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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
claims 3, 11 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12-13, 17 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are presenting for examination, with claims 1, 9 and 17 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s argument with regard to rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is acknowledged. However, Examiner is not persuaded. Based upon the consideration of claim 1 and all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, it is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. There are no additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself that integrate the exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claim does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP §2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP §2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP §2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 FED. Reg. at 55.
The claim is broadly written, and the Examiner determined that the improvement, if any, of the claim is in the abstract idea itself, not in the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field. No particular machine, no transformation, no other meaningful limitation is persuasively argued by the Applicant. Additionally, the claim fails to recite specific limitations (or a combination of limitations) that are NOT well-understood, routine, and conventional. The steps of: determining an optimal node hierarchy…, determining the target node hierarchy …, determining a target directed layout graph…, detecting whether the optimal node hierarchy …., determining a next node hierarchy …, determining an initial node …, detecting a layout relationship …; are conventional steps describe an abstract idea, they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements, obtaining graph data…, obtaining a target node …, displaying …, adjusting the initial node …; the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention.
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
See also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C
“ Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01..”
For the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered. New ground of rejection is provided based on the filed amendment.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea for layout a directed graph. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A directed graph layout method …”; the claims recite a series of steps and therefore are processes. Claim 9 recites “An electronic device …”; therefore, it is a machine. Claim 17 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium …”; therefore, it is a manufacture.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite limitations of:
obtaining (insignificant extra-solution activity) graph data to be used for directed graph layout, the graph data comprising a plurality of nodes and connection relationships of the plurality of nodes;
respectively determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) an optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node based on the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes;
obtaining (insignificant extra-solution activity) a target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted and a target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node, and determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node, wherein the target node and the target node hierarchy are associated with a layout requirement specified by a user, and the layout requirement indicates that the target node needs to be allocated to the target node hierarchy;
determining (a mental step that using generic computer component) a target directed layout graph of the graph data based on the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node and an optimal node hierarchy corresponding to another node; and
displaying (insignificant extra-solution activity) the target directed layout graph by drawing the plurality of nodes and edges of the plurality of nodes according to the layout requirement specified by the user.
wherein determining the target directed layout graph of the graph data based on the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node and the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node comprises:
detecting whether the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node is the same as the target node hierarchy; is a Mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas;
in response to the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node being the same as the target node hierarchy, determining a next node hierarchy of the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
determining an initial node coordinate of each node in a corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
detecting a layout relationship between the plurality of nodes; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), and obtaining the target directed layout graph of the graph data by adjusting the initial node coordinate of the node based on the layout relationship; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting and analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: respectively determining an optimal node hierarchy…, determining the target node hierarchy …, determining a target directed layout graph…, detecting whether the optimal node hierarchy …., determining a next node hierarchy …, determining an initial node …, detecting a layout relationship …; are processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is , other than reciting: a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, in claims 9 and 17; they are computer components; nothing in the claims elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: obtaining graph data…, obtaining a target node …, displaying …, and adjusting the initial node …; the limitations are mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, these additional limitations are recited as being performed by a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations: obtaining graph data…, obtaining a target node …, displaying …, and adjusting the initial node …; are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) presentation of collected and analyzed data, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements performing by a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in limitations: obtaining graph data…, obtaining a target node …, displaying …, and adjusting the initial node …; are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Since, claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to abstract ideas; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-8 and, 10, 12-16, 18 and 20
The limitations as recited in claims 2, 4-8 and, 10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are simply describe the concepts for layout a directed graph. The claims do not include additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2, 4-8 and, 10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are directed to abstract ideas and are not patent eligible. Analysis of the dependent claims are shown below.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitations, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted and the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), and
determining the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), comprises:
determining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted from the plurality of nodes according to a received hierarchy adjustment instruction, the hierarchy adjustment instruction being used for switching the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
switching the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node to the target node hierarchy, in response to receiving the hierarchy adjustment instruction; the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitations, wherein determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes comprises:
obtaining a first aggregated node by aggregating a plurality of first target nodes at a same hierarchy in the target node hierarchy; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
obtaining first connection relationships by inheriting, by the first aggregated node, the connection relationships of the plurality of first target nodes, and adjusting the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting and analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the first aggregated node, the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node, and the first connection relationships; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitations, wherein, in response to a number of hierarchies for the target node hierarchy being multiple, determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes comprises:
obtaining a second aggregated node by aggregating a plurality of second target nodes at consecutive hierarchies in the target node hierarchy; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
obtaining second connection relationships by inheriting, by the second aggregated node, the connection relationships of the plurality of second target nodes, and adjusting the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting and analyzing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the second aggregated node, the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node, and the second connection relationships; is a metal step, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitations, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted comprises:
determining a candidate node hierarchy based on a number of nodes in each of a plurality of optimal node hierarchies, the candidate node hierarchy comprising more than one node; is a metal processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on connection relationships between nodes in the candidate node hierarchy; the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere generic gathering/collecting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood routine conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitations: wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on the connection relationships between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy comprises:
respectively determining a connection order between the nodes and initial node position between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy based on the connection relationships between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy; is a metal processes, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
detecting, in the candidate node hierarchy, whether a plurality of third nodes connected at a same hierarchy exist according to the connection order between the nodes; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion);
in response to detecting that the plurality of third nodes connected at the same hierarchy existing, determining whether a target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes exists according to the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes, the target connection relationship being a connection relationship overlapping lines between the plurality of third nodes; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); and
in response to determining that the target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes exists, determining a fourth node between the plurality of third nodes as the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitation, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on the connection relationships between nodes in the candidate node hierarchy further comprises:
in response to determining that the target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes does not exist, determining that the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted in the candidate node hierarchy does not exist; is a process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 10, 12-16 recite, An electronic device, comprising steps are similar to subject matter of claims 2, 4-8. Therefore, claims 10, 12-16 are rejected by the same reason as discussed in claims 2, 4-8.
Claims 18 and 20 recite, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performs steps are similar to subject matter of claims 2 and 4. Therefore, claims 18 and 20 are rejected by the same reason as discussed in claims 2 and 4.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al., US 7,714,862 (hereinafter Dwyer), in view of Bender et al., US 2005/0138057 (hereinafter Bender), in view of Chauvin et al., US 2010/0274818 (hereinafter Chauvin), and further in view of Milov et al., US 2008/0246769 (hereinafter Milov).
Regarding claim 1, Dwyer discloses, A directed graph layout method, comprising:
obtaining graph data to be used for directed graph layout, the graph data comprising a plurality of nodes and connection relationships of the plurality of nodes (e.g. receiving data associated with nodes for graphing [as graph data to be used for directed graph layout], assigning hierarchical levels to the nodes for graphing. The hierarchical structure on its nodes based on the precedence relationships defined by its directed edges, Dwyer: col. 2, lines 13-20, col. 6, lines 38-53, col. 7, lines 6-22, Figs. 17-18);
respectively determining an optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node based on the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes (e.g. The optimal arrangement shows the height of each node in the hierarchy as induced by the digraph structure. A digraph can be said to induce a hierarchical structure on its nodes based on the precedence relationships defined by its directed edges. Information regarding the hierarchical order of the nodes is available or received, Dwyer: col. 6, lines 34-35, col. 7, lines 6-22, col.7, lines 49-56);
obtaining a target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted and a target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node, and determining the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node (e.g. If we know that one special node is the "root" [as target node], then distance from it might dictate the hierarchical levels. The optimal arrangement shows the height of each node in the hierarchy as induced by the digraph structure, Dwyer: col.7, lines 49-56) ; and
displaying the target directed layout graph by drawing the plurality of nodes and edges of the plurality of nodes (e.g. outputting results of the step of minimizing a stress function constrained by the assigned hierarchical levels and displaying the results in a layout on a visual medium, Dwyer: col.2, lines 5-20 and Fig. 17).
Dwyer does not directly or explicitly disclose:
wherein the target node and the target node hierarchy are associated with a layout requirement specified by a user, and the layout requirement indicates that the target node needs to be allocated to the target node hierarchy;
determining a target directed layout graph of the graph data based on the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node and an optimal node hierarchy corresponding to another node
Bender teaches:
wherein the target node and the target node hierarchy are associated with a layout requirement specified by a user, and the layout requirement indicates that the target node needs to be allocated to the target node hierarchy (e.g. The source storage area structure includes one or more source nodes, each source node [as target node] corresponding to a target node [as target node hierarchy], one or more source attributes, each source attribute corresponding to a target attribute, and relationships between the source nodes and source attributes based on the relationships between the target nodes and target attributes. The operation to generate the source storage area structure, e.g. hierarchy, can be initiated by user input, Bender: [0010], [0013]. [0055]-[0057]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer to include data mapping visualization as taught by Bender to provide a context building tool that can be used by a user to facilitate the building of a context from an existing model.
