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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 3/16/26, the Applicant amended claims 1, 11 20 and argued claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 11/20/25. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helfman et al., United States Patent Publication 2015/0012552 (hereinafter “Helfman”), in view of Higuchi, United States Patent Publication 2006/0259507 and in further view of Hiltz-Laforge et al., United States Patent Publication 20190042639 (hereinafter ”Hiltz-Laforge”).
Claim 1:
Helfman discloses:
A method for data visualization with derived dimensional hierarchy, the method comprising (see paragraph [0039]). Helfman teaches a data visualization with derived dimension hierarchy:
presenting, by a table manager via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a client computing system, column identifiers from a table retrieved from a cloud-based data warehouse (see paragraphs [0049], [0053] and [0076]). Helfman teaches presenting, using a table manager via a GUI, column identifier names from the tables stored remotely;
receiving, by the table manager, an instruction to generate a first visualization, wherein the instruction to generate the first visualization comprises a selection of column identifiers (see paragraphs [0042] and [0043]). Helfman teaches receiving a requested to generate a visualization of the table;
deriving, by the table manager, a dimensional hierarchy based on the selected column identifiers (see paragraphs [0043]-[0046]). Helfman teaches deriving the dimensional hierarchy based on the columns; and
generating, by the table manager based on the derived dimensional hierarchy, the first visualization in the GUI of the client computing system (see paragraphs [0051] and [0052]). Helfman teaches generating a visualization based on the dimensional hierarchy in the GUI.
Helfman fails to expressly disclose selecting a column identifier in a GUI.
Higuchi discloses:
a selection of column identifiers selected via the GUI form the presented column identifiers (see paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). Higuchi teaches a selection of columns by their identifiers, selected by a database admin;
determining from selected column identifiers (see paragraphs [0008] and [0050]). Higuchi teaches determining a hierarchical relationship between the columns identified. The hierarchical relationship among the columns of the denormalized dimension table, based on the evaluation values that have been calculated for the respective columns based on data in each cell belonging to the respective columns. For the selected columns (attributes), the database is cognizant of the hierarchical relationship based, for example, on the concept obtained from the attributes, and manually adds a table and a column to a database and a table, respectively, that are currently constructed, in order from the highest level to the lowest level in the dimension hierarchy.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to include selecting the column identifiers in the GUI for the purpose of being user friendly by manually manipulating the visualization data, as recited by Higuchi.
Helfman and Higuchi fail to expressly disclose determining the relationship based on the order of the columns.
Hiltz-Laforge discloses:
generating an order between the selected column identifiers and any intervening columns between the selected column identifiers (see paragraphs [0033], [0034]). Hiltz-Laforge teaches determining relationships between columns based on a generated order between the columns and attributes of the columns;
generating source data for the first visualization that retrieves underlying data for the first visualization (see paragraphs [0035] and [0040]). Hiltz-Laforge teaches the model builder generates a schema, and wherein model builder generates, for the named schema, a mapping data structure and a description thereof in catalog, where the mapping data structure maps together any levels of a common dimension. This illustrates that the model builder will, in this circumstance, still generate a dimension table having Customer data for model responsive to selection of the first data and will add to model (FIG. 6B) responsive to selection of the second data portion, for Sales Representatives, such that Sales Representatives are a level above the Customers, as may be seen by comparison of the keys in Customer table and Sales Representative table of FIG. 6B.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by Helfman and Higuchi to include generating an order between the columns and generate schema for the mappings of the columns within the dimensions for the purpose of efficiently provide a structure that enables filtering (also known as “slicing”) and grouping (also known as “dicing”) of the data elements., as recited by Hiltz-Laforge.
Helfman, Higuchi and Hiltz-Laforge fail to expressly disclose determining, from selected columns, column-level positional, datatype, and schema attributes.
Shaked discloses:
determining, from the selected column, structural properties of the table including column-level positional, datatype, and schema attribute (see paragraph [0123]-[0127] and [0160]-[0164]). Shaked teaches determining structural properties from the selected column including column-level positions, data types and schema attributes;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by Helfman, Higuchi and Hiltz-Laforge to include determining structural properties from the selected column for the purpose of efficiently building a schema for a multidimensional hierarchy, as recited by Shaked.
Claim 2:
Helfman discloses:
receiving an instruction to generate a second visualization using the first visualization, wherein the instruction to generate the second visualization comprises a selection of an element from the first visualization (see paragraph [0056]). Helfman discloses when the user selects a particular hierarchical data dimension, the visualization is redrawn so that the cells in the visualization are grouped according to the user-specified hierarchical data dimension; and
generating, based on the selected element from the first visualization, the second
visualization in the GUI of the client computing system (see paragraph [0056]). Helfman discloses the visualization is redrawn so that the cells in the visualization are grouped according to the user-specified hierarchical data dimension.
Claim 3:
Helfman discloses:
receiving a table edit from the client computing system; and manipulating the table based on the table edit (see paragraph [0061]). Helfman teaches receiving a table edit and manipulating the table to show the table edit.
Claim 4:
Helfman discloses:
wherein the selection of column identifiers refers to at least one column targeted by the table edit (see paragraphs [0061] and [0062]). Helfman teaches selecting column identifiers to target a column for the table edit.
Claim 5:
Helfman discloses:
wherein the table edit and the first visualization are stored in a workbook repository on an intermediary computing system (see paragraph [0076]). Helfman teaches wherein the edits, visualization and any necessary files for performing the functions are stored locally.
Claim 6:
Helfman discloses:
wherein deriving the dimensional hierarchy based on the selected column identifiers comprises: determining a relationship between the columns identified by the selected column identifiers (see paragraph [0056]). Helfman teaches determining a relationship between the columns and selected column identifiers; and
generating source data for the first visualization based on the determined relationship between the columns identified by the selected column identifiers (see paragraph [0059]). Helfman teaches generating source data for the first visualization based on the related columns.
Claim 7:
Helfman discloses:
wherein generating, based on the derived dimensional hierarchy, the first visualization in the GUI of the client computing system comprises generating a database statement targeting the cloud-based data warehouse using the derived dimensional hierarchy (see paragraph [0076]). Helfman teaches generating database statement to the cloud-based data warehouse using the hierarchy.
Claim 8:
Helfman discloses:
wherein the database statement is a structured query language statement (see paragraph [0076]). Helfman teaches database statements for the dimensional hierarchy using SQL statements.
and wherein generating the first visualization comprises rendering the first visualization from query results returned by the database statement (see paragraph [0042]). Helfman recites a dataset to be visualized is selected and/or received. In one embodiment, the dataset is received from a data storage system, such as a database. A developer may define one or more queries to be represented by the visual depiction. Moreover, a type of data visualization to be generated is selected. The queries are executed and the requested data is sent to the visualization system. The data received is a range of values that will be represented using graphical elements, such as rectangles, within a graphical layout area.
Claims 11-17:
Although Claims 11-17 are apparatus claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the methods of Claims 1-7, respectively.
Claim 20:
Although Claim 20 is a computer program product claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claim 1.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helfman, Higuchi and Hiltz-Laforge, in view of Shaked and DeKimpe et al., United States Patent No 6546395 (hereinafter “DeKimpe”) and Seiden et al., United States Patent Publication 20210224288 (hereinafter “Seiden”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 9:
Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked fail to expressly disclose the column identifier being a calculation column.
DeKimpe discloses:
wherein the selection of column identifiers comprises an identifier of a calculation column (see column 4 lines 45-60). DeKimpe teaches columns being identified as the column performing calculations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked to include the identifier of the calculation column for the purpose of automatically creating and managing tables within a multi-dimensional database, as recited by Helfman.
Seiden discloses:
wherein deriving the dimensional hierarchy comprises converting the instruction into an abstract syntax tree and canonicalizing the abstract syntax tree into a canonicalized hierarchy (see paragraph [0023]). Seiden teaches uses the state specification as input to generate a database query. This transformation process may begin with state specification being converted into an abstract syntax tree. The abstract syntax tree may then be put through the canonicalization process to generate the hierarchy. The hierarchy may then be put through a linearization process to generate the worksheet algebra. The worksheet algebra may then be lowered into the relational algebra, which may then be lowered into the database query.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked to include producing and linearizing a canonical hierarchy for the purpose of interacting with complex databases and create queries for the database, as recited by Seiden.
Claim 19:
Although Claim 19 is an apparatus claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claim 9.
Claim 10 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked, in view of Seiden et al., United States Patent Publication 20210224288 (hereinafter “Seiden”).
Claim 10:
Helfman discloses:
wherein the table manager is executing on an intermediary computing system between the client computing system and the cloud-based data warehouse (see paragraph [0074]). Helfman teaches the table manager and visualization system executing on intermediary computing system such as elements 1502 and 1504 on Figure 15.
Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked fail to disclose synthesizing a join path.
Seiden discloses:
wherein generating the database statement comprises synthesizing a join path and an aggregation sequence corresponding to levels of the derived dimensional hierarchy (see paragraph [0022]). Seiden teaches the state specification may include descriptions of elements that are used to apply changes to the data set. Such elements may include filters applied to the worksheet, the hierarchical level of the worksheet, joins performed within the worksheet, exposable parameters in the worksheet, and security for the worksheet.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked to include synthesizing join paths for the purpose of interacting with complex databases and create queries for the database, as recited by Seiden.
Claim 18:
Helfman discloses:
wherein the database statement is a structured query language statement (see paragraph [0076]). Helfman teaches database statements for the dimensional hierarchy using SQL statements.
Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked fail to expressly disclose deriving the dimensional hierarchy includes producing and linearizing a canonicalized hierarchy, and lowering the workbook algebra.
Seiden discloses:
wherein deriving the dimensional hierarchy includes producing a canonicalized hierarchy, linearizing the canonicalized hierarchy into a workbook algebra, and lowering the workbook algebra into relational algebra (see paragraph [0023]). Seiden teaches uses the state specification as input to generate a database query. This transformation process may begin with state specification being converted into an abstract syntax tree. The abstract syntax tree may then be put through the canonicalization process to generate the hierarchy. The hierarchy may then be put through a linearization process to generate the worksheet algebra. The worksheet algebra may then be lowered into the relational algebra, which may then be lowered into the database query.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked to include producing and linearizing a canonical hierarchy for the purpose of interacting with complex databases and create queries for the database, as recited by Seiden.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM, filed 2/20/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Applicant argues The combination of Hiltz-Laforge, Higuchi, and Helfman do not provide a result that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably map to the claimed limitations as amended. Each of the cited references rely on fundamentally different mechanisms for establishing hierarchical relationships. Hiltz-Laforge relies on predefined OLAP dimensional semantics. Higuchi relies on statistical evaluation of values in OLAP dimension tables. Helfman relies on explicitly defined metadata and hierarchy tables. None of these mechanisms examine structural attributes of a generic table, interpret positional or datatype metadata associated with selected columns, or derive ordering and intervening columns through structural analysis.
The Examiner agrees. The combination of Hiltz-Laforge, Higuchi, and Helfman does not teaches the newly added limitations of the independent claim. The Examiner introduced Shaked to the claim to teach extracting structural properties from the selected columns. See the above rejection of Claims 1 and 11 above. Thus, the combination of Helfman, Higuchi, Hiltz-Laforge and Shaked disclose the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 4/4/26