DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 2/20/2026 has been provided in response to the 11/20/2026 Office Action which rejected claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21, and 23-26, wherein claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21, and 23-26 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11 of Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
3. 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.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21, and 23-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
at line 31 “the first set of visualization functions” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claims 11 and 20 have a similar issue.
at lines 32-33, “the selectively modified the second function” should be –the selectively modified second function--.
Claim 25: at lines 1-4, “the selectively modified first transformation function”, “the selectively modified second transformation function”, and “the selectively updated first set of visualization functions” all lack proper antecedent basis. Also, at line 7 “conforming” should be ---confirming--.
Claim 26 at lines 1-2 “the first set of transformation functions” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 16-18, 21, and 23 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are also objected to the same reasons as the base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21 and 23-26 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.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended to recite “updating a frequency of selection of the function relative to other functions” and “generating one or more modified interfaces on one or more second computing devices based on the updated frequency of selection of the function”. However, these newly added limitations raise new matter issues.
The originally filed specification discloses that the function engine 114 may list the identified functions in the order of importance/likely usage based on the data type within the selected portion and/or based on frequency of prior usage of given functions (with respect to the accessed data, similar data, similar pipeline). In some embodiments, the set of functions may be provided with the number of times the same/similar function has been used for the accessed data/portion of the data, similar data, and/or similar pipelines (see paragraph [0033]), and that “a dataset A may be frequently used with dataset B for a given function, and based on users' selection of the dataset A to be used for the given function, the function engine 114 may suggest the use of the dataset B for another argument/parameter of the given function,” but does not appear to provide sufficient support for the limitations of “updating a frequency of selection of the function relative to other functions” and “generating one or more modified interfaces on one or more second computing devices based on the updated frequency of selection of the function”.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 16-18, 21, and 23-26 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are also rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the function” at line 40, but it is unclear whether “the function” refers to “a first function”, “a second function” or “first set of visualization functions” of claim 1 or a different function. However, appropriate correction is required. Claims 11, 20 and 24 have a similar issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. Claims 8, 10, 18, and 23 have a similar issue. Also, claim 5 recites “the data type” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the providing the access" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 21, 25, and 26 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are also rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights