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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/21/2023. Claim 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “generating a plurality of facts from a dataset by sampling combinations of parameters of the dataset”; “determining importance scores for each of the plurality of facts by analyzing uniformities of the facts”; “based on the importance scores, generating, for display at a user interface, a first fact of the plurality of facts and a second fact of the plurality of facts by creating data visualizations of the first fact and the second fact, wherein generating the first fact for display is based on a fact tree of the first fact having a highest aggregate importance score of a plurality of aggregate importance scores generated for a plurality of fact trees”; and “based on receiving a selection of the first fact, generating dependent facts for display at the user interface by creating data visualizations of the dependent facts, wherein the dependent facts depend from the first fact” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“a memory component”and “processing device” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation).
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a memory component” and “processing device” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than well understood routine and conventional computer functions.
Claim 9:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “generating a plurality of facts from a tabular dataset, determining entropy scores for the facts, selecting facts based on the entropy scores, displaying selected facts, determining dependent facts based on a selected fact, and displaying the dependent facts. These limitations recite collecting information, analyzing information, ranking information, selecting information based on the analysis, and presenting the results of the analysis. In particular, determining entropy scores constitutes a mathematical calculation performed on data and therefore recites a mathematical concept. Further, evaluating facts, selecting facts for display, and determining dependent facts constitute mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and categorization of information.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 recites the additional elements: generation component, importance determination component, dependent fact determination component, and user interface component merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer technology, database technology, user-interface technology, or data-processing technology. The display of selected facts and dependent facts merely presents the results of the abstract analysis to a user and therefore does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The recited components generate information, analyze information, receive user input, and display information using generic computing technology.
Claim 14:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “displaying, by a user interface component, a first fact and a second fact of a plurality of facts, wherein each of the plurality of facts corresponds to a dataset, wherein the first fact and the second fact are displayed based on importance scores for each of the plurality of facts, wherein the first fact is displayed further based on a first edge weight for a first directed edge extending from the first fact to a third fact, the first edge weight being based on a first number of subspaces by which the first fact and the third fact differ, and wherein the second fact is displayed further based on a second edge weight for a second directed edge extending from the second fact to a fourth fact, the second edge weight being based on a second number of subspaces by which the second fact and the fourth fact differ; receiving, by the user interface component, a selection of the first fact; and based on the receiving the selection of the first fact, displaying, by the user interface component, the third fact” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 14 recites the additional elements:
“memory component”; ”processing device” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than well understood routine and conventional computer functions.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“memory component”; ”processing device” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than well understood routine and conventional computer functions.
Claim 2 recites wherein each of the dependent facts is determined by adding a condition to the first fact amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 recites wherein each importance score is based on an entropy of the corresponding fact of the plurality of facts amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 recites wherein the dataset comprises tabular data, and wherein each of the plurality of facts corresponds to a column of the tabular data amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 recites wherein the operations further comprise filtering out a column of the dataset based on at least one selected from the following: (a) a number of non-identical values in the column and (b) a number of null values in the column amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 recites wherein the operations further comprise: generating a plurality of nodes, each node corresponding to a fact of the plurality of facts; forming a plurality of directed edges between the plurality of nodes, thereby forming the plurality of fact trees; and assigning edge weights to each of the plurality of directed edges, wherein each of the edge weights is based on a number of subspaces by which the nodes connected by the directed edge differ amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 7 recites wherein one or more of the plurality of fact trees are generated for display based on a determination that each edge weight in the fact tree corresponds to a difference of exactly one subspace amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 8 recites wherein the plurality of facts is generated automatically, and wherein the plurality of facts is not generated based on a query received from a user amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 10 recites wherein each of the plurality of facts is defined by at least one of a type, a subspace, a measure, a breakdown, and an aggregate amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are similar in scope as claims 2-8, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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) 1-5 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moser et al. (US 2016/0124960).
Claim 1. Moser discloses a system comprising:
a memory component (item 1004 fig. 10); and
a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operations (item 1002 fig. 10) comprising:
generating a plurality of facts from a dataset by sampling combinations of parameters of the dataset (…dataset can comprise a plurality of measures and a plurality of dimensions. The current visualization can comprise a graphical representation of the at least a portion of data. The at least a portion of data can comprise at least one of the plurality of measures and at least one of the plurality of dimensions. A plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on an application of transition rules to the current visualization) ([0016]);
determining importance scores for each of the plurality of facts by analyzing uniformities of the facts; based on the importance scores, generating, for display at a user interface, a first fact of the plurality of facts and a second fact of the plurality of facts by creating data visualizations of the first fact and the second fact, wherein generating the first fact for display is based on a fact tree of the first fact having a highest aggregate importance score of a plurality of aggregate importance scores generated for a plurality of fact trees (Each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can comprise a different graphical representation of data of the dataset. A corresponding score for each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on a corresponding level of data variance for the data of the corresponding visualization candidate. A ranking of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on the scores. At least one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be selected based on the ranking. A plurality of selectable visualization suggestions corresponding to the selected visualization candidates can be caused to be displayed to the user in the graphical user interface of the device) ([0016], [0040], [0045]); and
based on receiving a selection of the first fact, generating dependent facts for display at the user interface by creating data visualizations of the dependent facts, wherein the dependent facts depend from the first fact (…a user selection of one of the plurality of selectable visualization suggestions can be detected, and the graphical representation corresponding to the selected one of the selectable visualization suggestions can be caused to be displayed in the first dedicated section of the user interface for current visualizations.) ([0017])… Within each type of transition, the number of different visualization candidates that can be considered for suggestion can be based on the parameters reflected in the corresponding intersecting matrix cell. These parameters can be represented by the following abbreviations)([0051], [0053] DP=Set of parental dimensions (many-to-one); [0054] DC=Set of children dimensions (one-to-many); [0055] D=Set of all dimensions (DO+DP+DC),[0059]).
Claim 2. Moser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the dependent facts is determined by adding a condition to the first fact (..a transition from a bar chart to a group bar chart can have visualization candidates represented by DC and DP, thereby comprising all possible group bar charts that cover each permutation of the set of children dimensions and the set of parent dimensions. It is contemplated that these transition rules are only shown as an example, and that other transition rules are within the scope of the present disclosure) ([0059]).
Claim 3. Moser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each importance score is based on an entropy of the corresponding fact of the plurality of facts ([0020])…(…visualization suggestions can be scored and ranked to maximize the probability that the choices presented are relevant and interesting to the user)([0040]).
Claim 4. Moser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dataset comprises tabular data, and wherein each of the plurality of facts corresponds to a column of the tabular data ([0087]).
Claim 5. Moser discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise filtering out a column of the dataset based on at least one selected from the following: (a) a number of non-identical values in the column and (b) a number of null values in the column ([0087]).
Claim 8. Moser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of facts is generated automatically, and wherein the plurality of facts is not generated based on a query received from a user ([0062]).
Claim 9. Moser discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a fact generation component, a plurality of facts, each of the plurality of facts corresponding to a column of a tabular dataset (…dataset can comprise a plurality of measures and a plurality of dimensions. The current visualization can comprise a graphical representation of the at least a portion of data. The at least a portion of data can comprise at least one of the plurality of measures and at least one of the plurality of dimensions. A plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on an application of transition rules to the current visualization) ([0016],[0087]);
determining, by an importance determination component, entropy scores for each of the plurality of facts ([0020])…(…visualization suggestions can be scored and ranked to maximize the probability that the choices presented are relevant and interesting to the user)([0040]);
based on the entropy scores, generating for display, by a user interface component, a first fact and a second fact of the plurality of facts at a user interface (Each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can comprise a different graphical representation of data of the dataset. A corresponding score for each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on a corresponding level of data variance for the data of the corresponding visualization candidate. A ranking of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on the scores. At least one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be selected based on the ranking. A plurality of selectable visualization suggestions corresponding to the selected visualization candidates can be caused to be displayed to the user in the graphical user interface of the device) ([0016], [0020], [0045])…(…visualization suggestions can be scored and ranked to maximize the probability that the choices presented are relevant and interesting to the user)([0040]); and
based on receiving a selection of the first fact:
determining, by a dependent fact determination component, a plurality of dependent facts, wherein each of the plurality of dependent facts is determined by adding a subspace to the first fact, and generating for display, by the user interface component, the plurality of dependent facts at the user interface (…a user selection of one of the plurality of selectable visualization suggestions can be detected, and the graphical representation corresponding to the selected one of the selectable visualization suggestions can be caused to be displayed in the first dedicated section of the user interface for current visualizations.) ([0017])… Within each type of transition, the number of different visualization candidates that can be considered for suggestion can be based on the parameters reflected in the corresponding intersecting matrix cell. These parameters can be represented by the following abbreviations)([0051], [0053] DP=Set of parental dimensions (many-to-one); [0054] DC=Set of children dimensions (one-to-many); [0055] D=Set of all dimensions (DO+DP+DC),[0059]).
Claim 10. Moser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of facts is defined by at least one of a type, a subspace, a measure, a breakdown, and an aggregate ([0060]).
Claim 11. Moser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises filtering out a column of the tabular dataset based on (a) a number of non-identical values in the column and (b) a number of null values in the column ([0087]).
Claim 12. Moser discloses the computer-implemented method of clam 9, wherein the plurality of facts is generated automatically, and wherein the plurality of facts is not generated based on a query received from a user ([0062]).
Claim 13. Moser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein generating the first fact for display at the user interface is based on a fact tree of the first fact having a highest aggregate importance score of a plurality of aggregate importance scores generated for a plurality of fact trees ([0040],[0070], [0074]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al. (US 2016/0124960) in view of Pete et al. (US 2021/0150375)
Claim 6. Moser discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: generating a plurality of nodes, each node corresponding to a fact of the plurality of facts; forming a plurality of directed edges between the plurality of nodes, thereby forming the plurality of fact trees; and assigning edge weights to each of the plurality of directed edges, wherein each of the edge weights is based on a number of subspaces by which the nodes connected by the directed edge differ.
However, Pete discloses generating a plurality of nodes, each node corresponding to a fact of the plurality of facts (fig. 4); forming a plurality of directed edges between the plurality of nodes, thereby forming the plurality of fact trees (fig. 4); and assigning edge weights (cardinality) to each of the plurality of directed edges, wherein each of the edge weights is based on a number of subspaces by which the nodes connected by the directed edge differ ([0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moser further in view of Pete to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so in order to streamline data visualization and analysis.
Claim 7. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 6, Pete further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of fact trees are generated for display based on a determination that each edge weight in the fact tree corresponds to a difference of exactly one subspace ([0063]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to streamline data visualization and analysis.
Claim 14. Moser discloses a system comprising:
a memory component; and
a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operations comprising:
displaying, by a user interface component, a first fact and a second fact of a plurality of facts, wherein each of the plurality of facts corresponds to a dataset, wherein the first fact and the second fact are displayed based on importance scores for each of the plurality of facts (…dataset can comprise a plurality of measures and a plurality of dimensions. The current visualization can comprise a graphical representation of the at least a portion of data. The at least a portion of data can comprise at least one of the plurality of measures and at least one of the plurality of dimensions. A plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on an application of transition rules to the current visualization) ([0016])..(Each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can comprise a different graphical representation of data of the dataset. A corresponding score for each one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on a corresponding level of data variance for the data of the corresponding visualization candidate. A ranking of the plurality of visualization candidates can be generated based on the scores. At least one of the plurality of visualization candidates can be selected based on the ranking. A plurality of selectable visualization suggestions corresponding to the selected visualization candidates can be caused to be displayed to the user in the graphical user interface of the device) ([0016], [0040], [0045]),
receiving, by the user interface component, a selection of the first fact; and based on the receiving the selection of the first fact, displaying, by the user interface component, the third fact (…a user selection of one of the plurality of selectable visualization suggestions can be detected, and the graphical representation corresponding to the selected one of the selectable visualization suggestions can be caused to be displayed in the first dedicated section of the user interface for current visualizations.) ([0017]).
Moser fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first fact is displayed further based on a first edge weight for a first directed edge extending from the first fact to a third fact, the first edge weight being based on a first number of subspaces by which the first fact and the third fact differ, and wherein the second fact is displayed further based on a second edge weight for a second directed edge extending from the second fact to a fourth fact, the second edge weight being based on a second number of subspaces by which the second fact and the fourth fact differ;
However, Pete discloses wherein the first fact is displayed further based on a first edge weight (cardinality) for a first directed edge extending from the first fact to a third fact, the first edge weight being based on a first number of subspaces by which the first fact and the third fact differ, and wherein the second fact is displayed further based on a second edge weight for a second directed edge extending from the second fact to a fourth fact, the second edge weight being based on a second number of subspaces by which the second fact and the fourth fact differ (fig. 4, [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moser further in view of Pete to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so in order to streamline data visualization and analysis.
Claim 15. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein the third fact is determined by adding at least one subspace to the first fact (..a transition from a bar chart to a group bar chart can have visualization candidates represented by DC and DP, thereby comprising all possible group bar charts that cover each permutation of the set of children dimensions and the set of parent dimensions. It is contemplated that these transition rules are only shown as an example, and that other transition rules are within the scope of the present disclosure) ([0059]).
Claim 16. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein each importance score is based on an entropy of the corresponding fact of the plurality of facts ([0020])…(…visualization suggestions can be scored and ranked to maximize the probability that the choices presented are relevant and interesting to the user)([0040])..
Claim 17. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein the dataset comprises tabular data, and wherein each of the plurality of facts corresponds to a column of the tabular data ([0087]).
Claim 18. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein the operations further comprise filtering out a column of the dataset based on (a) a number of non-identical values in the column and (b) a number of null values in the column ([0087]).
Claim 19. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein the plurality of facts is generated automatically, and wherein the plurality of facts is not generated based on a query received from a user ([0062]).
Claim 20. Moser and Pete disclose the system of claim 14, Moser further discloses wherein displaying the first fact at the user interface is based on a fact tree of the first fact having a highest aggregate importance score of a plurality of aggregate importance scores generated for a plurality of fact trees ([0040],[0070], [0074]).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights