Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 filing with the office dated 03/27/2026.
Claims 1, 2 and 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-13 and 15 are presented in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed Japanese Application No. JP2022-187623 filed on 11/24/2022 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim objection
4. Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recites “linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data items”. it should be “linked with the acquired display of the top hierarchical data items”. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to amendment/arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claims, thus necessitated the new ground of rejection as 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).
Response to 101 Rejection
8. Applicants arguments on page 13 regrading claim 1 states “This type of large-scale digital data linking and structural synchronization is not a process that can be "practically performed in the human mind" or with "pen and paper", “the amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and is not "directed to" an abstract idea”, “This specific combination provides a technical synergy between data storage architecture and access control logic that "amounts to significantly more" than the abstract idea of organizing information”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claim limitations “displaying the data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s)… based on an access right”, “acquire a display top hierarchical data item(s)… corresponding to the access right(s) of the user”, “acquire the to-be-analyzed data items…”, “direct the display to display the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s)…” all are processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. For example, but for the language generic computer components “display” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally are all process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to access the top hierarchical data item (in this case it is a folder/ directory) based on the user access rights and access user access rights for the objects related to the corresponding folder/ directory and link the link the elements/ objects to the corresponding folder/ directory based on user access rights by mapping the folder rights and the object/ content rights for the user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of, the invention being “display interface” is recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “displaying said content” the resulting information amount to mere data outputting which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The “displaying said media content” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, since this generic data outputting on a user interface is well, understood, routine and conventional (WURC). Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
9. Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Under the 2019 PEG, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Courts also consider a mental process as one that can be performed in the human mind and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claim 1 recites a mental process because the recited steps recite the actions for acquiring/ collecting, storing, manipulating and displaying data but is recited at a high level of generality that merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(III). For example, claim 1 recites limitations of “acquiring data, storing data”, “analyzing data and displaying data”. “A data analysis system”, “analysis data display apparatus”, “displaying the data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s)… based on an access right”, “acquire a display top hierarchical data item(s)… corresponding to the access right(s) of the user”, “acquire the to-be-analyzed data items…”, “direct the display to display the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s)…”storage are recited at a high level of generality and do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool. There is, nothing in the claim element that precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recite a mental process. These limitations describe acquiring/ collecting, storing, manipulating and displaying data. While claim 1 recites additional components in the form of A data analysis system, analysis data display apparatus, storage, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See 2019 PEG. The additional limitations of acquiring, displaying data are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the limitations of acquiring data and displaying data. Similarly, the limitation of “displaying the data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally are all process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to gather data to be analyzed, manipulate the data based on the user access rights and display the manipulated data, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Since claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized as a mental process and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, it is determined whether the claims provide an inventive concept. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, or as explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. The limitations of acquiring, displaying data based on user access rights are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, improve the technology, apply the abstract idea to a particular machine, effect a transformation, nor provide meaningful limitations beyond linking the abstract idea to computer technology. They do not recite specific details that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or providing meaningful limits on the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1, 14 and 15 are non-statutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites “an access right provider…”. This limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional limitation merely describes a system comprising an access rights provider. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 depends on claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites “display area…”, “hierarchical structure…”, “input instruction…”, “display analysis modules…”. These limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional limitation merely describes a system comprising a display area. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 11 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 11 recites “analyzer is configured to further analyze the analysis result….”. These limitations that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user can look at the results and further analyze the data based on user access rights which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claims 13, 3 depends on claims 1, 12 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 12, 13 recites “analysis modules include a learned model ….”. These limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional limitation merely describes a system comprising a display area. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are not recited in a manner that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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 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.
10. Claims 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOHLSTADTER; Jacob N (US 20250068300 A1) in view of JIN; YIYI (US 20120023575 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, WOHLSTADTER; Jacob N (US 20250068300 A1) teaches, a data analysis system (Fig. 21, Paragraph [0431] analytical computing system) for displaying to-be-analyzed data items as data to be analyzed in a hierarchical structure having a plurality of hierarchies and for analyzing the to-be-analyzed data items (Paragraphs [0138], [0139] As discussed herein, menus are presented as a series of hierarchical menu trees), the data analysis system comprising: a data acquirer configured to acquire the to-be-analyzed data items (Paragraph [0252] discloses, collecting the data items/ menu items to run an experiment);
a storage configured to store the to-be-analyzed data items and analysis modules as programs to analyze the to-be-analyzed data items linked with top hierarchical data items that are data belonging to a top hierarchy of the hierarchical structure (Paragraphs [0158],[0159] discloses, storage devices for carrying out the tasks and functions. [0155] Each MUI module may be understood to include at least a hierarchical menu tree including multiple layered menus);
an analyzer configured to analyze the to-be-analyzed data items by using the analysis modules; a display configured to display the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules(Paragraph [0252] discloses, analyzing the data based on selected options to run an experiment. Also see [0154], [0155], [0310]);
WOHLSTADTER et al fails to explicitly teach, and a controller configured to direct the display to display the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s); exclude the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s), based on an access right(s) is/are provided to a user; wherein, a plurality of the top hierarchical data items are stored in the storage; the controller is configured to acquire the access right(s) of the user; acquire a display top hierarchical data item(s) from among the plurality of top hierarchical data items stored in the storage, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) corresponding to the access right(s) of the user and designated for the display, based on the acquired access right(s) of the user; acquire the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are stored in the storage and are linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s); and direct the display to display the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, as the hierarchical structure on the display.
JIN; YIYI (US 20120023575 A1) teaches, and a controller configured to direct the display to display the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s), exclude the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s), based on an access right(s) is/are provided to a user; wherein, a plurality of the top hierarchical data items are stored in the storage; the controller is configured to acquire the access right(s) of the user; acquire a display top hierarchical data item(s) from among the plurality of top hierarchical data items stored in the storage, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) corresponding to the access right(s) of the user and designated for the display, based on the acquired access right(s) of the user (Paragraph [0014] A content management device according to one aspect of the present invention includes: a folder level access control information storage unit configured to store folder level access control information indicating access rights of a user to a folder where content is stored. (i.e., As shown in FIG. 5, folders are displayed in a hierarchical manner on the operating screen based on the folder level access). Also see Abstract, [0050]);
acquire the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are stored in the storage and are linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s) (Paragraph [0014] A content management device according to one aspect of the present invention includes: a folder level access control information storage unit configured to store folder level access control information indicating access rights of a user to a folder where content is stored; an access control unit configured to acquire content level access control information indicating access rights of a user to content, from a predetermined content level access control unit. (i.e., As shown in FIG. 5, the content stored in a selected folder (folder F1 in FIG. 5) is displayed in list form.). Also see Abstract, [0050]));
and direct the display to display the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, as the hierarchical structure on the display (Paragraph [0014] and a user interface configured to output display data for displaying a hierarchical structure between at least one folder and at least one content stored in the at least one folder by comparing access rights information contained in the FLAG information and access rights information contained in the CLAC information using the mapping table shown in FIG. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing a controller configured to direct the display to display the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s); exclude the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules that are linked with the top hierarchical data item(s), based on an access right(s) is/are provided to a user; wherein, a plurality of the top hierarchical data items are stored in the storage; the controller is configured to acquire the access right(s) of the user; acquire a display top hierarchical data item(s) from among the plurality of top hierarchical data items stored in the storage, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) corresponding to the access right(s) of the user and designated for the display, based on the acquired access right(s) of the user; acquire the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are stored in the storage and are linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s); and direct the display to display the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, as the hierarchical structure on the display, as taught by JIN et al (Paragraph [0014]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, in an environment in which access rights in folder units and access rights in file units are used in combination, both types of access rights can be managed precisely and easily as taught by JIN et al (Paragraphs [0068], [0070]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 1.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, further comprising an access right provider configured to provide each individual user with the access rights corresponding to the plurality of top hierarchical data items as the top hierarchical data item(s) (Paragraph [0264] In an embodiment, certain menu items included in a hierarchical menu tree, i.e., a first menu, second menu, third menu, etc., may be excluded or restricted from being displayed when that menu is being displayed. Exclusions and restrictions may be managed by the exclusion manager 1058 in conjunction with the menu manager 1054. Displaying any menu from a menu tree includes displaying one or more menu items from that menu but does not necessarily require display of all items from that menu. Menu items of a hierarchical menu level(s) may be excluded or restricted from being displayed based on an exclusion table. Exclusion tables may correspond to a user identifier, email address, username, team, and/or account number. In other embodiments, one or more entire menus from a menu tree may also be excluded based on an exclusion table. In certain embodiments, exclusion or restriction information may be stored in the storage device 1120. The exclusion or restriction information may be stored as a data structure. Any data structure described herein may be employed).
Regarding dependent claim 3, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 2.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, wherein the display includes a first display area for displaying the plurality of top hierarchical data items (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0264] Displaying any menu from a menu tree includes displaying one or more menu items from that menu but does not necessarily require display of all items from that menu. Menu items of a hierarchical menu level(s) may be excluded or restricted from being displayed based on an exclusion table (i.e., displaying the top hierarchical data items/ first menu in the first display area);
and the controller is configured to direct the display to list the plurality of top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user in the first display area, and to direct the display to list the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area (Paragraph [0255] In an embodiment, a first menu selection may operate as a filter on a second menu. In a hierarchical tree, each of several items in a first menu may lead to the same second menu. However, the first menu selection that is made determines the menu items shown when the second menu is displayed. In a simple example, the first menu may include menu items pertaining to team roles while a second menu may include a menu pertaining to team responsibilities. The selection of a specific team role at the first menu may filter the second menu to only show team responsibilities that correspond to the selected role. In some embodiments, such filtering is performed by making specific items of the second menu unselectable. Also see [0268]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 3.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, wherein the display includes a second display area for displaying the to-be-analyzed data items that are linked with the top hierarchical data items; and the controller is configured to direct the display to list the to-be-analyzed data items that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area in the second display area (Fig. 2b Paragraph [0255] In an embodiment, a first menu selection may operate as a filter on a second menu. In a hierarchical tree, each of several items in a first menu may lead to the same second menu. However, the first menu selection that is made determines the menu items shown when the second menu is displayed. In a simple example, the first menu may include menu items pertaining to team roles while a second menu may include a menu pertaining to team responsibilities. The selection of a specific team role at the first menu may filter the second menu to only show team responsibilities that correspond to the selected role. In some embodiments, such filtering is performed by making specific items of the second menu unselectable. Also see [0268]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 4.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, wherein the hierarchical structure includes at least three hierarchies (Fig. 2c, 2K shows at least three hierarchical structures. Paragraph [0240], [0241]);
the display is configured to display sub-hierarchical data items that are data linked with the top hierarchical data items and belong to a hierarchy one level lower than the top hierarchy in the second display area; and the controller is configured to direct the display to list the sub-hierarchical data items that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area in the second display area (Figs. 2b, 2c shows display of second hierarchical data items/ submenu data items in the second display area that are linked to the first hierarchical data items in the first display area. Also see [0240]).
Regarding dependent claim 6, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 5.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, further comprising an input acceptor configured to accept a user input instruction, wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to display an input field for accepting the user input instruction in the second display area, and to narrow the to-be-analyzed data items that are linked with the top hierarchical data items to be displayed in the second display area in accordance with the user input instruction accepted in the input field (Paragraph [0269] discloses, receiving an input instruction by selecting one of the first hierarchical data items to display second hierarchical data items).
Regarding dependent claim 7, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 6.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to display operating buttons each of which switches, in accordance with the user input instruction accepted by the input acceptor, between showing and hiding the to-be- analyzed data item(s) that is/are linked with one top hierarchical data item in the plurality of top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user in the first display area; and the operating buttons are aligned with the plurality of top hierarchical data items (Paragraph [0255] the first menu may include menu items pertaining to team roles while a second menu may include a menu pertaining to team responsibilities. The selection of a specific team role at the first menu may filter the second menu to only show team responsibilities that correspond to the selected role. In some embodiments, such filtering is performed by making specific items of the second menu unselectable (i.e., showing and hiding the data items based on the user selection)).
Regarding independent claim 15, WOHLSTADTER; Jacob N (US 20250068300 A1) teaches, a data display method in a data analysis system for analyzing to-be-analyzed data items as data to be analyzed displayed in a hierarchical structure having a plurality of hierarchies (Paragraphs [0138], [0139] As discussed herein, menus are presented as a series of hierarchical menu trees), the data display method comprising: a step of acquiring the to-be-analyzed data items (Paragraph [0252] discloses, collecting the data items/ menu items to run an experiment);
a step of storing the to-be-analyzed data items and analysis modules as programs to analyze the to-be-analyzed data items linked with top hierarchical data items that are data belonging to a top hierarchy (Paragraphs [0158],[0159] discloses, storage devices for carrying out the tasks and functions. [0155] Each MUI module may be understood to include at least a hierarchical menu tree including multiple layered menus);
a step of providing each individual user with the access rights corresponding to the top hierarchical data item(s) (Paragraph [0255] discloses, providing user with the access rights corresponding to the user group/ role);
WOHLSTADTER et al fails to explicitly teach, a step of acquiring the access rights of the user; a step of acquiring a display the top hierarchical data item(s) from among a plurality of the stored top hierarchical data items, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) to be displayed that corresponds to the access right(s) of the user, based on the acquired access rights of the user; a step of acquiring the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules from the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data items, which have been stored, based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s); and a step of displaying the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, as
JIN; YIYI (US 20120023575 A1) teaches, a step of acquiring the access rights of the user; a step of acquiring a display the top hierarchical data item(s) from among a plurality of the stored top hierarchical data items, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) to be displayed that corresponds to the access right(s) of the user, based on the acquired access rights of the user (Paragraph [0014] A content management device according to one aspect of the present invention includes: a folder level access control information storage unit configured to store folder level access control information indicating access rights of a user to a folder where content is stored. (i.e., As shown in FIG. 5, folders are displayed in a hierarchical manner on the operating screen based on the folder level access). Also see Abstract, [0050]);
a step of acquiring the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules from the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data items, which have been stored, based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s) (Paragraph [0014] A content management device according to one aspect of the present invention includes: a folder level access control information storage unit configured to store folder level access control information indicating access rights of a user to a folder where content is stored; an access control unit configured to acquire content level access control information indicating access rights of a user to content, from a predetermined content level access control unit. (i.e., As shown in FIG. 5, the content stored in a selected folder (folder F1 in FIG. 5) is displayed in list form.). Also see Abstract, [0050]));
and a step of displaying the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, as(Paragraph [0014] and a user interface configured to output display data for displaying a hierarchical structure between at least one folder and at least one content stored in the at least one folder by comparing access rights information contained in the FLAG information and access rights information contained in the CLAC information using the mapping table shown in FIG. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing a step of acquiring the access rights of the user; a step of acquiring a display the top hierarchical data item(s) from among a plurality of the stored top hierarchical data items, which is/are the top hierarchical data item(s) to be displayed that corresponds to the access right(s) of the user, based on the acquired access rights of the user; a step of acquiring the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules from the to-be-analyzed data items and the analysis modules linked with the acquired display top hierarchical data items, which have been stored, based on the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s); and a step of displaying the acquired display top hierarchical data item(s), the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the analysis modules, hierarchical structure on a display as taught by JIN et al (Paragraph [0014]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, in an environment in which access rights in folder units and access rights in file units are used in combination, both types of access rights can be managed precisely and easily as taught by JIN et al (Paragraphs [0068], [0070]).
11. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOHLSTADTER; Jacob N (US 20250068300 A1) in view of in view of JIN; YIYI (US 20120023575 A1) and in further view of Kottu; Rajeswara Rao (US 20120259892 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 3.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, wherein the display further includes a third display area for displaying the analysis modules (Paragraph [0503] The MUI may auto-transition to all analysis methods at 412109 if recent analysis methods at 412106 is empty. At 412106, on selection of recent analysis methods, a user is presented a configurable amount, for example twenty five, of the most recently used analysis methods at 412108 as returned from a service request made via the cloud platform. Alternatively, selection of available at 412107 presents to a user a new execution menu of all analysis methods at 412109 as returned from a service request made via the cloud platform with the analysis methods organized by system-provided default analysis methods and user-provided analysis methods, enabling a user to browse the various analysis methods and to select the analysis method of choice);
WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al fails to explicitly teach, and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the plurality of top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user in the first display area, and to direct the display to list the analysis modules that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area in the third display area.
Kottu et al further teaches, and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the plurality of top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user in the first display area, and to direct the display to list the analysis modules that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area in the third display area (Paragraph [0036] According to an embodiment, at 211, provides, via the GUI, a list of available analysis modules for the user to select. The list is derived based on the user belong to the user group. So, when the user is authenticated a role assigned to the user identifies that the user is associated with the user group, and then based on this role assignment the list of available analysis modules that are available for this particular user group is presented to the user for selection via the GUI).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the plurality of top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user in the first display area, and to direct the display to list the analysis modules that are linked with the plurality of top hierarchical data items that are displayed in the first display area in the third display area, as taught by Kottu et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, streamlines workflows and enhances security. This approach ensures users see only relevant tools, reducing clutter while minimizing the risk of unauthorized data access or accidental modifications.
Regarding dependent claim 9, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 1.
WOHLSTADTER et al further teaches, and to exclude the one of the analysis modules from the modules to be displayed on the display if at least one of the access rights to the two or more of the top hierarchical data items is not provided to the user (Paragraph [0455] User and Role 351502 has a data entity 351514 representing a distinct user of the analytical computing system associated with one or more teams 351509 prepared for an Account 351506 where each user has for a team an association with a data entity 351515 representing a role in the use of the analytical computing system with a prescribed set of software function permissions as defined in the associated data entity 351516 derived from the permissions defined by the data entity 351518 associated with the data entity 351517 representing each software module in the analytical computing system, such that, a distinct User 351514 may participate with one or more teams 351509 where each team could be in the same or different accounts 351506 and the user assuming one or more roles 351515 for each team that enables and disables one or more functions of the software as configured for each role 351516).
WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the controller is configured, in a case in which one of the analysis modules is linked with two or more of the top hierarchical data items, to direct the display to display the one of the analysis modules if all the access rights to the two or more of the top hierarchical data items are provided to the user.
Kottu et al further teaches, wherein the controller is configured, in a case in which one of the analysis modules is linked with two or more of the top hierarchical data items, to direct the display to display the one of the analysis modules if all the access rights to the two or more of the top hierarchical data items are provided to the user (Paragraph [0036] provides, via the GUI, a list of available analysis modules for the user to select. The list is derived based on the user belong to the user group. So, when the user is authenticated a role assigned to the user identifies that the user is associated with the user group, and then based on this role assignment the list of available analysis modules that are available for this particular user group is presented to the user for selection via the GUI).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing wherein the controller is configured, in a case in which one of the analysis modules is linked with two or more of the top hierarchical data items, to direct the display to display the one of the analysis modules if all the access rights to the two or more of the top hierarchical data items are provided to the user, as taught by Kottu et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, streamlines workflows and enhances security. This approach ensures users see only relevant tools, reducing clutter while minimizing the risk of unauthorized data access or accidental modifications.
Regarding dependent claim 10, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 1.
WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the storage is configured to store analysis results, which are results of analysis of the to-be-analyzed data items by the analysis modules, linked with the top hierarchical data items; and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user from the analysis results that are stored in the storage in the hierarchical structure, and to exclude the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are not provided to the user from the analysis result(s) to be displayed on the display.
Kottu et al further teaches, wherein the storage is configured to store analysis results, which are results of analysis of the to-be-analyzed data items by the analysis modules, linked with the top hierarchical data items (Paragraph [0052] discloses, the analysis results are linked to the top hierarchical data items, which is based on the user role/ user group/ vendor group. Also see [0022], [0036]);
and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user from the analysis results that are stored in the storage in the hierarchical structure, and to exclude the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are not provided to the user from the analysis result(s) to be displayed on the display (Paragraph [0053] the vendor analysis service 302 is further configured to filter the results before providing the results to the vendor based on the access rights assigned to the vendor (i.e., the results are filtered/ excluded based on the user access rights assigned to the role)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing wherein the storage is configured to store analysis results, which are results of analysis of the to-be-analyzed data items by the analysis modules, linked with the top hierarchical data items; and the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are provided to the user from the analysis results that are stored in the storage in the hierarchical structure, and to exclude the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items whose access rights are not provided to the user from the analysis result(s) to be displayed on the display, as taught by Kottu et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, streamlines workflows and enhances security. This approach ensures users see only relevant tools, reducing clutter while minimizing the risk of unauthorized data access or accidental modifications.
Regarding dependent claim 11, WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 10.
WOHLSTADTER et al and JIN et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items; and the analyzer is configured to further analyze the analysis result that is accepted as input data from the analysis result(s) that is/are displayed on the display.
Kottu et al further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items (Paragraph [0052] discloses, the analysis results are linked to the top hierarchical data items, which is based on the user role/ user group/ vendor group. Also see [0022], [0036]);
and the analyzer is configured to further analyze the analysis result that is accepted as input data from the analysis result(s) that is/are displayed on the display (Paragraph [0053] the vendor analysis service 302 is further configured to filter the results before providing the results to the vendor based on the access rights assigned to the vendor (i.e., the results are filtered/ excluded based on the user access rights assigned to the role)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al by providing wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to display the analysis result(s) that is/are linked with the top hierarchical data items; and the analyzer is configured to further analyze the analysis result that is accepted as input data from the analysis result(s) that is/are displayed on the display, as taught by Kottu et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, streamlines workflows and enhances security. This approach ensures users see only relevant tools, reducing clutter while minimizing the risk of unauthorized data access or accidental modifications.
12. Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOHLSTADTER; Jacob N (US 20250068300 A1) in view of JIN; YIYI (US 20120023575 A1), Kottu; Rajeswara Rao (US 20120259892 A1) and in further view of Park; Kyoungjun (US 20210064636 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 12, WOHLSTADTER et al, JIN et al and Kottu et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 11.
WOHLSTADTER et al, JIN et al and Kottu et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the analysis modules include a learned model that has learned to analyze the to-be-analyzed data item(s); the storage is configured to store the to-be-analyzed data items and input teacher data items to be used to generate the learned model with an identifier indicating the input data being attached to the to-be-analyzed data items and the input teacher data items; and the controller is configured to direct the storage to store the analysis results as the input data by attaching the identifier indicating the input data to the analysis results similar to the to-be-analyzed data items and the input teacher data items.
Park; Kyoungjun (US 20210064636 A1) teaches, wherein the analysis modules include a learned model that has learned to analyze the to-be-analyzed data item(s) (Paragraph [0060]The analysis target data determination model may be a model trained by using training data including a data set as an input, at least one of an analysis purpose, user selection data, and user information as an additional input, and the analysis target data as a label. Also see [0062]);
the storage is configured to store the to-be-analyzed data items and input teacher data items to be used to generate the learned model with an identifier indicating the input data being attached to the to-be-analyzed data items and the input teacher data items (Paragraphs [0070]-[0072] discloses, generating the learned model including the input of the training data and the analysis target data based on user input extracted from the stored data set. Also see [0067], [0085]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WOHLSTADTER et al, JIN et al and Kottu et al by providing wherein the analysis modules include a learned model that has learned to analyze the to-be-analyzed data item(s); the storage is configured to store the to-be-analyzed data items and input teacher data items to be used to generate the learned model with an identifier indicating the input data being attached to the to-be-analyzed data items and the input teacher data items; and the controller is configured to direct the storage to store the analysis results as the input data by attaching the identifier indicating the input data to the analysis results similar to the to-be-analyzed data items and the input teacher data items, as taught by Park et al (Paragraphs [0060], [0070]-[0072]) .
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, would provide a method of determining which of the data stored in the database needs to be analyzed and how the data needs to be analyzed to produce an analysis result as taught by Paragraph [0004])..
Regarding dependent claim 13, WOHLSTADTER et al, JIN et al, Kottu et al and Park et al teach, the data analysis system according to claim 12.
Park et al further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to direct the display to list the to-be-analyzed data items and/or the input teacher data items, and the analysis results in a bottom hierarchy of the hierarchical structure (Paragraph [0066] discloses, displaying the analysis target data and the analysis results in the output data as analysis target data. Also see [0117]).
Closest Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Li; Yong (US 20190196933 A1) teaches, A data visual analysis method, system and terminal, and a computer readable storage medium are provided. The method includes: obtaining to-be-analyzed parameters and generating a data analysis model, the data analysis model including a plurality of execution units; the data sources collecting data information related to the to-be-analyzed parameters; the execution units performing analysis on the data information collected by the data sources, to obtain execution results of the execution units; and visually outputting the execution results of the execution units (Abstract)
14. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights