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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sacerdoti (U.S. Patent 6,222,540) in view of Marco (U.S. Publication 2023/0305679) and further in view of Glendenning (U.S. Publication 2017/0098154).
As to claim 1, Sacerdoti discloses a method comprising:
generating a first graphic object on a digital canvas (fig. 4; col. 7, lines 10-26; col. 8, lines 39-60; graphic objects are selected by a user for display and generated to plot on a graph);
adding a data set including data associated with a plurality of variables to a data panel of the digital canvas (fig. 4, element 40; col. 7, lines 35-52; variables are added to the left data panel of the interface/canvas manually or based on spreadsheet elements);
receiving a selection of a variable from the plurality of variables on the data panel (col. 8, lines 2-11; a user selects a variable from the variable choices with a mouse);
connecting the variable and a cursor position on the digital canvas (col. 8, lines 2-11; col. 9, lines 6-16; col. 10, lines 40-46; col. 11, lines 25-37; a variable is connected to a position associated with an attribute using a drag of the mouse cursor);
receiving a selection of a visual property of the first graphic object using the cursor, wherein, upon selection of the visual property, the first graphic object is linked to the data panel (col. 8, lines 2-60; col. 9, lines 6-16; col. 10, lines 40-46; col. 11, lines 25-37; based on the user’s selection of a property/attribute, such as an axis to plot the variable on, or a color, the graphic object is displayed in a manner linked to the user’s selections from the panel, including the variable and the property/attribute);
and generating a chart comprising the first graphic object and one or more new graphic objects, based on the variable and the visual property of the first graphic object (fig. 4; col. 8, lines 2-60; col. 16, lines 14-19; col. 17, lines 25-33; a user can choose multiple variables or sets, each corresponding to its own graphic object on the chart; the additional objects would read on “new” objects based on the user selected variable and would be displayed based on the properties/attributes selected by the user).
Sacerdoti discloses the link/connection created by a user manipulating a mouse cursor, as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose that the link/connection is represented via a generated second graphic object. Marco, however, does disclose such a graphic object representing the connection between a graphic object and variable when a user drags a cursor (fig. 6a; p. 7, section 0079; a graphical line connection is made between a graphic object variable on a chart and another variable). The motivation for this is that visual cues can aid a user in the creating the connection. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacerdoti to have the link/connection represented via a generated second graphic object in order to aid a user in creating a connection as taught by Marco.
Sacerdoti does not disclose, but Glendenning discloses wherein the one or more new graphic objects are generated by duplicating the first graphic object (fig. 10; p. 12, section 0122; p. 15, section 0189; an element, which as can be seen from the figure and corresponding text, is a graphic object placed in a graph; a new object can be created by duplicating a first object through a menu). The motivation for this is that it takes fewer steps to duplicate an object as opposed to adding another object and changing its properties (p. 19, section 0315). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacerdoti and Marco to have the one or more new graphic objects generated by duplicating the first graphic object in order to reduce a number of steps as taught by Glendenning.
As to claim 3, Sacerdoti discloses wherein receiving a selection of a visual property of the first graphic object using the cursor, further comprises: displaying one or more visual properties of the first graphic object in a properties panel (fig. 4, element 42; visual properties such as color/intensity, position/axis placement, and size are shown in a panel); and receiving the selection of the visual property via a selection of one of the properties in the properties panel (fig. 4, element 42; col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 11; col. 9, lines 6-16; col. 10, lines 41-46; a user selects the property/attribute by dragging to the selected property/attribute in the panel).
As to claim 4, Sacerdoti discloses wherein the visual property includes one or more of color, position, area, or size of the first graphic object (fig. 4, element 42; the visual properties a user can drag to include color/intensity, position/axis placement, and size which would also correspond to area).
As to claim 8, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Sacerdoti discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations (col. 6, lines 25-49).
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 4.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sacerdoti in view of Marco and Glendenning and further in view of Kerr (U.S. Publication 2019/0114817).
As to claim 2, Sacerdoti does not disclose, but Kerr discloses, wherein receiving a selection of a visual property of the first graphic object using the cursor, further comprises: highlighting one or more connection points on the first graphic object on the digital canvas; and receiving the selection of the visual property via a selection of one of the connection points on the first graphic object (figs. 11a-c; p. 12, section 0097-p. 14, section 0109; anchor points act as connection points and are highlighted such that a user can select them, as can be seen from the diamond and square shaped points in the figures; the anchor/connection points can be selected and used to define a visual property of a graphic object; for example, the position of the object relative to another object). The motivation for this is to allow creation of fixed relationships between objects with visual properties bound to data values (p. 13, section 0103). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacerdoti, Marco, and Glendenning to highlight one or more connection points on the first graphic object on the digital canvas and receive the selection of the visual property via a selection of one of the connection points on the first graphic object in order to allow creation of fixed relationships between objects with visual properties bound to data values as taught by Kerr.
As to claim 9, see the rejection to claim 2.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sacerdoti in view of Marco and Glendenning and further in view of Singh (U.S. Publication 2018/0025073).
As to claim 5, Sacerdoti does not disclose, but Singh discloses receiving a selection of the chart; and duplicating the chart to create a second chart, wherein the chart and the second chart are both bound to the variable associated with the data set (figs. 22, 23, 25, and 26; p. 5, sections 0068-0069; p. 6, sections 0086-0087; p. 24, section 0347; p. 24, section 0352; a user selects a visualization of data/variables; by duplicating an existing graph/chart, an initial modified graph/chart is created with the same variables/nodes shown/bound to it from the data set). The motivation for this is to take advantage of the similarity between various graphs to be analyzed or reproduced (p. 19, sections 0287-0288). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacerdoti, Marco, and Glendenning to receive a selection of the chart and duplicate the chart to create a second chart, wherein the chart and the second chart are both bound to the variable associated with the data set in order to take advantage of the similarity between various graphs to be analyzed or reproduced as taught by Singh.
As to claim 6, Sacerdoti discloses a method further comprising: receiving a selection of a second variable from a second data set (col. 7, lines 10-52; col. 8, lines 2-11; a user selects a variable from the variable choices with a mouse; multiple inputs are received selecting multiple variables from multiple stock datasets, any of which could read on the “second variable” and “second data set”); connecting the selected second variable and the cursor position (col. 8, lines 2-11; col. 9, lines 6-16; col. 10, lines 40-46; col. 11, lines 25-37; each variable is connected to a position associated with each attribute using a drag of the mouse cursor); receiving a selection of a second visual property of a second graphic object of the second chart using the cursor (col. 7, lines 10-52; col. 8, lines 2-60; col. 9, lines 6-16; col. 10, lines 40-46; col. 11, lines 25-37; based on the user’s selection of a property/attribute, such as an axis to plot the variable on, or a color, the graphic object is displayed in a manner linked to the user’s selections from the panel, including the variable and the property/attribute; multiple inputs are received selecting multiple properties/attributes of multiple graphic objects for different chart types, any of which could read on the “second visual property” and “second graphic object of the second chart”); and updating the second chart based on the second variable of the second data set and the second visual property (col. 11, lines 25-37; each chart is updated as each variable is correlated to each attribute/property). Sacerdoti discloses the link/connection created by a user manipulating a mouse cursor, but does not explicitly disclose that the link/connection is represented via a generated third graphic object. Marco, however, does disclose such a graphic object representing the connection between a graphic object and variable when a user drags a cursor (fig. 6a; fig. 7; p. 7, section 0079; p. 7, section 0083; connection is made between a graphic object variable on a chart and another variable; additional connections create additional graphic objects, any of which can read on the “the third graphic object”). Motivation for the combination of references is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sacerdoti in view of Marco, Glendenning, and Singh and further in view of Malik (U.S. Publication 2004/0085316).
As to claim 7, Sacerdoti does not disclose, but Malik discloses wherein updating the second chart based on the second variable and the second visual property, further comprises: determining a label associated with the variable of the data set and the second variable of the second data set do not match (figs. 3-4; p. 3, section 0036; it is determined that different labels exist for a graphed first variable in a data set vs. a graphed second variable in a second data set; for example, a brand vs. a month of sales for the brand); receiving an instruction that maps the second variable to the second chart; and modifying the second visual property of the second chart based on the instruction (figs. 3-4; p. 3, section 0036; if the variables can be linked/mapped, they are, and labels on the line chart or bar chart, which read on a visual property of that chart, can be configured to be modified so that they are identified correspondingly). The motivation for this is that this allows the framework to better assist a user in identifying data relationships (p. 2, section 0034). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sacerdoti, Marco, Glendenning, and Singh to determine a label associated with the variable of the data set and the second variable of the second data set do not match, receive an instruction that maps the second variable to the second chart, and modify the second visual property of the second chart based on the instruction in order to better assist a user in identifying data relationships as taught by Malik.
As to claim 14, see the rejection to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication 2011/0055744 to Ryan, which illustrates a line corresponding to a user dragging a mouse cursor to bind a data model attribute to a GUI element (see fig. 1a and section 0025).
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 AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617