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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 03/27/2026.
By the amendment, claims 1-2, 10-11 and 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
The drawing objection has been maintained as the drawings objection has not been addressed by amendment or remark.
The claims objections of claims 1-2, 10-11 and 16-17 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment and corresponding remarks.
The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn in light of the claims amendment and corresponding remarks.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn in light of the claims amendment and corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings of 11/23/2023 remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they contain details and features which are blurry and hard to read/comprehend (see at least Fig. 4-13, 15-16D and 18). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to for the following typographical error: each claim recites “The computer implemented method of claim 15” (ex. claim 18 line 1). The computer implemented method parent claim is claim 16, not claim 15; as these claims present parallel subject matter to system claims 2-4 and computer program product claims of 11-13, this is considered a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kandel, Sean, et al. "Wrangler: Interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts." Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. 2011. [KANDEL].
Regarding claim 1, KANDEL discloses a system for interactive automated modification of transformed data sets
page 3363: Abstract, col 2 ¶4:
PNG
media_image1.png
107
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the system comprising:
a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon;
at least one processor, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform the following operations:
page 3366 col 2 pp. 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
44
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
identify, at a first instance, at least one processed data set, wherein the at least one processed data set has been processed by applying a transform to at least one data set that finalized the at least one data set for downstream use, and wherein the at least one processed data set is organized with at least one processed element;
page 3365 col 1 pp. 1-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
229
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
generate, in at least a second instance, a processed data set interface component comprising the at least one processed data set;
transmit the processed data set interface component to a user device and configure a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device with the processed data set interface component;
page 3364 Figure 1, page 3365 col 1 pp. 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
119
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
identify, in at least a third instance, at least one user input of the user device, wherein the at least one user input comprises at least one adjustment request for the processed data set;
page 3365 col 1 pp. 4:
PNG
media_image5.png
192
381
media_image5.png
Greyscale
generate an adjusted processed data set interface component in response to applying the at least one adjustment request to the processed data set generated in the processed data set interface component;
transmit the adjusted processed data set interface component to the user device and configure the GUI of the user device with the adjusted processed data set interface component;
page 3365 Figure 2, col 1 pp. 4:
PNG
media_image6.png
69
377
media_image6.png
Greyscale
receive, in response to transmitting of the adjusted processed data set interface component to the user device, at least one adjustment user input comprising an acceptable adjustment user input; and
modify, in response to the acceptable adjustment user input, the at least one processed data set by applying the adjustment request to the at least one processed data set.
page 3365 pp. 4:
PNG
media_image7.png
74
381
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform the following operations:
receive, in response to the adjusted processed data set interface component configuring the GUI of the user device, the at least one adjustment user input from the user device, the at least one adjustment user input comprising a rejection adjustment user input; and
execute, in response to the rejection adjustment user input, the at least one processed data set.
page 3365 pp. 3:
PNG
media_image8.png
62
443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processed element comprises at least one of a column, a row, a cell, an attribute, a function, or a value.
page 3364 Figure 1, page 3365 col 1 pp. 3:
PNG
media_image9.png
93
444
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one adjustment request comprises at least one of a table merge, a table addition, a table subtraction, a column addition, a column subtraction, a column merge, a row addition, a row subtraction, a row merge, an adjusted function, a pre-generated function, a new function, an adjusted attribute, an adjusted cell, or an adjusted value.
page 3365 Figure 2-5, col 1 pp. 4:
PNG
media_image10.png
60
444
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the adjusted processed data set interface component comprises at least one adjusted processed data set interface component for each adjustment request, and wherein the at least one adjusted processed data set interface component comprises a version identifier associated with the at least one adjustment request.
page 3365 Figure 2-5, col 1 pp. 2-3
PNG
media_image11.png
102
449
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
36
442
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one adjusted processed data set interface component comprises a plurality of adjusted processed data set interface components, and wherein the plurality of adjusted processed data set interface components configures the GUI of the user device.
page 3364 Figure 1, page 3365 col 1 pp. 3
PNG
media_image13.png
101
443
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform the following operations:
generate at least one pipeline interface component, wherein the pipeline interface component is associated with the at least one adjusted processed data set interface component; and
transmit the at least one pipeline interface component to the user device and configure the GUI of the user device with the at least one pipeline interface component.
page 3366 Figure 7, col 1 pp. 4
PNG
media_image14.png
170
448
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the at least one pipeline interface component comprises the at least one implemented adjustment request, and wherein the at least one pipeline interface component comprises at least one of a direct output or an indirect output from the at least one adjustment request.
page 3366 Figure 7
PNG
media_image15.png
297
448
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, KANDEL discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform the following operations:
identify a legacy logic associated with the at least one processed data set, wherein the legacy logic is supported in a legacy application;
page 3367 col 1 pp. 2:
PNG
media_image16.png
99
443
media_image16.png
Greyscale
page 3369 col 2 pp. 4:
PNG
media_image17.png
146
448
media_image17.png
Greyscale
transmit a legacy logic action request to the legacy application;
receive, in response to transmitting the legacy logic action request to the legacy application, a legacy logic action response from the legacy application; and
page 3370 col 1 pp. 5:
PNG
media_image18.png
327
452
media_image18.png
Greyscale
configure the at least one adjusted processed data set interface component with the legacy logic action response.
page 3370 col 2 pp. 3-4:
PNG
media_image19.png
361
443
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10-13 and 14-15, claims 10-13 and 14-15 recite limitations similar to claims 1-4 and 7-8, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 16-19 and 20, claims 16-19 and 20 recite limitations similar to claims 1-4 and 7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
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 ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights