DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to claims filed 12/30/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-23 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11550455 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons listed below.
Claim 1 of the current application is contained in the limitations of claim 1, except for:
wherein the receiving of a control point, constraint is from a user device;
applying the constraint to the filtered portion of the graph by computing, for each vertex within the filtered portion, a graph property utilizing only neighboring vertices that both (i) are within the filtered portion and (ii) satisfy the constraint;
selecting, based on the graph property computed for each vertex within the filtered portion, a subset of vertices within the filtered portion;
wherein the further filtering comprises: selecting first edges that only connect the subset of vertices;
wherein the storing comprises storing the selected subset of vertices and edges.
Gephi discloses: wherein the receiving of a control point, constraint is from a user device (Screenshots figs. 2-3 shows receiving from a user device using windows and mouse paradigm);
applying the constraint to the filtered portion of the graph by computing, for each vertex within the filtered portion, a graph property utilizing only neighboring vertices that both (i) are within the filtered portion and (ii) satisfy the constraint (figs. 11-12 show degree range filter performed on a subspace, hence, computing of degree graph property selection of neighboring vertices both within and satisfy the locality constraint);
wherein the further filtering comprises: selecting first edges that only connect the subset of vertices (Additional Screenshots figs.11-12: show before and after screenshots of applying the degree range filter, showing expected behavior of including filtered vertices and edges connecting the subset);
wherein the storing comprises storing the selected subset of vertices and edges (Additional Screenshots figs.13-14: exporting the filtered graph to a filed format, e.g., PDF, PNG for storage in file system);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the reference patent by incorporating the filtering and storage techniques of Gephi. Both concern the art of network visualization and manipulation in a UI context, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the edge and the vertex selection technique to implement the filtering further filtering. Such a combination would have yielded a predictable combination, as implementation of a particular form of graph subset selection. Furthermore, the production of a such a graph subset, when combined with a general storage technique of the parent of storing produced subsets, would have yielded a predictable combination as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Current Application
Reference Patent (11550455 B2)
Claim 2
Claim 2 of the current application is contained in the limitations of claim 2; the additional elements recite receiving from a computing device and are taught by Gephi as above.
Claim 4. wherein the received local graph filter further specifies a set of constraints, and wherein filtering the representation of the graph comprises further filtering the subset of vertices visually represented within the region to select particular vertices satisfying the constraints, and particular edges connecting the particular vertices.
Claim 4 is contained in the “receiving… a control point” paragraph of claim 1, as the local graph filter specifying boundary regions restricting a particular subset of the graph constitutes specifying subsets of particular vertices and edges within the boundary region
Claim 5
Claim 5 of the current application is contained in the limitations of claim 5; the additional elements recite receiving from a computing device and are taught by Gephi as above.
Claim 7
Claim 7 of the current application is contained in the limitations of claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8 of the current application is contained in the limitations of claim 8
Claims 9-20
The analogous claims are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is contained within the “receiving … a control point” paragraph of claim 1, as the received region constitutes a selection criteria
For claim 21, the reference patent discloses the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. The reference patent does not disclose: displaying a number of subset of vertices or a number of the first edges.
Morris discloses: displaying a number of subset of vertices or a number of the first edges (p.1: displaying numbers of nodes, edges, and selected nodes and edges).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of the reference patent by incorporating the number display of Morris. Both concern the art of network visualization, and the incorporation would have, according to Morris, solved a need by users requiring a count for network statistics.
For claim 23, the reference patent discloses the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. The reference patent does not disclose the limitations of claim 23.
Hamamoto discloses: wherein the set of processors operate in parallel (figs.1A-B, 0039-43 contemplates parallel processing of graphs with fig.10 disclosing processor hardware) to implement the local graph filter and/or the set of processors operate in parallel to apply the constraint to further filter the filtered portion of the graph (combination with local-graph filtering and constraint filtering techniques of Gephi yielding application of parallel processing techniques to filtering routines).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of the reference patent by incorporating the parallel processing technique of Hamamoto. Both concern the art of graph processing, and the incorporation would have, according to Hamamoto, allows for better performance in graph processing tasks via parallel processing (0004-5, 0009-10).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13-17, 19-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Gephi 0.9.1 as disclosed in (1) Release Notes ("Releases 0.9.1", published 2/14/2016), (2) Requirements (“Gephi Requirements” published 12/8/2015), (3) Screenshots (“Screenshots taken from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 5/19/2023), (4) Visualization (“Gephi blog: GSoC mid-term: new Visualization API”, published 8/12/2011), (5) (“Additional Screenshots from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 12/24/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Gephi discloses: a computer-implemented method for querying a graph (Release Notes p.3-4 contemplates implementation on various computers running LINUX, MACOS, WINDOWS, etc. operating systems; Requirements p.1 contemplates operation on various computer systems, e.g., 500 MHz CPU + 128 MB RAM + OpenGL 1.2), comprising:
obtaining, by a computer system comprising a set of processors (Requirements, as above), a data structure representing a graph comprising vertices and edges (Screenshots figs. 2-3: obtaining an initial data structure, e.g., the included Les Misérables graph);
receiving, from a computing device operated by a user, a command defining a local graph filter, wherein the local graph filter specifies a filtered portion of the graph (Screenshots fig.4-6: selecting a region using the rectangular selection tool, the tool compromising a filtered portion of the graph, i.e., those within its boundaries, for relocation to a new workspace, hence, the relocated subgraph constitutes a spatially filtered portion; furthermore, these screenshots show a GUI interface for receiving user input via a computing device including buttons, canvas, etc., hence, such selections being received from a user input computing device);
receiving, from the computing device, a constraint for further filtering the filtered portion of the graph (figs.9-10 show GUI for receiving further constraints for filtering, e.g., degree range constraint, to further filter the filtered graph);
applying the constraint to the filtered portion of the graph by computing, for each vertex within the filtered portion, a graph property utilizing only neighboring vertices that both (i) are within the filtered portion and (ii) satisfy the constraint (figs. 15-19 show degree range filter performed on a subspace, hence, computing of degree graph property selection of neighboring vertices both within and satisfy the locality constraint), the degree filter of 3 counting only nodes within the locality satisfying the constraint),
selecting, based on the graph property computed for each vertex within the filtered portion, a subset of vertices within the filtered portion (ibid: vertices are selected for display );
selecting first edges that only connect the subset of vertices that are selected based on the application of the constraint; (figs.11-12: show before and after screenshots of applying the degree range filter, showing expected behavior of including filtered vertices and edges connecting the subset); and
storing, after specifying the filtered portion and then applying the constraint on the filtered portion, the subset of vertices and the first edges of the filtered representation of the graph in a non-transitory storage medium (figs.13-14: exporting the filtered graph to a filed format, e.g., PDF, PNG for storage in file system).
Regarding claim 2, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Gephi further discloses: receiving, from the computing device, an additional local graph filter specifying an additional portion of the graph (Screenshots Figs. 8: Using Ctrl to select additional regions in the original graph; Visualization p.3: Using Shift and Ctrl to make incremental / decremental selections);
determining a combined portion of the graph as a union or an intersection of the portion and the additional region (Screenshots fig.8: Ctrl constitutes a union); and
filtering the graph to select a combined set of vertices within the combined portion, and particular edges connecting the combined set of vertices (Screenshots fig. 8; Additional Screenshots figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Gephi further discloses: wherein the received local graph filter further specifies a set of constraints (fig.4: rectangular box comprises set of 4 spatial constraints), and wherein filtering the representation of the graph comprises further filtering the subset of vertices within the portion to select particular vertices satisfying the set of constraints, and particular edges connecting the particular vertices (Screenshots figs. 4-6: result of filtering based on the constraint; Additional Screenshots figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Gephi discloses the method of claim 4, as described above. Gephi further discloses: wherein a respective vertex in the graph is associated with auxiliary properties, and a respective constraint defines a range of values for an auxiliary property of the respective vertex (Screenshots fig.9: specifying of auxiliary properties for each vertex as filters, e.g., degree or mutual degree as range of values, hence, definition of constraints based on range of values of auxiliary property)
Regarding claim 8, Gephi discloses the method of claim 7, as described above. Gephi further discloses: wherein the auxiliary property includes one or more of:
an age of a person;
a wealth or income level of the person;
a geographic location of the person;
a purchase history of the person;
a person's friends or social network (fig.1: Les Misérables is a graph of a social network of a person, the degree / mutual degree constitutes a measure of connectivity);
a time of a transaction;
an amount of the transaction;
spatial or temporal information of a commercial activity;
a derived property of the graph (fig.9: K-core, degree, mutual degree, out degree range all constitute derived or calculated properties of the graph);
a property obtained from a matrix factorization of the graph;
a first attribute based on a classification or regression method for prediction in the graph; and
a second attribute representing whether a vertex or edge has been correctly classified.
Claims 9-11, 13-17, 19-20 recite computer-readable mediums and systems corresponding to the above methods and hence are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, claim 15 additionally recites the use of a set of multiple processors for carrying out the tasks. However, Gelphi Requirements p.1 contemplates the use of a graphics card (GPU) to complement the CPU and hence contemplates the use of multiple processors.
For claim 22, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. Gephi further discloses: wherein the local graph filter comprises a selection or filtering criteria (fig.4 shows selection with mouse).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephi 0.9.1 as disclosed in (1) Release Notes ("Releases 0.9.1", published 2/14/2016), (2) Requirements (“Gephi Requirements” published 12/8/2015), (3) Screenshots (“Screenshots taken from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 5/19/2023), (4) Visualization (“Gephi blog: GSoC mid-term: new Visualization API”, published 8/12/2011), (5) (“Additional Screenshots from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 12/24/2025) in view of mbastion ("Edge weight range filter that also hides nodes", published 7/3/2011).
Regarding claim 5, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Gephi further discloses: wherein receiving the command defining a local graph filter further comprises:
displaying, for the user on the computing device, a slider control, drop-down menu, or button associated with the local graph filter and representing a property of the vertices or edges in the graph (Screenshots fig. 9);
receiving, from the computing device, a value for the property according to the slider control, drop-down menu, or buttons (Screenshots fig.9: specifying upper and lower bounds for the degree filter via the slider); and
setting a respective constraint based on the received value for the property (Screenshots fig.9-10: result of application).
However, Gephi is not explicit in that a local graph filter is the first filter, i.e., the first selection of nodes on which a subsequent filtering or constraining action is performed. That is, Gephi does not explicitly recite that a first local graph filter may be set via a GUI constraints, followed by a second filter that is set in the same way.
However, mbastion disclose: wherein the filter is the first filter, i.e., the first filter, preceding a second, can be set via GUI constraint controls (p.2: mbastion discloses the setting of multiple nested filters, hence, the first filter being set via GUI slider).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of Gephi by incorporating the nested filter technique of mbastion. Both concern the art of network visualization via Gephi, and the incorporation would have, according to mbastion, solved a pressing need by users to allow for nested or sequential filtering for visualizing data.
Claims 12, 18 disclose analogous compute media and systems and are hence rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephi 0.9.1 as disclosed in (1) Release Notes ("Releases 0.9.1", published 2/14/2016), (2) Requirements (“Gephi Requirements” published 12/8/2015), (3) Screenshots (“Screenshots taken from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 5/19/2023), (4) Visualization (“Gephi blog: GSoC mid-term: new Visualization API”, published 8/12/2011), (5) (“Additional Screenshots from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 12/24/2025) in view of Morris ("How to count the number of edges", published 10/24/2014).
For claim 21, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. Gephi does not disclose: displaying the number of subset of vertices or a number of the first edges.
Morris discloses: displaying the number of subset of vertices or a number of the first edges (p.1: displaying numbers of nodes, edges, and selected nodes and edges).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of Gephi by incorporating the number display of Morris. Both concern the art of network visualization, and the incorporation would have, according to Morris, solved a need by users requiring a count for network statistics.
Claim(s) 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephi 0.9.1 as disclosed in (1) Release Notes ("Releases 0.9.1", published 2/14/2016), (2) Requirements (“Gephi Requirements” published 12/8/2015), (3) Screenshots (“Screenshots taken from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 5/19/2023), (4) Visualization (“Gephi blog: GSoC mid-term: new Visualization API”, published 8/12/2011), (5) (“Additional Screenshots from Gephi 0.9.1”, obtained 12/24/2025) in view of Hamamoto (US 20150067695 A1).
For claim 23, Gephi discloses the method of claim 1, as disclosed above. Gephi does not disclose the limitations of claim 23.
Hamamoto discloses: wherein the set of processors operate in parallel (figs.1A-B, 0039-43 contemplates parallel processing of graphs with fig.10 disclosing processor hardware) to implement the local graph filter and/or the set of processors operate in parallel to apply the constraint to further filter the filtered portion of the graph (combination with local-graph filtering and constraint filtering techniques of Gephi yielding application of parallel processing techniques to filtering routines).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of Gephi by incorporating the parallel processing technique of Hamamoto. Both concern the art of graph processing, and the incorporation would have, according to Hamamoto, allows for better performance in graph processing tasks via parallel processing (0004-5, 0009-10).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks, Applicant argues:
1. Specifically, claim 1 now requires applying the constraint by computing, for each vertex within the filtered portion, a graph property utilizing only neighboring vertices that both (i) are within the filtered portion and (ii) satisfy the constraint. Gephi does not disclose computing a graph property in this manner. For example, Gephi contains no disclosure that the Degree Range filter computes a graph property for each vertex utilizing only neighboring vertices that satisfy the Degree Range filter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gephi Screenshots figs. 15-19 shows filtering by degree within the selected locality group; in order to construct such a graph, Gephi must compute said degree property, the subgraph being treated as a separate graph for purposes of degree computation, for example, in that additional visualized vertices are not shown in the degree calculation, as shown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ross (US 20170255686 A1) discloses a graph navigation interface with locality constraints, see figs. 4C-G.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG LI whose telephone number is (303)297-4263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-12p, 3-11p MT (11-2p, 5-1a ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571)272-7212. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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. The examiner is available for interviews Mon-Fri 6-11a, 2-7p MT (8-1p, 4-9p ET).
/LIANG LI/
Primary examiner AU 2143
Prosecution Insights