Chauvin teaches:
determining a target directed layout graph of the graph data based on the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node and an optimal node hierarchy corresponding to another node (e.g. building a directed graph [as a target directed layout graph] according to a direction of the directed arcs and relation of first object to second object and/or third object, Chauvin: [0013]-[0025]. FIGS. 16A-16J exemplify a step-by-step construction of a raw graph according to an embodiment of the invention. The raw graph construction algorithm ("BuildRawGraph") uses the root actor [as target node] in input and calls a procedure to insert other actors, preferably recursively, Chauvin: FIGS. 16A-16J).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Dwyer in view of Bender and Chauvin does not directly or explicitly disclose:
the layout requirement specified by the user,
detecting whether the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node is the same as the target node hierarchy;
in response to the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node being the same as the target node hierarchy, determining a next node hierarchy of the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node;
determining an initial node coordinate of each node in a corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes; and
detecting a layout relationship between the plurality of nodes, and obtaining the target directed layout graph of the graph data by adjusting the initial node coordinate of the node based on the layout relationship.
Milov teaches:
the layout requirement specified by the user (e.g. the user requests a layout of the changed part of the graph, Milov: [0029]),
detecting whether the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node is the same as the target node hierarchy (e.g. the user requests a layout of the changed part of the graph . If there are no new levels [as hierarchy], existing nodes keep the same coordinates. When new levels are inserted, existing levels are kept the same. As shown in FIG. 10, when using an embodiment of the present invention, no changes are made to the positions of existing nodes in the layout when changes are applied to the graph. The nodes remain in the same positions and levels, Milov: [0029], [0033] and Fig. 10);
in response to the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node being the same as the target node hierarchy, determining a next node hierarchy of the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node (e.g. Node levels are determined by the following rule: if there exists an edge from node A to node B, then node B should be placed on any level of the graph after the level with node A [as next node hierarchy], Milov: [0005], [0023]);
determining an initial node coordinate of each node in a corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes (e.g. FIG. 2 shows an example graph with an initial layout. Next, an incremental change may be made in the graph structure by adding or revealing a new node G 300 [as an initial node], with edges [as relationships] from node A 302 to node G, and from node G 300 to node F 304, Milov: [0022] and Fig. 2); and
detecting a layout relationship between the plurality of nodes (e.g. FIGs. 3-5 shows the example graph layout after the change has been made, when applying the criteria to generate a new layout. The new layout conforms to the criteria, but nodes A 302 and B 306 change their mutual positions in the layout, Milov: [0022] and Figs. 2-5), and obtaining the target directed layout graph of the graph data by adjusting the initial node coordinate of the node based on the layout relationship (e.g. Figs. 3-5 [as target directed layout graph]. Wherein, position of node G [as initial node] is adjusting in the relation graph, Milov: [0022], Figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender and Chauvin to include a stable incremental layout of a hierarchical graph as taught by Milov to provide a result of graph modifications.
Regarding claim 2, Chauvin further teaches, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted and the target node hierarchy corresponding to the target node, and determining the target node hierarchy as the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node comprises:
determining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted from the plurality of nodes according to a received hierarchy adjustment instruction, the hierarchy adjustment instruction being used for switching the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node (e.g. An arc (sometimes also called `edge`) is directed from a second object to a first object, the latter depending on the second object according to dependence relations of the PLM system. Thus, the update can be carried by browsing the graph along the direction of the arcs in the graph. Owing to the reversion of the graph with respect to the dependence of objects, the simple solution in an embodiment guarantees that the update of an object occurs only when the ancestor object it depends on is up to date, and so on, Chauvin: [0055]); and
switching the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the target node to the target node hierarchy, in response to receiving the hierarchy adjustment instruction (e.g. the update can be carried by browsing the graph along the direction of the arcs in the graph. Owing to the reversion of the graph [as switching] with respect to the dependence of objects, the simple solution in an embodiment guarantees that the update of an object occurs only when the ancestor object it depends on is up to date, Chauvin: [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Regarding claim 4, Chauvin further teaches, wherein determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes comprises:
obtaining a first aggregated node by aggregating a plurality of first target nodes at a same hierarchy in the target node hierarchy; obtaining first connection relationships by inheriting, by the first aggregated node, the connection relationships of the plurality of first target nodes, and adjusting the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes (e.g. see Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy); and
determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the first aggregated node, the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node, and the first connection relationships (e.g. see Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Regarding claim 5, Chauvin further teaches, wherein, in response to a number of hierarchies for the target node hierarchy being multiple, determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to each node and the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes comprises:
obtaining a second aggregated node by aggregating a plurality of second target nodes at consecutive hierarchies in the target node hierarchy (e.g. An arc (also called "edge") is directed from a second object to a first object, the latter depending on the second object according to dependence relations of the PLM system, Chauvin: abstract, [0055]);
obtaining second connection relationships by inheriting, by the second aggregated node, the connection relationships of the plurality of second target nodes, and adjusting the connection relationships of the plurality of nodes (e.g. identifying the second object, after identifying the second object, identifying a relation pointing from said second object to a third object, Chauvin: [0019-[0025]. Further, See Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy); and
determining the initial node coordinate of each node in the corresponding optimal node hierarchy based on the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the second aggregated node, the optimal node hierarchy corresponding to the other node, and the second connection relationships (e.g. See Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Regarding claim 6, Dwyer further discloses, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted comprises:
determining a candidate node hierarchy based on a number of nodes in each of a plurality of optimal node hierarchies, the candidate node hierarchy comprising more than one node (e.g. If we know that one special node is the "root" [as target node], then distance from it might dictate the hierarchical levels. The optimal arrangement shows the height of each node in the hierarchy as induced by the digraph structure, Dwyer: col.7, lines 49-56); and
obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on connection relationships between nodes in the candidate node hierarchy (e.g. If we know that one special node is the "root" [as target node], then distance from it might dictate the hierarchical levels. Digraph-drawing strategy, involves assigning x and y coordinates in separate stages with different objectives. Thus, the y-axis represents the directional information, or hierarchy, and the x-axis placement is adjusted for additional aesthetic considerations, Dwyer: col. 4, lines 7-12, col.7, lines 49-56).
Regarding claim 7, Chauvin further teaches, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on the connection relationships between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy comprises:
respectively determining a connection order between the nodes and an initial node position between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy based on the connection relationships between the nodes in the candidate node hierarchy (e.g. See Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy);
detecting, in the candidate node hierarchy, whether a plurality of third nodes connected at a same hierarchy exist according to the connection order between the nodes (e.g. See Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy);
in response to determining that the plurality of third nodes connected at the same hierarchy exists, determining whether a target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes exists according to the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes, the target connection relationship being a connection relationship overlapping lines between the plurality of third nodes (e.g. After the steps of clusterization (to both remove cycles and providing a graph user-readable) described above, the situation is that schematically represented in FIG. 7. Clusters 21, 22, 23, 24 are drawn as assemblies of the previous nodes. Next, a clusters 21, 22, 23, 24 become respective new nodes per se of the graph, that is, a new node for the subsequent update sequence, as depicted in FIG. 8. Note that even if clusters may partially overlap (as in FIG. 7), they are considered as independent nodes in the update sequence to ensure a suitable ordering in the update sequence, Chauvin: [0101], Fig. 7 and Fig. 8); and
in response to determining that the target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes exists, determining a fourth node between the plurality of third nodes as the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted (e.g. See Chauvin: Figs. 16B-16J for determining dependence relation and update a layout relationship of the hierarchy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer in view of Bender to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Regarding claim 8, Chauvin further teaches, wherein obtaining the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted based on the connection relationships between nodes in the candidate node hierarchy further comprises:
in response to determining that the target connection relationship between the initial node positions of the plurality of third nodes does not exist, determining that the target node whose node hierarchy is to be adjusted in the candidate node hierarchy does not exist (e.g. Note that the dependence relations do usually not exist; it might thus be necessary to create them beforehand, Chauvin: [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify A method and system for drawing directed graphs as disclosed by Dwyer to include graph construction as taught by Chauvin to provide a method for updating object data when building a directed graph.
Claims 9-10 and 12-16 recite, An electronic device, comprising steps are similar to subject matter of claims 1-2 and 4-8. Therefore, claims 9-10 and 12-16 are rejected by the same reason as discussed in claims 1-2 and 4-8.
Claims 17-18 and 20 recite, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performs steps are similar to subject matter of claims 1-2 and 4. Therefore, claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected by the same reason as discussed in claims 1-2 and 4.
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 CECILE H VO whose telephone number is (571)270-3031. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9AM-5PM).
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. 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.
/CECILE H VO/Examiner, Art Unit 2153 1/7/2026
/AJAY M BHATIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156