DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-18, 20, 21, and 23-26 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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, lines 6-7, “the corresponding functions” lacks proper antecedent basis and has been interpreted as “corresponding functions”. Claims 11 and 20 have the same issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the data" and “the data type” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations have been interpreted as “data” and data type” respectively.
Claim 7, “the second function” in lines 3-4 are unclear whether they refer to “a second function” in line 15 or 22 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the providing access" and “the data” in lines 1, 2, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and the limitations have been interpreted as “providing access” and “data” respectively. Claim 18 has a similar issue.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and has been interpreted as “data”. Also, at line 5 “a pipeline creation interface” should be -- the pipeline creation interface--.
Claim 11, line 8 “the first set of functions” lacks proper antecedent basis and has been interpreted as “the set of functions”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and has been interpreted as “data”. Also, lines 1-2, “the generating of the pipeline of operations” lacks proper antecedent basis and has been interpreted as “the generating the computerized code for the pipeline operations”.
Claim 24, at line 1 “the additional information” should be --contextual--.
Claim 25: at lines 2-4, "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 and have been interpreted as “a selectively modified first transformation function", "a selectively modified second transformation function", and "a selectively updated first set of visualization functions" Also, at line 7 "conforming" should be --confirming--.
Claim 26 at lines 1-2 "the first set of transformation functions" lacks proper antecedent basis and has been interpreted as “a first set of transformation functions.”
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, 16-18, and 21 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 16-18, 21, and 23-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior arts as cited do not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination,
the claimed limitations.
Catania et al. (US Patent 9,727,623 B1) teaches development platform system that provides a development platform configured to create new and modified web-based applications.
Silva et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0122111 A1) teaches examples of data visualization, where data visualization representations may be generated to visually represent aggregated data for a service from the perspective of a user.
However, the combination of Catania and Silva does not specifically disclose “populating, on a display screen, a pipeline creation interface by generating an ordered listing of a set of functions based on frequencies of prior usage of the corresponding functions, wherein each function within the set of functions is selectable to invoke presentation of contextual information regarding a selected function, wherein the contextual information comprises results of one or more operations performed by the selected function and generating, via the pipeline creation interface and before finalizing the modification of the first function, an interactive preview identifying a second function that references or calls the first function and presenting a change in one or more operations of the second function resulting from the modification of the first function”, in combination with the other elements recited which is not found in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 at 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