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
The amendment filed 03/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments concerning the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations in claim 1 recite is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application as seen in the current seen the updated rejection below. Examiner disagrees of the assertion of the claimed invention amounting to an improvement due to the case when the starting height and end height are the same value height, the claimed invention operates like a traditional Sankey diagram, there is no recitation that the start value and end value height is different (see Figure 2 of the instant applciaiton, Element 210 “Most Likely” .7k has the same starting bar height and ending bar height “.7k). The recitation of a “gradual change in thickness” does not specifically imply a difference of starting and ending bar heights, the claim recites “and having starting heights corresponding to the calculated starting bar heights, and having ending heights corresponding to the calculated ending bar heights; anddisplaying the generated chart to the user within the user interface, wherein the starting heights are different from the ending heights.” The difference of starting heights and ending heights refers to the categories not the bar heights. Examiner recommends to amend the claims to incorporate the bar heights differ in value to highlight the improvement of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "system" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
"identify, based on an analysis of the dataset stored in one or more databases, a starting point, an ending point, and a plurality of categories of data;" as drafted recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement, with the aid of pen and paper. One can identify, based on an analysis of the dataset, a starting point, an ending point, and a plurality of categories of data as shown in [0029] and Figure 2.
" determine, from the dataset, a starting total amount of value existing at the starting point and an ending total amount of value existing at the ending point; " as drafted recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement, with the aid of pen and paper. One can mentally determine, from the dataset, a starting total amount of value existing at the starting point and an ending total amount of value existing at the ending point as seen in [0029].
" calculate starting and ending value amounts for each of the plurality of categories;" as drafted recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally convert the first logical array with the determined values into a second logical table, including a plurality of logical rows and a plurality of logical columns using a function as seen [0029].
" calculate starting bar heights based on the starting value amounts for the plurality of categories, and ending bar heights based on the ending value amounts for the plurality of categories; " as drafted recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally convert the first logical array with the determined values into a second logical table, including a plurality of logical rows and a plurality of logical columns using a function as seen [0029].
" generate… a chart that includes a plurality of bars corresponding to the plurality of bars illustrating a transition of the data included within the dataset from the starting point to the ending point through a gradual change in thickness from the starting point to the ending point and having starting heights corresponding to the calculated starting bar heights. and having ending heights corresponding to the calculated ending bar heights;" as drafted recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally convert the first logical array with the determined values into a second logical table, including a plurality of logical rows and a plurality of logical columns using a function as seen in Figure 5, 540
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“A system for variable height Sankey charting, comprising: a transceiver configured to … and one or more processors configured to: ", for display within a user interface”,.. “ within the user interface’ which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
“a transceiver configured to receive a charting request from a user and to perform a plurality of front-end processes on the received request including demodulating, decoding, and error-correcting the received request, the charting request including a reference to a dataset to be charted" is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
" the generating including generating a display of the…displaying the generated chart to the user… wherein the starting heights are different from the ending heights." recites insignificant extra-solution activity as post-solution outputting of data (i.e. mere data outputting) such as 'presenting' information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer and field of use are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receive" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "outputting" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);… OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" as well as the specification describing this as output in a known conventional word-processing editor, see the specification [0020]-[0023]. Additionally, see US2004/0210822 at paragraph [0003], "[0003] Word processing and spreadsheet programs are two well-known and widely used software applications. Word processing programs permit users to draft letters, write books, and create other word-centric documents on a computer" which establishes that presenting draft content is WURC.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim further recites “wherein the plurality of categories includes a plurality of starting categories existing at the starting point and a plurality of ending categories existing at the ending point.”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity as pre-solution data manipulation, Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g) - Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);) Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor is there significantly more. When re-evaluated under Step 2B, the limitations are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions as seen in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor is there significantly more.
Regarding claims 4-7, the claims further recites
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the starting height is calculated based on a percentage value of a total value associated with the corresponding category at the starting point, andwherein the ending height is calculated based on a percentage value of a total value associated with the corresponding category at the ending point.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:calculate an upper vertical position and a lower vertical position for each of the plurality of bars at the starting point; and calculate an upper vertical position and a lower vertical position for each of the plurality of bars at the ending point.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the lower vertical position of a subsequent one of the plurality of bars is equal to an upper vertical position of a previous one of the plurality of bars.
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:calculate an upper curve for a first one of the plurality of bars that connects its upper vertical position at the starting point to its upper vertical position at the ending point using one or more mathematical functions; and calculate a lower curve for the first one of the plurality of bars that connects its lower vertical position at the starting point to its lower vertical position at the ending point using the one or more mathematical functions, wherein the combined upper and lower curve illustrate the change in amount of data included in a first category corresponding to the first one of the plurality of bars from the starting point to the ending point.
, as recited further recites the abstract idea in independent claim 1, one can mentally calculate and graph the values of the dataset as seen Figure 2. The claim does not recite any additional elements at all. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor is there significantly more.
Claim 8-9 and 1120 are rejected using similar reasoning seen in the rejection of claims of claims 1-2 and 4-7 due to reciting similar limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-1521. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM- 3:30 PM (ET).
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, ALEKSANDR KERZHNER can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/S.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights