DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1, 8, 10, & 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Examiner’s response below.
With respect to Claims 1-20, applicant appears to assert that the cited art of record does not teach “wherein providing the first set of information comprises selecting the summary value from the at least one detail value based on a summarization logic comprising logic for determining a likelihood of user agreement with the summary value based at least in part on the user’s amount to interaction and a type of user interaction with the summary value, wherein a greater likelihood of user agreement with the summary data is indicated when the summary value is viewed and not corrected”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reynolds teaches [0052, 0057] determining a level of user agreement with data. The data is not modified or corrected by the user. Also, the data is viewed without any user input. Therefore, the cited art of record does in fact teach “wherein providing the first set of information comprises selecting the summary value from the at least one detail value based on a summarization logic comprising logic for determining a likelihood of user agreement with the summary value based at least in part on the user’s amount to interaction and a type of user interaction with the summary value, wherein a greater likelihood of user agreement with the summary data is indicated when the summary value is viewed and not corrected”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0270363 A1) in view of Reynolds et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0364568 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Hunt teaches:
a process for accessing and providing information obtained from a source comprising: (para [0095] - media data files)
providing a first set of information comprising a summary value stored in a data cell and attributes of the summary value, (para [0105] - store, manipulate, structure, subset, merge ...... summaries.., metadata.., attributes)
Hunt teaches [0105] creating summaries within the data mart facility and storage of data and metadata including sales facts and the like, wherein these created summaries and metadata are indicative of summary values and attributes of summary values.
and providing a second set of information comprising at least one detail value underlying the summary value, (Hunt teaches [0099] compilation of summary views, wherein these summary views are summaries of associated data. Hunt further teaches [0105] summaries of data constructed by the data mart facility. Hunt also teaches [0129] indication of accuracy and reliability, wherein this indication is a measurement of confidence.)
Hunt teaches [0105] summaries of data which are stored in a data mart facility, wherein the data mart facility is indicative of storage in a storage medium. Hunt further teaches [0134, 0229] confidence assessment based on projections, wherein these projections are developed based upon accessible values of data.
Hunt teaches [0129] a projection facility that includes a user interface that will permit the user to load criteria, wherein the user defined criteria serves as a user entry and the projection data serves as detail data.
wherein providing the first set of information comprises selecting the summary value from the at least one detail value based on a summarization logic comprising logic for determining a likelihood of user agreement with the summary value based at least in part on the user’s amount of interaction and a type of user interaction with the summary value (para [0105] - store, manipulate, structure, subset, merge ...... summaries.., metadata.., attributes)
Hunt teaches [0105] creating summaries within the data mart facility and storage of data and metadata including sales facts and the like, wherein these created summaries and metadata are indicative of summary values and attributes of summary values.
The cited art teaches the likelihood of agreement with summary data by providing confidence assessments. Hunt teaches [0105] summaries of data which are stored in a data mart facility, wherein the data mart facility is indicative of storage in a storage medium. Hunt further teaches [0134, 0229] confidence assessment based on projections, wherein these projections are developed based upon accessible values of data.
Hunt teaches [0131, 0206-0210, 0314, 0482] interaction with a variety of types of data and user interaction with the data for determining summarization of data.
By way of emphasis, Hunt teaches [0229] user input determines a confidence of similarity in data wherein this confidence determines a similarity in data or a “likelihood of user agreement with summary data”. The user input is a type of user interaction with summary data. Hunt teaches [0131, 0206-0210, 0314, 0482] interaction with a variety of types of data and user interaction with the data for determining summarization of data. As forestated in the prior Office Action, the cited art teaches the likelihood of agreement with summary data by providing confidence assessments. Hunt teaches [0105] summaries of data which are stored in a data mart facility, wherein the data mart facility is indicative of storage in a storage medium. Hunt further teaches [0134, 0229] confidence assessment based on projections, wherein these projections are developed based upon accessible values of data. Therefore, the cited art does in fact teach “wherein providing the first set of information derived from the values comprises selecting the summary value from the at least one detail value based on a summarization logic comprising logic for determining a likelihood of user agreement with the summary data based at least in part on the user’s amount of interaction and a type of user interaction with the summary data”.
Hunt does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a greater likelihood of user agreement with the summary data is indicated when the summary value is viewed and not corrected
However, Reynolds teaches:
wherein a greater likelihood of user agreement with the summary data is indicated when the summary value is viewed and not corrected (Reynolds teaches [0052, 0057] ratings based upon user modifications.)
Reynolds teaches [0052, 0057] determining a level of user agreement with data. Data is rated based upon the level of agreement; wherein rating data based upon the level of agreement is analogous to viewing but not modifying data. A lower rating is indicia that there is lower confidence in the viewed data and thus should be modified, whereas a higher rating is indicia of data which after being viewed should not be modified, which indicates user agreement with the data.
Reynolds teaches [0052, 0057] determining a level of user agreement with data. The data is not modified or corrected by the user. Also, the data is viewed without any user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Reynolds into the system of Hunt. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a solution for facilitating techniques to discover, form, and analyze data stores with specified desired objectives. (Reynolds [0006])
As per Claim 2, Hunt teaches:
wherein the at least one detail value comprises metadata, the metadata comprising a confidence value representing the accuracy of the data value (para [0092]; Fig.1)
As per Claim 3, Hunt teaches:
initiating presentation of the summary value, the at least one detail value, or both, on a display device (para [0103])
As per Claim 4, Hunt teaches:
wherein the attributes comprise a reliability of the summary value, wherein the reliability is determined based upon a comparison of a number of data points that agree with the summary value to a number of data points that disagree with the summary value (para [0129] - accuracy, consistency, reliability)
As per Claim 5, Hunt teaches:
wherein the attributes comprise a degree of consensus or contentiousness regarding the summary value (para [0238] - disagreement weight)
As per Claim 6, Hunt teaches:
determining the summary value based on criteria and rules (para [0116] - aggregated data set; para [0126] - probabilistic weights.., algorithm; para [0178] - similarity criteria; para [0183] - rules; para [0213] - source data; para [0214] - Boolean logic)
As per Claim 7, Hunt teaches:
wherein the criteria comprise ratings of trustworthiness of sources of the values, wherein trustworthiness is determined based upon one or more of user rating, user profile information, historical data submissions, historical predictive ability of user, social network connections, or IP address (para [1183] - partner reputation; para [1204] - metadata; Fig.67)
As per Claim 8, Hunt teaches:
wherein determining a likelihood of user agreement with the summary value based at least in part on the user’s amount of interaction with the summary value further comprises determining the likelihood based on an indication that the summary value has been viewed but not corrected (para [0099])
As per Claim 9, Hunt teaches:
wherein the attributes of the summary value comprise an indication of a measure of confidence in the summary value based at least in part on a proportion of a number of the at least one detail value which are consistent with the summary value, one or more information confidence, consensus, or certainty ratings relating to a likelihood that the summary value is correct, and a representation of a user submission and of consistency between the summary value and the user submission (para [0134])
Claims 10-15 are the system claims corresponding to process claims 1-4 & 6-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claims 16-20 are the system claims corresponding to process claims 1, 3-5, & 7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights