Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/399,454

SORTABLE HEAT MAP

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH
Art Unit
2156
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Jp Morgan Chase Bank N A
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
221 granted / 271 resolved
+26.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
7 currently pending
Career history
278
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.1%
+4.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 271 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-–------11 and 13–17 stand amended. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 stand pending. 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. Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kincaid in US Patent Application Publication № 2004/0061702, hereinafter called Kincaid. In regard to claim 1, Kincaid teaches a method comprising: storing, in a storage element of a computer system, an ordered data matrix including a plurality of values, each value, from the plurality of a values, representing phenomena (“The term "cell", when used in the context describing a data table or heat map, refers to the data value at the intersection of a row and column in a spreadsheet-like data structure or heat map; typically a property /value pair for an entity in the spreadsheet, e.g. the expression level for a gene.” Paragraph 0043); providing a two-dimensional graphic on a display of the computer system, the graphic having a plurality of cells, each cell corresponding to a pair of values, from the plurality of values, in the ordered data matrix (“A "heat map" or "heat map visualization" is a visual representation of a tabular data structure of gene expression values, wherein color-coding are used for displaying numerical values. The numerical value for each cell in the data table is encoded into a color for the cell. Color encodings run on a continuum from one color through another, e.g. green to red or yellow to blue for gene expression values. The resultant color matrix of all rows and columns in the data set forms the color map, often referred to as a "heat map" by way of analogy to modeling of thermodynamic data.” Paragraph 0053) rendering, via a computer processor of the computer system, on the electronic display, a heat map on the two-dimensional graphic including a vertical axis and a horizontal axis orthogonal to the vertical axis, the plurality of cells being arranged in a plurality of rows and columns on the heat map initial grid along the vertical and horizontal axes (“The resultant color matrix of all rows and columns in the data set forms the color map, often referred to as a "heat map" by way of analogy to modeling of thermodynamic data.” Paragraph 0053;also “Likewise, the column of clinical data containing the cloneID (i.e., "Clone") 44 for the CDNA having been deposited on the microarray with respect to each individual microarray reading is linked to the particular row of experimental data that it describes and moves with that row when the row is repositioned” paragraph 80), wherein each cell of the plurality of cells on the heat map displays indicia selected from the group consisting of a color, a pattern and a combination thereof (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a portion of a conventional heat map visualization 200 that is currently available to users. A standard heat map visualization such as visualization 200 is a static visual representation of a tabular data structure of gene expression values, wherein color coding are used for displaying numerical values. The numerical value for each cell 202 in the data table is encoded into a color for the cell, although the colors are not apparent in the figs. of this application in order to comply with figure drafting rules generally requiring black and white figs.” Paragraph 0077), indicative of an associated pair of values, from the plurality of values, including (i) a first data value within a first data range and (ii) a second data value within a second data range, selecting, via the computer processor, one of a single column selected for sorting or a single row selected for sorting, from the plurality of rows and columns on the heat map in the initial grid (“For example, FIG. 3 shows the results of a column sort that was conducted with regard to column 20 of the experimental data. In this example, the cells in column 20 have been sorted according to the cell with the highest degree of up-regulation (which is color-coded red according to the normal heat map visualization schema), with subsequent cells in descending order of expression value down to the lowest value” paragraph 0088); sorting the plurality of cells of the selected single column selected for sorting or the single row selected for sorting according to a value order of one of the pair of values of each corresponding cell of the plurality of cells selected for sorting, the sorting generating a mapping order (“For example, FIG. 3 shows the results of a column sort that was conducted with regard to column 20 of the experimental data. In this example, the cells in column 20 have been sorted according to the cell with the highest degree of up-regulation (which is color-coded red according to the normal heat map visualization schema), with subsequent cells in descending order of expression value down to the lowest value” paragraph 0088); sorting each remaining column of the initial grid or each remaining row of the initial grid according to the mapping order of the single column selected for sorting or the single row selected for sorting, respectively (“As each of the cells in column 20 are rearranged according to the sort order determined, the entire row of experimental data assumes the same row placement as that of the reordered cell of column 20.” Paragraph 0088; note that, as the claim is recited in the alternative, either a sort by row or column meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim) and rendering a revised grid via the processor, the revised grid (i) including at least a portion of the initial grid and (ii) being presented as a graphical display of visual patterns on a device. (“FIG. 4 shows the display order resulting after a row sort that was performed after the column sort described above with regard to FIG. 3.” Paragraph 0090). In regard to claims 7 and 13, they are substantially similar to claim 1 and accordingly are rejected under similar reasoning. In regard to claim 2, Kincaid further teaches that (i) each row of the initial graphical grid is displayed in an order sorted according to the mapping order, or (ii) each column of the initial graphical grid is displayed in an order sorted according to the mapping order (“As each of the cells in column 20 are rearranged according to the sort order determined, the entire row of experimental data assumes the same row placement as that of the reordered cell of column 20.” Paragraph 0088); and wherein sorting is from an initial order to one of an ascending order and a descending order (“Upon selecting the ath row, as described, each experimental data value (i.e., cells one through n of the ath row, noted as cells 1, a through n,a in step S19 )) are compared to perform a new sorting order, whether the cells are to be arranged in descending order of value or ascending order of value.” Paragraph 0101). In regard to claims 8 and 14, they are substantially similar to claim 2 and accordingly are rejected under similar reasoning. In regard to claim 3, Kincaid further teaches accepting via a sorting widget a user signal indicative that the sorting should be one of the ascending sort order and the descending sort order (“The user interaction for performing a sub-sorting procedure is effectively the same as described above with regard to various methods of similarity sorting, except that upon selecting a row or column, the user chooses the sub-sort function, and specifies a row-based or column based sub-sort, whereby the selected row/column maintains its present location and the subsequent rows/columns are reordered based upon similarity calculations carried out” paragraph 0136). In regard to claims 9 and 15, they are substantially similar to claim 3 and accordingly are rejected under similar reasoning. In regard to claim 4, Kincaid further teaches that the indicia is further selected from an icon (i.e. symbol) in addition to the group consisting of a color, a pattern, and a combination thereof (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a portion of a conventional heat map visualization 200 that is currently available to users. A standard heat map visualization such as visualization 200 is a static visual representation of a tabular data structure of gene expression values, wherein color coding are used for displaying numerical values. The numerical value for each cell 202 in the data table is encoded into a color for the cell, although the colors are not apparent in the figs. of this application in order to comply with figure drafting rules generally requiring black and white figs.” Paragraph 0077; additionally, “The BNS_Symbol column 48 contains symbols which identify the particular gene in that row that the expression data is being presented for.” Paragraph 0081. Note that, absent any further technical limitation, a symbol is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an icon). In regard to claims 10 and 16, they are substantially similar to claim 4 and accordingly are rejected under similar reasoning. In regard to claim 5, Kincaid further teaches that the value order of one of the pair of values is determined according to at least one of a legend of the data indicia, and a user-indicated ordering of the data indicia (“The present invention supports both row and column sorting, as described above, as well as limited column and row re-ordering. This limited column and row reordering may be accomplished manually by the user. To accomplish manual reordering, the user can drag-and-drop rows and columns.” Paragraph 0094). In regard to claims 11 and 17, they are substantially similar to claim 5 and accordingly are rejected under similar reasoning. In regard to claim 6, Kincaid further teaches that generating the mapping order comprises determining an association between cells in the initial grid and cells in the revised grid (i.e. a sorting, (“Upon selecting the ath row, as described, each experimental data value (i.e., cells one through n of the ath row, noted as cells 1, a through n,a in step S19 )) are compared to perform a new sorting order, whether the cells are to be arranged in descending order of value or ascending order of value.” Paragraph 0101).”)). Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments in regard to the previous rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (see applicants’ remarks, pages 11-12), applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Z Ganger whose telephone number is (571)272-0270. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 7:30 PM. 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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. /AJAY M BHATIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jun 12, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602395
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FILTERING VISUALIZATIONS FROM OR ACROSS DIFFERENT ANALYTICS PLATFORMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596678
HYPERGRAPH DATA STORAGE METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTIC AND HYPERGRAPH DATA QUERY METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12561341
REAL-TIME REPLICATION OF DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTIONS INTO A DATA LAKEHOUSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12547639
ENRICHING EVENT STREAMS WITH ENTITY DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541547
PROFILE-ENRICHED EXPLANATIONS OF DATA-DRIVEN MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 271 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month