inherited from graph Gi+1 plus the sum of the internal-electric-forces within its parent cluster. Thus, we calculate the internal-electric forces at each level of the graph and pass the total repulsive forces down to the next level as external-electric-forces until we reach the finest level of the graph G0”).
Regarding claim 11, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the second plurality of subdivisions is defined by a second grid (Mi page 13 second paragraph “We generate successive grid-meshes, which can be evenly partitioned by the solar merger. Thus, the repulsive force computation of mesh-like graphs avoids the workload imbalance problem”; section 2.2 “Fruchterman et al. [12) propose a grid-variant algorithm that accelerates repulsive force computation by splitting nodes into grids”; second grid – grid at the a coarser level graph).
Regarding claim 12, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the global interactions are determined at a lower resolution than the local interactions (Mi section 3.1 “the external-electric-force is the inter-cluster repulsive force … the external-electric force is used for capturing the overview of a graph… To compute the repulsive forces on all nodes, we begin at the coarsest graph and work our way down. Each node's total repulsive force in level i with graph Gi is computed as the sum of the external-electric-forces inherited from graph Gi+1 plus the sum of the internal-electric-forces within its parent cluster. Thus, we calculate the internal-electric forces at each level of the graph and pass the total repulsive forces down to the next level as external-electric-forces until we reach the finest level of the graph G0”; the external-electric-forces at G0 contains approximations from coarser levels Gi).
Regarding claim 14, it is directed to a computer system comprising a processor and a memory storing computer program code for causing the processor to implement the method of claim 1. All steps performed by the processor of claim 14 is included in the method of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 14. Further, Mi teaches a processor and a memory storing computer program code (Mi section 5 “We tested our algorithm on a desktop computer running Windows 7 Enterprise, which was equipped with an Intel i7 processor and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card programmed with CUDA 7.5”; section 5.2; processor - Intel i7 processor and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card; memory – component storing the algorithm).
Regarding claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to carry out a method according to claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 15. Further, Mi teaches one or more processors (Mi section 5 “We tested our algorithm on a desktop computer running Windows 7 Enterprise, which was equipped with an Intel i7 processor and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card programmed with CUDA 7.5”).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arleo et al. (NPL – “A Distributed Multilevel Force-Directed Algorithm”), hereinafter Arleo.
Regarding claim 13, Mi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Mi teaches wherein the method is performed iteratively (Mi page 10 section 5.1 “Figures 5-7 show results of our multi-level algorithm (200 iterations per level without human interactions)”).
Mi does not explicitly teach wherein the method is performed iteratively until an equilibrium is reached.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Arleo discloses that a common ingredient of force-directed algorithms are a model of the system of forces acting on the vertices and an iterative algorithm to find a static equilibrium of this system, which represents the final layout of the graph (Arleo section 2.1 first paragraph).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mi using Arleo and perform the algorithm of Mi iteratively until an equilibrium is reached in order to find the final layout of the graph and because this is a common feature of force-directed algorithms (Arleo section 2.1 and Mi section 2.2).
Therefore, the combination of Mi as modified in view of Arleo teaches wherein the method is performed iteratively until an equilibrium is reached.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments made and Applicant’s arguments, the objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, see remarks page 6 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-6, 8 and 10-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim to include the features of “applying the respective determined adjustment to each vertex of the plurality of vertices in the initial layout to generate the force-directed layout of the graph; and displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph. Applicant submits that these additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Applicant has not provided any argument as to how these features integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the features of “applying the respective determined adjustment to each vertex of the plurality of vertices in the initial layout to generate the force-directed layout of the graph” is part of the abstract idea and is not considered an additional element. The additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use where a visualization of the result of the abstract idea is displayed. The claim does not recite specific details of how the visualization is displayed. In contrast, the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity and is a well-understood routine and conventional activity in the field of force-directed algorithms which is indicative that an inventive concept with respect to the additional element of “displaying a visualization of the generated force-directed layout of the graph” is not present.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, see remarks page 6-8 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-6, 8 and 10-12 and 15, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 14 to include the features of claim 9 (i.e., rewritten claim 9 as an independent claim including the limitations of intervening claim 7) which includes the features of “subdividing the initial layout into a first plurality of subdivisions defined by a grid” and argues that Mi does not teach a grid as used in the claims and cited to Fig. 2 and section 1 page 2 of Mi. The reference to the grid with respect to Tables 1-2, page 12 last paragraph, page 13 last paragraph and Fig. 9 are to a particular type of graph rather that the use of a grid for subdividing the initial layout into a first plurality of subdivisions. Further, the term “grid” in section 2.2 was not cited by examiner and is different from the use of the grid in amended claim 1 because it is only used to decide which vertices to ignore and which not to, as opposed to using a grid as a way to summarise and approximate the distant nodes as required by amended claim 1.
Response: Examiner respectfully agrees in part. Examiner agrees that Tables 1-2 discloses that the “grid-mesh” as a type of graph as shown in the graph column of Fig. 1. However, last paragraph of page 12 discloses that “mesh-like graphs (grid-mesh) is better than that for the small-world graphs (web-Stanford). The reason for this is that we can get evenly partitioned graph clusters based on the solar merger for mesh-like graphs” which clearly teaches that the mesh-like graphs are sub-divided in a grid. Further, last paragraph of page 13 also discloses “We generate successive grid-meshes, which can be evenly partitioned by the solar merger” which also indicates that the mesh-like graphs are sub-divided in a grid. Furthermore, examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement that section 2.2 was not cited in the previous non-final office action. See page 13 top of the non-final office action submitted on 02/09/2026 with respect to claim 9 analysis which includes a citation to section 2.2 of Mi which also discloses “a grid-variant algorithm that accelerates repulsive force computation by splitting nodes into grids” and incorporates Fruchterman et al. [12] by reference. Therefore, Mi clearly teaches “grouping vertices based on a respective location of each vertex in the initial layout by: subdividing the initial layout into a first plurality of subdivisions defined by a grid” as recited in the amended independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767
Prosecution Insights