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 Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed on 5 March 2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 are amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN2010723442.4, filed on 24 July 2020.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed on 5 March 2026, have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive.
Applicants argued that the references do not teach newly added claim limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Thompson discloses “wherein each of the first data, the second data, the third data, and the fourth data is displayed as a node” (Thompson: column 38, lines 55-67, “At block 412, the resource dependency system may generate user interface data for rendering a user interface that includes the visual node graph (e.g., such as the visual node graphs shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B) and present it to the user.” Fig. 3A displays multiple nodes in the visual node graph.
Reuter discloses “wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency” (Reuter: paragraph [0045], “…nodes may be represented by solid color blocks having a text label overlaid thereon. Typically, the label is descriptive of the taxonomy category represented by the node. Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region 410. For example, nodes may be displayed with an apparent transparency that increases based on the number of node hops each displayed node is from the selected node. E.g. a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent); nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity; nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency; and so on. In some embodiments, adaptive stylization schemes may include threshold node distance levels or other nonlinearities; for example, transparency may vary over the first three degrees of node distance, after which transparency may be maintained at a constant level…”
WHERE “grandparent nodes have a first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent)”
WHERE “grandparent nodes have a first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent)”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency”
Applicant argued “Reuter, paragraph 45 (emphases added). As shown above, Reuter defines transparency dynamically based on the number of hops from a user-selected node, i.e., a node temporarily selected by the user. Any node, including a leaf node with no children, may be selected, and its transparency changes depending on which node is chosen as the current focus. Consequently, the same node may appear with different transparency levels at different times depending solely on which node is selected. Thus, Reuter's transparency is based on distance from the selected node (user-selected) and does not reflect hierarchical lineage, nor does it assign transparency based on fixed generational roles such as grandparent, parent, child, or grandchild. Thus, the Examiner improperly maps "selected node" to "grandparent node" as Reuter has no concept of fixed "grandparent-to-parent" relationships that maintain consistent transparency. As such, Reuter fails to disclose that outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency, as claimed. Therefore, the combination of Thompson, Silva, Asano, and Reuter fails to disclose at least one limitation of independent claims 1, 5, and 9, and consequently fails to render obvious claims 1-20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
a. Applicants are arguing subject matter that is not recited in the claim language.
The claim language merely recites “wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency”
The claim language merely recites “grandparent nodes,” “parent nodes” and “grandchild nodes,” it does not recite “grandparent nodes,” “parent nodes” and “grandchild nodes” have any “role” or function. At the most, these terms indicates number of hops between them.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation:
“grandparent nodes” is broadly interpreted as “a selected node,”
“parent nodes” is broadly interpreted as “nodes one hop from the selected node” and
“grandchild nodes,” is broadly interpreted as “nodes two hops from the selected node”
The argued “hierarchical lineage” is broadly interpreted as the number of “hops” from the selected node.
Further, Reuter, paragraph [0038], discloses “FIG. 4A illustrates examples of categories within a hierarchical Industry taxonomy. The hierarchy of FIG. 4A includes a top-level 480 having top-level node 480A (typically the name of the taxonomy). A second hierarchy level 481 (typically containing a broadest set of classifications within the taxonomy), includes in this example seven categories 481A-G. Categories 481E, 481F and 481G include subcategories within hierarchy level 482. Category 482A includes further subcategories within hierarchy level 483. In practice, various taxonomies can include varying numbers of categories across various numbers of hierarchy levels…” which clearly discloses hierarchical relationship between nodes.
b. Applicant is arguing subject matter that is not recited in the claim limitation (e.g. it does not explicitly disclose “hierarchical relationships among nodes” is “fixed”)”
The claim language merely recites “grandparent nodes,” “parent nodes” and “grandchild nodes.” Merely naming a node as “grandparent nodes” does not define “grandparent nodes” is the root node or top node (e.g. “grandparent nodes” can have great-grandfather node)
c. Applicant argued “Thus, Reuter's transparency is based on distance from the selected node (user-selected) and does not reflect hierarchical lineage, nor does it assign transparency based on fixed generational roles such as grandparent, parent, child, or grandchild. Thus, the Examiner improperly maps "selected node" to "grandparent node" as Reuter has no concept of fixed "grandparent-to-parent" relationships that maintain consistent transparency.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It may be considered “dynamic” before the node is selected. But once the node is selected, Reuter’s transparency level is based on hierarchical relationships among nodes and near-far hierarchical relationship between other nodes and the selected node, which can be interpreted as “fixed” to the system (Reuter: paragraph [0045], “…an apparent transparency that increases based on the number of node hops each displayed node is from the selected node…”).
As long as user does not change “selected node,” the nodes, having "grandparent-to-parent" relationships, maintain consistent transparency.
Further, “dynamic” is advanced feature, because “dynamic” comprise multiple “fixed” with an additional adjustable/selectable feature. When the “selected node” is the grandparent node, then level of transparency of nodes changes based on near-far hierarchical relationship.
The replies to the above arguments are equally applied to other similar arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency…” Examiner could not find support in Specification and drawings. At the most, Specification discloses a single “grandparent node” (See Specification: paragraph [0113], merely discloses “…For example, a color of an outer frame of a grandparent node is red, and transparency is 0%...” and paragraph [0113], merely discloses “For example, colors of a bus and line segments between a grandparent node and a parent node is red, and transparency is 10%.”)
For claims 5 and 9, they are having similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Thus, claims 5 and 9 are also rejected under the same reason as provided in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-20 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 11003645, hereinafter Thompson), in view of Silva et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 10877946, hereinafter Silva), and further in view of Asano et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6222559, hereinafter Asano), and further in view of Reuter et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: US 20180060820, hereinafter Reuter).
For claim 1, Thompson discloses a data lineage presentation method, comprising:
receiving, by a service node, first data, second data, third data, and fourth data, wherein the first data and the second data are data at a same first level, wherein the third data and the fourth data are data at a same second level, wherein each of the first data, the second data, the third data, and the fourth data is displayed as a node, wherein the first data is a first parent node of the third data, wherein the second data is a second parent node of the fourth data, wherein the first data is displayed at a first location in a first row/column of a display interface, and wherein the second data is displayed at a second location in the first row/column of the display interface (Thompson: column 38, lines 55-67, “At block 412, the resource dependency system may generate user interface data for rendering a user interface that includes the visual node graph (e.g., such as the visual node graphs shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B) and present it to the user.”
WHERE “service node” is broadly interpreted as “resource dependency system”,
column 29, lines 20-45, “In some implementations, the column lineage of a target column can be represented as a graph the defines the relationships between the source column(s) and the target column, in which the nodes represent the columns, and the edges represent the derivation dependency (e.g., mapping, database operation, function) between the columns, such that if two nodes are connected by the edge, then the column referenced by the second node is a child of the column referenced by the first node, and the edge connecting the two nodes indicates the derivation dependency between the two columns. When the column lineage of the target column includes existing column lineage metadata of the source column(s), additional nodes and edges are included in the graph to represent ancestors of the source column(s) and their respective derivation dependencies…”
column 43, lines 9-46, “FIGS. 6A-6C also illustrate example user interfaces associated with allowing resources represented in a visual node graph to be grouped and displayed based on various schemes, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. FIGS. 6A-6C are discussed together …”
See Fig. 6A,
WHERE “first data” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-7,”
WHERE “second data” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-8,”
WHERE “the first data and the second data are data at a same first level” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-7” and “Dataset-8” which are at same level,
WHERE “third data” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-15” (has “Dataset-7” as parent)
WHERE “fourth data” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-17” (has “Dataset-8” as parent));
instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, a terminal device to display the third data at a third location in a second row/column of the display interface, wherein the third location that is close to the first location; and instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, the terminal device to display the fourth data at a fourth location in a remaining location in the second row/column therein the fourth is close to the second location (Thompson: column 29, lines 20-45, “In some implementations, the column lineage of a target column can be represented as a graph the defines the relationships between the source column(s) and the target column, in which the nodes represent the columns, and the edges represent the derivation dependency (e.g., mapping, database operation, function) between the columns, such that if two nodes are connected by the edge, then the column referenced by the second node is a child of the column referenced by the first node, and the edge connecting the two nodes indicates the derivation dependency between the two columns. When the column lineage of the target column includes existing column lineage metadata of the source column(s), additional nodes and edges are included in the graph to represent ancestors of the source column(s) and their respective derivation dependencies…”
column 43, lines 9-46, “FIGS. 6A-6C also illustrate example user interfaces associated with allowing resources represented in a visual node graph to be grouped and displayed based on various schemes, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. FIGS. 6A-6C are discussed together…”
See Fig. 6A,
WHERE “wherein the third location that is close to the first location” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-15” is closed to “Dataset-7” (parent),
WHERE “therein the fourth is close to the second location” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-17” is close to “Dataset-8” (parent));
However, Thompson does not explicitly disclose obtaining, via the display interface, a data lineage presentation operation entered by a user,
wherein a spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is decreased when a quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is equal to n, wherein the spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is increased when the quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is greater than n, and wherein n is a natural number; and
representing a near-far relationship of lineage by setting a transparency level of outer frame of each node based on hierarchical distance, wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency.
Silva discloses obtaining, via the display interface, a data lineage presentation operation entered by a user (Silva: column 10, lines 15-55, “…in response to the user selecting node 414 in FIG. 4A, additional child nodes of the selected node 414 are revealed. Nodes 422, 424, 426, 428, and 430 are now visible. In this way, the user can control the level of granularity that he or she uses when reviewing clustered node information… The columns comprise individual nodes 450, 460, 462, and 464. Since node number 430 was selected in FIG. 4B, the grid-based user interface expands the content of that node to allow for greater inspection…” See Fig. 4A and 4B,
WHERE “a data lineage presentation operation” is broadly interpreted as “user selecting… additional child nodes of the selected node 414 are revealed. Nodes 422, 424, 426, 428, and 430 are now visible”).
Silva also discloses receiving, by a service node, first data, second data, third data, and fourth data, wherein the first data and the second data are data at a same first level, wherein the third data and the fourth data are data at a same second level, wherein the first data is a first parent node of the third data, wherein the second data is a second parent node of the fourth data, wherein the first data is displayed at a first location in a first row/column of a display interface, and wherein the second data is displayed at a second location in the first row/column of the display interface (Silva: column 3, lines 30-65, “An incident management system 120 is described herein that can present tree-based visualizations of hierarchical clustering to users and thereby enable them to efficiently respond to incidents. For example, the incident management system 120 can cause a graphical representation of a hierarchical tree of clustered incidents to be displayed to a user. The user can, through interacting with the nodes, determine the level of granularity needed to identify a proper response to a particular incident…The tree generator uses clustering functionality to cluster the combined incident records (e.g., both the current and historical incident data) into a plurality of nodes, and to arrange the nodes into a hierarchical tree…the tree generator can use other clustering functionality to create a hierarchical tree structure from the plurality of incident records. The output of the clustering program is a series of nodes (e.g., one or more clusters) that include one or more incident records that have commonalities…”
Column 9, lines 26-36, “FIG. 4A is a user interface diagram illustrating an example of a user interface that displays a graphic representation of a hierarchical tree, according to some embodiments. The tree includes a series of nodes (402 to 420), a node representing a cluster of incidents that have been grouped together based on certain characteristics. Nodes are connected to other nodes via edges. When two nodes are connected by an edge, the upper node is the parent node and the lower node is the child node. A parent node will include the incident records that are included in the child node.”
See Fig. 4A,
WHERE “first data” is broadly interpreted as “410,”
WHERE “second data” is broadly interpreted as “406,”
WHERE “the first data and the second data are data at a same first level” is broadly interpreted as “410” and “406” are at same level,
WHERE “third data” is broadly interpreted as “414” (has “410” as parent)
WHERE “fourth data” is broadly interpreted as “418” (has “406” as parent));
instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, a terminal device to display the third data at a third location in a second row/column of the display interface, wherein the third location that is close to the first location; and instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, the terminal device to display the fourth data at a fourth location in a remaining location in the second row/column therein the fourth is close to the second location (Silva: column 3, lines 30-65, “An incident management system 120 is described herein that can present tree-based visualizations of hierarchical clustering to users and thereby enable them to efficiently respond to incidents. For example, the incident management system 120 can cause a graphical representation of a hierarchical tree of clustered incidents to be displayed to a user. The user can, through interacting with the nodes, determine the level of granularity needed to identify a proper response to a particular incident…The tree generator uses clustering functionality to cluster the combined incident records (e.g., both the current and historical incident data) into a plurality of nodes, and to arrange the nodes into a hierarchical tree…the tree generator can use other clustering functionality to create a hierarchical tree structure from the plurality of incident records. The output of the clustering program is a series of nodes (e.g., one or more clusters) that include one or more incident records that have commonalities…”
column 10, lines 15-26, “…in response to the user selecting node 414 in FIG. 4A, additional child nodes of the selected node 414 are revealed. Nodes 422, 424, 426, 428, and 430 are now visible. In this way, the user can control the level of granularity that he or she uses when reviewing clustered node information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Efficient Incident Response Through Tree-based Visualizations Of Hierarchical Clustering” as taught by Silva, because it would provide Thompson’s method with the enhanced capability of “…the grid-based user interface expands the content of that node to allow for greater inspection…” (Silva: column 10, lines 45-55).
However, Thompson and Silva do not explicitly disclose wherein a spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is decreased when a quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is equal to n, wherein the spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is increased when the quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is greater than n, and wherein n is a natural number; and
representing a near-far relationship of lineage by setting a transparency level of outer frame of each node based on hierarchical distance, wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency.
Asano discloses wherein a spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is decreased when a quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is equal to n, wherein the spacing between the first row/column and the second row/column is increased when the quantity of buses required between the first row/column and the second row/column is greater than n, and wherein n is a natural number (Asano: column 2, lines 26-35, “(11) Additionally, the present invention calculates the radii of the circles on which the above-described nodes are arranged based on the number of lower layers. In this manner, even in large scale hierarchical structures having hundreds or thousands of nodes, or structures having an asymmetrical number of layers or number of nodes, along with increasing the space between nodes and links to make them easy to view, the nodes and links on the screen are easily manipulated by direct command.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Method And Apparatus For Display Of Hierarchical Structures” as taught by Asano, because it would provide Thompson’s modified method with the enhanced capability of “…increasing the space between nodes and links to make them easy to view…” (Asano: column 2, lines 26-34).
However, Thompson, Silva and Asano do not explicitly disclose representing a near-far relationship of lineage by setting a transparency level of outer frame of each node based on hierarchical distance, wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency.
Reuter discloses representing a near-far relationship of lineage by setting a transparency level of outer frame of each node based on hierarchical distance, wherein outer frames of grandparent nodes have a first transparency, wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency, wherein outer frames of child nodes have a third transparency greater than the second transparency, and wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency (Reuter: paragraph [0045], “…nodes may be represented by solid color blocks having a text label overlaid thereon. Typically, the label is descriptive of the taxonomy category represented by the node. Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region 410. For example, nodes may be displayed with an apparent transparency that increases based on the number of node hops each displayed node is from the selected node. E.g. a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent); nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity; nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency; and so on. In some embodiments, adaptive stylization schemes may include threshold node distance levels or other nonlinearities; for example, transparency may vary over the first three degrees of node distance, after which transparency may be maintained at a constant level…” where level of transparency of grandchildren is higher than their parent, and level of transparency of parent is higher than grandparent of the grandchildren,
WHERE “grandparent nodes have a first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent)”
WHERE “grandparent nodes have a first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent)”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of parent nodes have a second transparency greater than the first transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency”
WHERE “wherein outer frames of grandchild nodes have a fourth transparency greater than the third transparency” is broadly interpreted as “nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Career Exploration And Employment Search Tools Using Dynamic Node Network Visualization” as taught by Reuter, because it would provide Thompson’s modified method with the enhanced capability of “…Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region…” (Reuter: paragraph [0045]).
For claim 2, Thompson, Silva, Asano and Reuter disclose the data lineage presentation method of claim 1, further comprising, instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, the terminal device to display fifth data wherein the fifth data at a fifth location in a third row/column of the display interface, wherein the fifth location is close to the fourth location, and wherein the fourth data is a fourth parent node of the fifth data (Thompson: column 29, lines 20-45, “In some implementations, the column lineage of a target column can be represented as a graph the defines the relationships between the source column(s) and the target column, in which the nodes represent the columns, and the edges represent the derivation dependency (e.g., mapping, database operation, function) between the columns, such that if two nodes are connected by the edge, then the column referenced by the second node is a child of the column referenced by the first node, and the edge connecting the two nodes indicates the derivation dependency between the two columns. When the column lineage of the target column includes existing column lineage metadata of the source column(s), additional nodes and edges are included in the graph to represent ancestors of the source column(s) and their respective derivation dependencies…”
column 43, lines 9-46, “FIGS. 6A-6C also illustrate example user interfaces associated with allowing resources represented in a visual node graph to be grouped and displayed based on various schemes, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. FIGS. 6A-6C are discussed together …”
WHERE “fifth data wherein the fifth data at a fifth location in a third row/column” is broadly interpreted as “Dataset-26” which is close to “Dataset-17” (e.g. “fourth data” as parent of “fifth data”), and at third level).
Silva also disclose the data lineage presentation method of claim 1, further comprising, instructing, based on the data lineage presentation operation, the terminal device to display fifth data wherein the fifth data at a fifth location in a third row/column of the display interface, wherein the fifth location is close to the fourth location, and wherein the fourth data is a fourth parent node of the fifth data (Silva: column 3, lines 30-65, “An incident management system 120 is described herein that can present tree-based visualizations of hierarchical clustering to users and thereby enable them to efficiently respond to incidents. For example, the incident management system 120 can cause a graphical representation of a hierarchical tree of clustered incidents to be displayed to a user. The user can, through interacting with the nodes, determine the level of granularity needed to identify a proper response to a particular incident…The tree generator uses clustering functionality to cluster the combined incident records (e.g., both the current and historical incident data) into a plurality of nodes, and to arrange the nodes into a hierarchical tree…the tree generator can use other clustering functionality to create a hierarchical tree structure from the plurality of incident records. The output of the clustering program is a series of nodes (e.g., one or more clusters) that include one or more incident records that have commonalities…”
Column 9, lines 26-36, “FIG. 4A is a user interface diagram illustrating an example of a user interface that displays a graphic representation of a hierarchical tree, according to some embodiments. The tree includes a series of nodes (402 to 420), a node representing a cluster of incidents that have been grouped together based on certain characteristics. Nodes are connected to other nodes via edges. When two nodes are connected by an edge, the upper node is the parent node and the lower node is the child node. A parent node will include the incident records that are included in the child node.”
Column 10, lines 15-26, “…in response to the user selecting node 414 in FIG. 4A, additional child nodes of the selected node 414 are revealed. Nodes 422, 424, 426, 428, and 430 are now visible. In this way, the user can control the level of granularity that he or she uses when reviewing clustered node information.”
See Fig. 4A, which disclose multiple hierarchy levels under node 414.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Efficient Incident Response Through Tree-based Visualizations Of Hierarchical Clustering” as taught by Silva, because it would provide Thompson’s method with the enhanced capability of “…the grid-based user interface expands the content of that node to allow for greater inspection…” (Silva: column 10, lines 45-55).
For claim 3, Thompson, Silva, Asano and Reuter disclose the data lineage presentation method of claim 2, wherein a first outer frame of the first data and a third outer frame of the third data are represented using a first color, and wherein a second outer frame of the second data, a fourth out frame of the fourth data, and a fifth outer frame of the fifth data are represented using a second color different from the first color (Thompson: column 29, lines 20-45, Column 33, lines 5-21, “Additionally, the data set representations may also be shaded and/or colored based on a pre-defined scheme (e.g., a representation of a first color may be associated with a first type of data set, a representation of a second color may be associated with a second type of data set, and so forth). Having more uniformity among the data set representations (e.g., similar shapes, color, shading) may be useful for reducing visual clutter and make for a more-interpretable visual node graph 310 when the predominant priority is to visually convey the dependency relationships, whereas more complex schemes for the data set representations may be useful for conveying more information through the visual node graph 310 when the dependency relationships are not the only priority.” column 43, lines 9-46, which discloses a first outer frame of the first data and a third outer frame of the third data are same color if they have the same type, and a fourth out frame of the fourth data, and a fifth outer frame of the fifth data are represented using a second color).
For claim 4, Thompson, Silva, Asano and Reuter disclose the data lineage presentation method of claim 1, wherein the grandparent nodes have 0% transparency, wherein the parent nodes have 20% transparency, wherein the child nodes have 40% transparency, and wherein the grandchild nodes have 60% transparency (Reuter: paragraph [0045], “…nodes may be represented by solid color blocks having a text label overlaid thereon. Typically, the label is descriptive of the taxonomy category represented by the node. Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region 410. For example, nodes may be displayed with an apparent transparency that increases based on the number of node hops each displayed node is from the selected node. E.g. a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent); nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity; nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency; and so on. In some embodiments, adaptive stylization schemes may include threshold node distance levels or other nonlinearities; for example, transparency may vary over the first three degrees of node distance, after which transparency may be maintained at a constant level…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Career Exploration And Employment Search Tools Using Dynamic Node Network Visualization” as taught by Reuter, because it would provide Thompson’s modified method with the enhanced capability of “…Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region…” (Reuter: paragraph [0045]).
For claim 5, it is a method claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
For claim 6, it is a method claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 2. Thus, claim 6 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
For claim 7, it is a method claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 3. Thus, claim 7 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 3.
For claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 4. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 4.
For claim 9, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
For claim 10, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
For claim 11, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
For claim 12, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
For claim 13, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
For claim 14, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 3.
For claim 15, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 3. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 3.
For claim 16, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 3. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 3.
For claim 17, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 4. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 4.
For claim 18, it is a device (“a service node”) claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 4.
For claim 19, Thompson, Silva, Asano and Reuter disclose the service node of claim 14, wherein the first color represents a relationship between the first parent node and a child node of the third data (Thompson: column 29, lines 20-45, Column 33, lines 5-21, “Additionally, the data set representations may also be shaded and/or colored based on a pre-defined scheme (e.g., a representation of a first color may be associated with a first type of data set, a representation of a second color may be associated with a second type of data set, and so forth). Having more uniformity among the data set representations (e.g., similar shapes, color, shading) may be useful for reducing visual clutter and make for a more-interpretable visual node graph 310 when the predominant priority is to visually convey the dependency relationships, whereas more complex schemes for the data set representations may be useful for conveying more information through the visual node graph 310 when the dependency relationships are not the only priority.” WHERE “relationship” is broadly interpreted as same “type of data set” or different “type of data set”).
For claim 20, Thompson, Silva, Asano and Reuter discloses the service node of claim 19, wherein a transparency level of the first and second outer frames represents a lineage closeness between the first parent node and the child node (Reuter: paragraph [0045], “…nodes may be represented by solid color blocks having a text label overlaid thereon. Typically, the label is descriptive of the taxonomy category represented by the node. Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region 410. For example, nodes may be displayed with an apparent transparency that increases based on the number of node hops each displayed node is from the selected node. E.g. a selected node may be displayed at 100% opacity (fully non-transparent); nodes one hop from the selected node may be displayed at 80% opacity; nodes two hops from the selected node may be displayed at 60% transparency; and so on. In some embodiments, adaptive stylization schemes may include threshold node distance levels or other nonlinearities; for example, transparency may vary over the first three degrees of node distance, after which transparency may be maintained at a constant level…” where “closeness” is broadly interpreted as “hops” (e.g. closeness/distance)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon “Column Lineage For Resource Dependency System And Graphical User Interface” as taught by Thompson by implementing “Career Exploration And Employment Search Tools Using Dynamic Node Network Visualization” as taught by Reuter, because it would provide Thompson’s modified method with the enhanced capability of “…Adaptive stylization may be utilized to intuitively convey degree of relation between various nodes displayed in region…” (Reuter: paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/YU ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169