Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/471,202

USER INTERFACE FOR COLLABORATIVE ANALYTICS PLATFORM

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Sep 20, 2023
Examiner
DUONG, HIEN LUONGVAN
Art Unit
2147
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Aible Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
480 granted / 643 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 643 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Remarks This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 2/13/2026 . Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 2/13/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection. Applicant’s arguments filed 2/13/2026 with respect to claims 1,9 and 17 double patenting rejection have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully maintains the double patenting rejection. Claim Objections Claims 1,9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1,9 and 17 recite the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claims should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1,9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of US Patent 11,797,152 B2 hereinafter “152 patent” . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the elements of the instant application claims 1,9 and 17 are to be found in the claims 1 and 12 of 152 patent. Instant Application (18/471,202) US Patent 11,797,152 B2 1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: obtaining data characterizing action associated with a multi-step analytical process, wherein the multi-step analytical process includes at least one of importing a dataset, building a model using the dataset, and/or deploying the model to operate on data; determining a set of indicators for a first analytical task of the multi-step analytical process based on the obtained data, wherein each indicator among the set of indicators comprises an impact of the first analytical task on the multi-step analytical process; receiving an input for selecting an indicator among the set of indicators; determining a second set of indicators for a second analytical task of the multi-step analytical process based on the received input, wherein each indicator among the second set of indicators comprises a predetermined recommended priority associated with a next step of the multi-step analytical process, wherein the next step of the multi-step analytical process is an analytical task performed subsequently to the first analytical task and the next step comprises at least one of building an analytical model included in the analytical task, or deploying the analytical model to operate on live data; and providing the second set of indicators. A method comprising: providing, in a first graphical user interface (GUI), a first node having a first location in the first GUI and indicative of a first analytical task, wherein a multi-step analytical process includes the first analytical task; receiving data characterizing a first user input indicative of selection of the first node; displaying, in the first GUI, a first set of nodes, wherein the first set of nodes are adjacent to the first node, and are associated with a next step of the multi-step analytical process; receiving data characterizing a second user input indicative of selection of a second node associated with a second analytical task included in the multi-step analytical process, wherein the second node is among the first set of nodes and is located at a second location in the first GUI; providing, in a second GUI, a second set of nodes indicative of a set of analytical sub-tasks associated with the second analytical tasks wherein the second set of nodes are arranged based on a temporal order in which the second set of nodes are generated; receiving a third user input indicative of addition of a new analytical sub-task to the set of analytical sub-tasks; and generating a new node indicative of the new analytical sub-task, wherein the new node is placed adjacent to a previous node in the second GUI, the previous node indicative of a previous analytical sub-task of the plurality of analytical sub-tasks, wherein the previous node is the last node to be generated in the temporal order prior to the generation of the new node, wherein the multi-step analytical process includes at least one of importing a dataset, building a model using the dataset, and/or deploying the model to operate on live data. Claims 9 and 17 Claim 12 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidan et al.( US Patent Application Publication 2020/0241852 A1, hereinafter “Vidan”) and further in view of Duggan et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2017/0178019 A1, hereinafter “Duggan” ) As to claim 1, Vidan teaches method comprising : obtaining data characterizing action associated with a multi-step analytical process, wherein the multi-step analytical process includes at least one of importing a dataset, building a model using the dataset, and/or deploying the model to operate on data (Vidan par [0030] teaches the process of building an analytical workflow, as user begins to select each new block template 112 to instantiate a functional block into analytical workflow, intelligent assistant 102 uses available data 400 to automatically recommend one or more block templates 112); determining a set of indicators for a first analytical task of the multi-step analytical process based on the obtained data, wherein each indicator among the set of indicators comprises an impact of the first analytical task on the multi-step analytical process; (Vidan Fig.2c and par [0031] teaches the intelligent assistant 102 recommends a set 230 (interprets as set of indicators) of block templates 112 that most likely continues the analytical workflow) receiving an input for selecting an indicator among the set of indicators; (Vidan par [0033] teaches user selects “Highchart line chart” from the recommendation list 230) determining a second set of indicators for a second analytical task of the multi- step analytical process based on the received input, wherein each indicator among the second set of indicators comprises a predetermined recommended priority associated with a next step of the multi-step analytical process, wherein the next step in the multi-step analytical process is an analytical task performed subsequently to the first analytical task [and the next step comprises at least one of importing a dataset, building an analytical model included in the analytical task, using the imported dataset, or deploying the analytical model to operate on live data] ; ; and providing the second set of indicators.(Vidan par [0034] teaches as the user fills out the input parameters of the new “Highchart Line Chart” functional block 242, intelligent assistant 102 may suggest 252 (interprets as second set of indicators) two possible inputs that might supply input of data type “series” for one of the inputs to the “Highchart Line Chart” functional block) Vidan fails to expressly teach the next step comprises at least one of building an analytical model included in the analytical task or deploying the analytical model to operate on live data. However, in an analogous art directed toward data analytic system, Duggan teaches the next step comprises at least one of building an analytical model included in the analytical task or deploying the analytical model to operate on live data.( Duggan par [0087] teaches a dynamic command button may be provided to perform various functions on or with the analytical model. For example, command button 738 provides the user with an option to deploy the second model 718) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Vidan and Duggan to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to allow user to quickly and efficiently deploy the analytical model. As to claim 2, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: determining the predetermined recommended priority based on historical user activity. (Vidan par [0031] teaches based on data 400 collected form the user’s past interactions ) As to claim 3, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 2, wherein determining the predetermined recommended priority based on historical user activity further comprises monitoring tasks performed by a user. (Vidan par [0031] teaches based on data 400 collected form the user’s past interactions and past interactions of other users) As to claim 4,Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 1, wherein the multi-step analytical process comprises a plurality of analytical tasks, wherein each analytical task among the plurality of analytical tasks comprises one or more analytical sub-tasks. ( Vidan par [0040] teaches intelligent assistant 102 may divide an analytical workflow into phases and classify block templates 112 based on the typical phase ) As to claim 5, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of analytical tasks are arranged in temporal order. (Vidan par [0040] teaches intelligent assistant 102 may divide an analytical workflow into phases and classify block templates 112 based on the typical phase. These phases are high-level steps in the workflow and can be envisioned as a list of steps followed through for each data source in the workflow) As to claim 6, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second input for selecting a second indicator among the second set of indicators; and determining a third set of indicators for a third analytical task of the multi-step analytical process based on the received second input. (Vidan par [0036] teaches user accepting or rejecting the recommendations to continue building the analytical workflow ) As to claim 7, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises live data. ( Vidan par [102] teaches additional data may be gathered as input to intelligent assistant 102 based on the actual data being executed) As to claim 8, Vidan and Duggan teach the method of claim 1 wherein at least one of receiving the input and providing the second set of indicators is displayed in a graphical user interface.( Vidan par [0034] teaches intelligent assistant 102 may suggest 252 (interprets as second set of indicators) two possible inputs that might supply input of data type “series” for one of the inputs to the “Highchart Line Chart” functional block ) Claims 9-16 merely recite a system to perform the method of claims 1-8 respectively. Accordingly, Vidan and Duggan teach every limitation of claims 9-16 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-8 respectively. Claims 17-20 merely recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions when executed by a processor, perform the method of claims 1-4 respectively. Accordingly, Vidan and Duggan teach every limitation of claims 17-20 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-4 respectively. 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 HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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. /HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Nov 18, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 19, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 13, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Jul 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Jan 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 23, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597925
SUPERCONDUCTING CURRENT CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566940
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR QUANTIZING PARAMETERS OF NEURAL NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566815
METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PERFORMING IDENTIFICATION BASED ON MULTI-MODAL DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554798
FINDING OUTLIERS IN SIMILAR TIME SERIES SAMPLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547430
MODEL-BASED ELEMENT CONFIGURATION IN A USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+22.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 643 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