DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Original Application filed on April 24, 2023, and the Preliminary Amendment filed on May 16, 2023. All references to this application refer to the U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0267127 A1.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 21-40 are pending in this case. Claims 1-20 were cancelled via the Preliminary Amendment. Claims 21-40 were added via the Preliminary Amendment. Claims 21, 32, and 35 are the independent claims. Claims 21-40 are rejected, and claims 24, 25, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are objected to as being allowable subject to overcoming the non-statutory double patenting rejections indicated herein.
Priority
The present application is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/751,462, now U.S. Patent No. 11,663,230, which is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/343,462, now U.S. Patent No. 11,372,878, which is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Application No. 16/917,934, now U.S. Patent No. 11,068,494, filed July 1, 2020, which is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Application No. 16/404,682, now U.S. Patent No. 10,740,343, filed May 6, 2019, which is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Application No. 14/853,986, now U.S. Patent No. 10,282,452, filed September 14, 2015, which is a CONTINUATION of U.S. Application No. 12/419,328, now U.S. Patent No. 9,135,331, filed April 7, 2009 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. 61/042,904 filed Apr. 7, 2008.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on May 16, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39 begins with a lower case letter. It should be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,372,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below:
Present Application
USPAT 11,663,230
Comment
21. A method of displaying information about a set of items, the method comprising:
displaying, on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image,
wherein the image comprises a plurality of dimensions,
wherein the plurality of dimensions comprises a plurality of axes, and wherein each of the plurality of axes represents at least one type of information in the plurality of types of information.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises one or more types of information in the plurality of types of information.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
1. A method of displaying information about a set of items, the method comprising:
displaying, on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items;
depicting, on the graphical user interface, a plurality of dimensions of the image,
wherein the plurality of dimensions comprises a plurality of axes, and wherein each of the plurality of axes represents at least one type of information in the plurality of types of information;
selectively suppressing display of one or more types of information in the plurality of types of information; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
Claim 1 of the ‘230 Patent comprises the combination of claims 21, 22, and 24 of the present application
Same
In the ‘230 Patent, there are two suppression clauses, both toward the end of the claim. The first is directed to broadly suppressing types of information (akin to aspects), which is further clarified in claim 22 (see below). The second suppression clause is directed to suppression of dimensions. However, claim 24 recites that aspects comprise at least one dimension (see below), thus the combination of claims 21 and 24 teach selective suppression of dimensions.
Minor wording differences, but the scope remains similar (e.g., displaying an image with a plurality of dimensions)
Same
Claim 22 recites aspects == types of information
Claim 24 recites aspects == at least one of the plurality of dimensions
Accordingly, these are obvious variants of each other.
32. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed;
displaying, in the at least two dimensions on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items;
depicting, as a first dimension of the at least two dimensions, a first axis representing either a ranking or a jurisdiction; and
depicting, at predetermined locations on the graphical user interface, one or more indicators representing a plurality of items from the set of items, wherein each item of the plurality of items represents either a physical object or data representing a physical object.
33. The system of claim 32, wherein the set of steps further comprises: depicting, as a second dimension of the at least two dimensions, a second axis representing one or more years.
11. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed;
displaying, in the at least two dimensions on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items;
depicting, as a first dimension of the at least two dimensions, a first axis representing time;
depicting, as a second dimension of the at least two dimensions, a second axis representing either a ranking or a jurisdiction; and
depicting, at predetermined locations on the graphical user interface, indicia representing a plurality of items from the set of items, wherein each item of the plurality of items represents either a physical object or data representing a physical object.
Claim 11 of the ‘230 Patent comprises the combination of claims 32 and 33 of the present application
Same
Same
Same
This aspect appears in slightly different form in claim 33 (see below) (as well as being reversed).
The labels of the dimensions are swapped (first vs. second)
Indicia vs. indicators (essentially the same scope)
In claim 33, the second dimension represents years (instead of time), and is therefore slightly more specific, but remains an obvious variant.
35. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
generating an image;
displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image, wherein the displaying comprises
depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes
represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image.
37. The system of claim 35, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
40. The system of claim 35, wherein each of the plurality of axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions.
16. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
generating an image;
displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image, wherein the displaying comprises:
depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes:
corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions,
represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items, and
reflects content of, or relationships between, the individual items;
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the one or more types of information; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
Claim 16 of the ‘230 Patent comprises the combination of claims 35, 37, and 40 of the present application
This language appears in claims 37 and 40.
This aspect is not recited in this branch of the present claimset, but is obvious that the axes of the chart would reflect either content of or relationships between items
In view of claims 37 and 40, which recite the aspect (to be suppressed) comprises one of the dimensions (claim 37), and further, that claim 40 recites each axis corresponds to one of the dimensions, the combination of claims 35, 37, and 40 is an obvious variant of ‘230 claim 16
Claims 35, 37, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,372,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below:
Present Application
USPAT 11,372,878
Comment
35. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
generating an image;
displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image,
wherein the displaying comprises
depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes
represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image.
37. The system of claim 35, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
40. The system of claim 35, wherein each of the plurality of axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions.
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions operative to cause the machine to perform a method of displaying different types of information about a set of items, the method corresponding to the instructions comprising:
generating an image based on a plurality of dimensions for displaying the image;
displaying the image and the plurality of dimensions,
wherein the displaying further comprises:
depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes
corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions, and
wherein each of the plurality of axes represent one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items and which are reflective of content of, or relationships between, the individual items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the one or more types of information,
wherein the instructions further comprise selectively suppressing display of at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
The primary difference between the present application claim and the ‘878 claim is that they belong to different statutory categories (system vs CRM). Therefore, the system first limitation includes additional elements (computer, processor) and the CRM which is the ‘878 claim embodiment. The body of the claim (beginning with “generating an image…” is essentially identical between the two claims, with only slight differences in wording.
Accordingly, these are obvious variants of each other.
Some additional language in the ‘878 claim that does not impact scope
Same
‘878 recites “further comprising”
Same
This language appears in claims 37 and 40.
This aspect is not recited in this branch of the present claimset, but is obvious that the axes of the chart would reflect either content of or relationships between items
In view of claims 37 and 40, which recite the aspect (to be suppressed) comprises one of the dimensions (claim 37), and further, that claim 40 recites each axis corresponds to one of the dimensions, the combination of claims 35, 37, and 40 is an obvious variant of ‘878 claim 1
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,068,494, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0091679 A1, filed by Wright on January 9, 2001, and published on July 11, 2002 (hereinafter Wright) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0118214 A1, filed by Card et al., on December 21, 2000, and published on August 29, 2002 (hereinafter Card). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below:
Present Application
USPAT 11,068,494
Comment
32. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed;
displaying, in the at least two dimensions on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items;
depicting, as a first dimension of the at least two dimensions, a first axis representing either a ranking or a jurisdiction; and
depicting, at predetermined locations on the graphical user interface, one or more indicators representing a plurality of items from the set of items, wherein each item of the plurality of items represents either a physical object or data representing a physical object.
33. The system of claim 32, wherein the set of steps further comprises: depicting, as a second dimension of the at least two dimensions, a second axis representing one or more years.
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions operative to cause the machine to perform a method of displaying different types of information about a set of items, the method corresponding to the instructions comprising:
selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed;
displaying, on a graphical user interface, an image comprising the different types of information about the set of items in the at least two dimensions based on at least the selected at least two dimensions;
depicting, as a first dimension of the image, a first axis representing time;
depicting, as a second dimension of the image, a second axis representing one of a ranking and a jurisdiction;
depicting indicia representing individual ones from the set of items at respective locations on a two-dimensional display area, wherein each item represents either a physical object or data representing a physical object;
depicting a plurality of types of information associated with the individual items and which are reflective of content of, or relationships between, the individual items, the types of information being displayed as a plurality of visual attributes of the indicia; and
receiving a designation of one amongst the indicia.
The primary difference between the present application claim and the ‘494 claim is that they belong to different statutory categories (system vs CRM). Therefore, the system first limitation includes additional elements (computer, processor) and the CRM which is the ‘494 claim embodiment. The body of the claim (beginning with “selecting at least two…” is essentially identical between the two claims, with only slight differences in wording.
Same
The ‘494 limitation includes some additional descriptive language that does not impact scope.
This aspect appears in slightly different form in claim 33 (see below) (as well as being reversed).
Slight differences in wording (predetermined vs. respective and indicia vs. indicators).
The present claims fail to teach these last two limitations. However, Wright teaches them. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, having the present application and Ref2 before them at the time of invention, would have been motivated to incorporate presenting visual attributes of the data. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because this allows users to more easily grasp relationships between objects, as taught by Wright (see Wright, paragraph 0006)
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further combine the teachings of Card to teach selection of a node. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this presents a more effective display of linked objects, as taught by Card (see Card, paragraph 0006).
In claim 33, the second dimension represents years (instead of time), and is therefore slightly more specific, but remains an obvious variant.
Claims 35 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,068,494. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below:
Present Application
USPAT 11,068,494
Comment
35. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
generating an image;
displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image,
wherein the displaying comprises depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes
represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image.
39. the system of claim 35, wherein the one or more types of information is selected by a user.
6. A method of displaying different types of information about a set of items, the method comprising:
generating an image based on a plurality of dimensions for displaying the image;
displaying the image and the plurality of dimensions, wherein the displaying further comprises:
depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions, and
wherein each of the plurality of axes represent one or more types of information associated with the individual items and which are reflective of content of, or relationships between, the individual items,
the one or more types of information being selected by a user; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the one or more types of information.
The primary difference between the present application claim and the ‘494 claim is that they belong to different statutory categories (system vs method). Therefore, the system first limitation includes additional elements (computer, processor) and the method which is the ‘494 claim embodiment. The body of the claim (beginning with “generating an image…” is essentially identical between the two claims, with only slight differences in wording.
The ‘494 limitation includes some additional descriptive language that does not impact scope.
This aspect is not recited in this branch of the present claimset, but is obvious that the axes of the chart would reflect either content of or relationships between items
This appears in claim 39
In view of dep claim 39, the combination of claims 35 and 39 form an obvious variant of ‘494 claim 6
Claims 35 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,343. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described below:
Present Application
USPAT 10,740,343
Comment
35. A system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
at least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
generating an image;
displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image,
wherein the displaying comprises depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes
represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image.
39. the system of claim 35, wherein the one or more types of information is selected by a user.
1. A method of displaying different types of information about a set of items, the method comprising:
selecting a plurality of dimensions to be displayed, wherein the selecting is performed by a user;
generating an image based on the plurality of dimensions;
displaying the image including: depicting a plurality of axes,
wherein each of the plurality of axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions, and
wherein each of the plurality of axes represent one or more types of information associated with the individual items and which are reflective of content of, or relationships between, the individual items, the one or more types of information being selected by a user; and
selectively suppressing display of at least one of the one or more types of information associated with the plurality of axes.
The primary difference between the present application claim and the ‘878 claim is that they belong to different statutory categories (system vs method). Therefore, the system first limitation includes additional elements (computer, processor) and the method which is the ‘343 claim embodiment. The body of the claim (beginning with “selecting at least two…” is essentially identical between the two claims, with only slight differences in wording.
This language (selected by a user) appears in claim 39.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to for the following informalities:
Paragraph 0001 has not been updated to include the entire chain of priority. It begins with U.S. Application Serial No. 16/917,934, and therefore is missing the two most recent applications in the chain. The paragraph MUST be amended as follows:
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/751,462 filed May 23, 2022, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/343,794 filed Jun. 10, 2021, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/917,934 filed Jul. 1, 2020, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/404,682 filed May 6, 2019, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/853,986 filed Sep. 14, 2015, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/419,328 filed Apr. 7, 2009, which claims priority to US Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/042,904 filed Apr. 7, 2008, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Additionally, the Examiner recommends the following amendments to paragraph 0001:
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/751,462 filed May 23, 2022, now U.S. Pat No. 11,663,230, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/343,794 filed Jun. 10, 2021, now U.S. Pat No. 11,372,878, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/917,934 filed Jul. 1, 2020, now U.S. Pat No. 11,068,494, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/404,682 filed May 6, 2019, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,740,343, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/853,986 filed Sep. 14, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,282,452, which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/419,328 filed Apr. 7, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,135,331, which claims priority to US Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/042,904 filed Apr. 7, 2008, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
This is merely a recommendation; correction is not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 21-23, 26-29, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0215496 A1, filed by Hockley et al., on October 13, 2006, and published on September 4, 2008 (hereinafter Hockley).
With respect to independent claim 21, Hockley discloses a method of displaying information about a set of items, the method comprising:
Displaying, on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items; Hockley discloses displaying an image on a GUI comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021 [describing generally the GUIs of Figs. 1 and 2, in which a 2D bubble chart is presented (here, for securities) with a plurality of different dimensions of data, such as industry, rating, yield, etc.; the depicted dimensional attributes can be toggled on/off by clicking the checkboxes, the axes can be changed by selecting different metrics for the X and Y values, etc., the icons representing the items include a plurality of attributes presented by the positioning of the icons within the chart, the size of each icon, and the fill of each icon, each representing a different attribute or dimension of the item]).
Selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image, Hockley discloses selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra).
Wherein the image comprises a plurality of dimensions, wherein the plurality of dimensions comprises a plurality of axes, and wherein each of the plurality of axes represents at least one type of information in the plurality of types of information; Hockley discloses depicting a plurality of dimensions of the image, wherein the dimensions are represented as axes of the chart, each axis representing one or more of the types of information (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra).
With respect to dependent claim 22, Hockley discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises one or more types of information in the plurality of types of information.
Hockley discloses the aspect of the image comprising one or more types of information (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21)
With respect to dependent claim 23, Hockley discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: reintroducing the selectively suppressed display of the one or more types of information in the plurality of types of information.
Hockley discloses reintroducing a previously suppressed display (e.g., toggle on/off) of at least one aspect of the image (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
With respect to dependent claim 26, Hockley discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the plurality of axes reflects content of a plurality of items in the set of items.
Hockley discloses that the plurality of axes reflect content of a plurality of items in the set (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to dependent claim 27, Hockley discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the plurality of axes reflects one or more relationships between a plurality of items in the set of items.
Hockley discloses that the plurality of axes reflect relationships between a plurality of items in the set (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
With respect to dependent claim 28, Hockley discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: displaying a set of icons, the set of icons located on a plane defined by a first axis and a second axis in the plurality of axes, wherein the set of icons represents a plurality of subject items.
Hockley discloses displaying the icons on a plane defined by the X and Y axes, the set of icons representing data representing a physical object (e.g., a security or other financial object) (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to dependent claim 29, Hockley discloses the method of claim 28, wherein each subject item in the plurality of subject items represents at least one of: a physical object, and data representing a physical object.
Hockley discloses the set of icons representing data representing a physical object (e.g., a security or other financial object) (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to independent claim 35, Hockley discloses a system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
At least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
Generating an image; Hockley discloses displaying an image on a GUI comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
Displaying the image and a plurality of dimensions of the image, wherein the displaying comprises depicting a plurality of axes, wherein each of the plurality of axes represents one or more types of information associated with individual items in the set of items; Hockley discloses depicting a plurality of dimensions of the image, wherein the dimensions are represented as axes of the chart, each axis representing one or more of the types of information (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
Selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image; Hockley discloses selectively suppressing display of at least one aspect of the image (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
With respect to dependent claim 36, Hockley discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the one or more types of information.
Hockley discloses the aspect of the image comprising one or more types of information (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21)
With respect to dependent claim 39, Hockley discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the one or more types of information is selected by a user.
Hockley discloses the types of information are selected by a user (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
With respect to dependent claim 40, Hockley discloses the method of claim 35, wherein each of the plurality of axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions.
Hockley discloses each of the axes corresponds to one of the plurality of dimensions (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Wright.
With respect to dependent claim 30, Hockley discloses method of claim 28, as described above.
Hockley fails to expressly disclose the method further comprising: depicting, on the plurality of dimensions, one or more connectors between members of the set of icons, thereby indicating a relation therebetween.
However, Wright teaches a search method for searching linked objects and presenting the results in a GUI with axes representing dimensions, icons representing objects, colors representing various attributes or dimensions of each object, and links between objects represented either as connectors (lines) or as arrows (indicating a citation or source direction) (see Wright, Fig. 2; see also, Wright, paragraphs 0007 [provides valuable information to users about interrelatedness of objects], 0010 [links between objects are displayed by connectors comprising link display properties which define linking object type, target object type, and link type], 0014 [defining link to refer to a reference by one object to another; links can be one-way or two-way], 0016 [defining display attributes, such as color, shape, size, position, highlighting, flags, labels, etc.], 0019 [defining connector as a visual depiction of a link, such as by lines or arrows], and 0035 [links between objects can be colored to indicate different attributes (positive, negative, etc.)]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hockley and Wright before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of Hockley to incorporate displaying representative connectors as taught by Wright, in order to visually depict relationships between linked objects. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this allows users to more easily grasp relationships between objects, as taught by Wright (see Wright, paragraph 0006 [“A need remains for a computer-based method of searching through large quantities of data that allows the user to effectively and quickly pick out only the items of interest to the task at hand.”]).
Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Card.
With respect to dependent claim 31, Hockley discloses method of claim 28, as described above.
Hockley fails to expressly disclose the method further comprising: arranging a selected member of the set of icons such that the selected member contacts a border depicted on the graphical user interface.
interface.
However, Card teaches a presentation of linked objects based on user interest by receiving a designation of a focus node, arranging it within the display to be substantially aligned within a border of the 2D area, and further, arranging the other items based (e.g., around) the focus node (see Card, paragraph 0016 [user designates a focus node, and the visualization is recalculated and re-rendered based on the new focus node] and 0048 [describing the process of Fig. 1, which renders the visualization based on the determined focus node]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hockley and Card before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of Hockley, to incorporate arranging items within the 2D area based on a selected node of interest as taught by Card. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this presents a more effective display of linked objects, as taught by Card (see Card, paragraph 0006 [“Despite such methods and techniques there remains a need to effectively display and extract useful information from large bodies of linked data.”]).
It would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that trees (or nodes of trees) can be arranged or aligned in any manner without impacting the structure of the tree. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to move a selected node to be moved into contact with any side of the out perimeter and arrange the remainder of the nodes based on the selected node’s location. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see also, MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 32 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494, issued to Egger et al., on November 3, 1998, and filed on May 17, 1996 (hereinafter Egger).
With respect to independent claim 32, Hockley discloses a system for displaying information about a set of items, the system comprising:
At least one computer comprising at least one processor operatively connected to at least one non-transitory, computer readable medium, the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer executable instructions carry out a set of steps comprising:
Selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed; Hockley discloses displaying a 2D image comprising different types of information about a set of items and selecting at least two dimensions to be displayed (see Hockley, Figs. 1 and 2; see also, Hockley, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
Displaying, in the at least two dimensions on a graphical user interface, an image comprising a plurality of types of information about a set of items; Hockley discloses depicting an image comprising the plurality of types of information (see Hockley, Figs. 1 and 2; see also, Hockley, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
Although Hockley discloses that the user can select the dimension for the second axis via drop lists, which are populated with the variables from a database (see Hockley, paragraph 0013, described supra, claim 21), Hockley fails to expressly disclose depicting, as a first dimension of the at least two dimensions, a first axis representing either a ranking or a jurisdiction.
However, Egger teaches a research tool for indexing, searching, and displaying data, such as for legal research, in which a second dimension represents a ranking or jurisdiction (see Egger, Figs. 5B-G, 8 (split up as 8-1 to 8-4), 10A (split up as 10A-1 to 10A-4), 10B (split up as 10B-1 to 10B-4), 10C (split up as 10C-1 to 10C-4); see also, Egger, col. 13, line 44-col. 14, line 19 [describing the application of proximity indexing to legal research to determine patterns of legal opinions in terms of their citation history and similarity], col. 15, lines 47-64 [describing the numerical weighting factors, such as importance—as an example, a Supreme Court object has greater influence than a District Court object], and col. 30, lines 23-43 [describing the concept of Shepardizing cases, a method of reviewing forward citations that refer to the present case)]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hockley and Egger before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of Hockley to include research tools and visualizations in which a second axis represents item rankings or jurisdictions of published legal documents, as taught by Egger. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this allows users to search published legal opinions, as taught by Egger (see Egger, col. 2, line 43-col. 3, line 16 [describing the various needs in the art for improved computer research techniques]).
Hockley, as modified by Egger, further teaches depicting, at predetermined locations on the graphical user interface, one or more indicators representing a plurality of items from the set of items, wherein each item of the plurality of items represents either a physical object or data representing a physical object.
Hockley further teaches displaying icons representing individual items of the set of items at respective locations within the 2D chart, each item representing a physical object or data representing a physical object (see Hockley, Figs. 1 and 2; see also, Hockley, paragraphs 0012-0021, described supra, claim 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are indicated as allowable, subject to overcoming the non-statutory double patenting rejections described above.
The Examiner has carefully examined claims 24, 25, 33, 34, 37, and 38. The closest prior art references of record are Hockley, Wright, Card, Egger, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0227458 A1 (hereinafter Page), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0106847 A1 (hereinafter Eckardt).
Claims 24, 25, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are indicated as allowable over Hockley, Wright, Card, Egger, Page, and Eckardt at least because the cited combination of references does not teach or suggest the following limitations, recited in one form or another, by claims 24, 25, 33, 34, 37, and 38:
(claim 24) wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
(claim 25) wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises: one or more types of information in the plurality of types of information, and at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
(claim 33) The system of claim 32, wherein the set of steps further comprises: depicting, as a second dimension of the at least two dimensions, a second axis representing one or more years.
(claim 34) The system of claim 32, wherein the set of steps further comprises: selectively suppressing display of at least one of the plurality of types of information.
(claim 37) The system of claim 35, wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
(claim 38) wherein the at least one aspect of the image comprises: at least one of the one or more types of information, and at least one of the plurality of dimensions.
The Examiner notes that it is not the above limitations in isolation, but rather these limitations as they appear in the specific combinations recited in the independent claims, which defines the indicated allowability of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC J. BYCER whose telephone number is (571) 270-3741. The Examiner can normally be reached