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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo analysis, and falsely claims that the Office Action dated 07/02/2025 does not identify the abstract idea not provide analysis of claim language as an ordered combination. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion. To start with the claim that the Office Action dated 07/02/2025 does not identify the abstract idea not provide analysis of claim language as an ordered combination, this assertion is invalid. The Office Action recites on page 3 that the claims recite mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and option). Due to the applicant’s amendments an additional abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity is added as well. Further, on page 3 of the Office Action. The step 2A Prong Two section recites that the combination of the additional elements (that are also listed in the section) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea/judicial exception using a generic computer. Also, the action (same page 3) states that accordingly, in combination, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The judicial exception is identified and there is analysis of claim language as an ordered combination. Thus, applicant’s argument is false and lacks merit. Next, examiner addresses the argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo analysis. It is the examiner’s position that the claims recite a judicial exception (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), specifically mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions). The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea and not an improvement to technology and/or technical field. The specification recites in the background of the invention in [0002] Visually displaying the length of entities is something many software solutions do – from online calendars to project planning suites. Swimlanes can become unwieldy and large, as more items are added to each swimlane. There is thus a need to make the overall chart more compact. However, the more densely populated or compressed these displays become, the harder it becomes to show multiple overlapping entities. With very little space to display multiple overlapping entities, visually determining where one entity ends and the next entity begins becomes difficult or impossible. The entities can be ordered items - such as dates, timelines, numbers, integers and the like. Further the summary discloses in [0003] Disclosed herein are systems and methods that can illustrate overlapping intervals of entities by representing each entity with a directional, translucent shape. The directional shapes do not reduce legibility, while at the same time, they may make it easy to differentiate the start of one entity from an end of a different overlapping entity. This enables readers, even at a glance, to view multiple overlapped entities without confusing the respective start and end point of each entity. The claim limitations give the process of displaying overlapping intervals of entities by representing each entity with a directional, translucent shape. It is clear from the specification and claim limitations that the invention and claims are drawn to, and recite, a judicial exception. The claims are drawn towards the visual display for overlapping intervals for viewing and/or interaction by a user, and corresponds to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving unput data and identifying minimum and maximum value to define a range of a visualization axis, rendering a visualization parameter axis from a smallest parameter to a largest parameter, identifying groups of data and a set of start and end data parameters, and rendering a directional shape from start to end along the visualization parameter axis. The claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions) by enabling readers to view multiple overlapped entities without confusing the start and end point of each entity which is evidences by the limitation of visually displaying one or more overlapping directional shapes so that each of the overlapping dimensional shapes are visible in an overlapping portion of the overlapping dimensional shapes. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that their claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement rooted in computer technology advance rooted in computer technology to solve the problem of confusing display interfaces. Examiner disagrees. In the applicant’s invention, the input parameters are defined in order to display the data in directional shapes. The display of shapes can be translucent in order to make it easy to differentiate the start of one entity from an end of a different overlapping entity. The specification provides further that [0074] The input data can be ordered - for example, ordered according to date, to time, to date time, to numbers, to integers, and so forth. Note, however, that the order of the input data is not a requirement as the directional translucent shape rendering can be done in any order, and [0078] “…for each start and end parameters (block 716), a directional shape may be rendered from start to end along the axis and within the group at block 718. The directional shapes show the start and end dates when rendered on top of other directional shapes - as such, the directional shapes can be translucent…”. Making it easy to differentiate the start of one entity from an end of a different overlapping entity is not an improvement in computers or technology. Instead, a computer is merely being used as a tool to display the data. For instance, the invention and claims of in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) were deemed patent eligible because, regardless of what abstract idea it may have been directed towards, it nonetheless represented a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” – it was not deemed patent eligible merely because it recited a computer-based solution in a particular field of industry. Applicant’s claims are not similar to that of DDR Holdings, and merely recites a computer-based solution in a particular field or industry (displaying the length of entities). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processor, memory (claim 7), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, applicant is reminded that, as stated by the CAFC, “while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
Applicant’s claims are not similar to Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) where the Federal Circuit specifically stated that the lack of a user-friendly interface for navigating three-dimensional spreadsheets was a "technological problem in computers." The court emphasized that the claims recited a "specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs) within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function (i.e., navigating within a three- dimensional spreadsheet)." As such, these claims were distinguished from other cases where the claims were merely directed to displaying information on a screen or merely collecting, manipulating, or organizing information. Applicant’s claims are merely directed to displaying information on a screen and merely collecting, manipulating, or organizing information as indicated by the claim limitations.
Applicant also argues that their claims compare favorably to Trading Technologies International v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), instead its favorably to support the examiner’s position and not the applicant’s. Examiner agrees that their claims are similar to Trading Technologies. The invention in Trading Technologies helped a trader make an order when buying and selling items on a computer. The court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of graphing or displaying bids as part of the ordering process. The court was not persuaded that the claims were directed to an improved graphical user interface, finding that a "purportedly new arrangement of generic information" was not enough to improve the functioning of the computer.
Finally, under Step 2B the applicant argues that their claims are eligible because the claims provide an inventive arrangement that goes beyond conventional arrangement of computer functions. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has provided no evidence that the claims provide an inventive arrangement that goes beyond conventional arrangement of computer functions. In fact, applicant’s specification states that the computer programs may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer in [0037], and in [0047] states that computers suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, general purpose computer. Further, applicant’s claim merely recites a general purpose computer and the computing components are recited at a high level of generality. 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 additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 20, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recites the limitation "the overlapping dimensional shapes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the overlapping dimensional shapes” are interpreted to be the previously mentioned overlapping directional shapes. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent with the clam language in order to avoid confusion. Dimensional generally refers to the number of coordinates or measurements needed to describe a point or object. Directional generally refers to a specifical path or orientation in space that is usually indebted by vectors, angles, etc.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitations of receiving input data having one or more start parameters and one or more end parameters; identifying a minimum value and a maximum value to define a range of a visualization axis; rendering a visualization parameter axis from a smallest parameter to a largest parameter; identifying one or more groups of data; for each group of data: identifying a set of start data parameters and a set of end data parameters; adding a row or a column to a visualization; and for each start data parameter and each end data parameter: rendering a directional shape from start to end along the visualization parameter axis, the directional shape being translucent and asymmetrical; wherein, for a plurality of the directional shapes rendered, visually display one or more overlapping directional shapes so that each of the overlapping dimensional shapes are visible in an overlapping portion of the overlapping dimensional shapes. The claims are drawn towards the visual display for overlapping intervals for viewing and/or interaction by a user, and corresponds to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving unput data and identifying minimum and maximum value to define a range of a visualization axis, rendering a visualization parameter axis from a smallest parameter to a largest parameter, identifying groups of data and a set of start and end data parameters, and rendering a directional shape from start to end along the visualization parameter axis. The claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions) by enabling readers to view multiple overlapped entities without confusing the start and end point of each entity which is evidences by the limitation of visually displaying one or more overlapping directional shapes so that each of the overlapping dimensional shapes are visible in an overlapping portion of the overlapping dimensional shapes The claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processor, memory (claim 7), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), and a computer (claim 13). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these 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 are directed to an 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 additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes van den Broek (2018/0004374) and Cardno (2016/0239989). Van den Broek discloses a process visualization toolkit includes micro-component templates and application programmer's interfaces (APis) to build a process visualization and show it in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a computer screen. Micro-components share compatible display properties that relate to process visualization. The APis allow customization, but also allow mixing micro-components with components in standard technologies, such as HTML. Shared properties include display settings, position settings, time settings, and the time type (calendar time, work time, relative time). A time axis micro-component includes functions to convert time to pixel position, and pixel position to time, based on the time type. Cardno discloses method of generating a representation of data values for a plurality of data points being visualized in an image space, the method comprising the steps of the data visualization system: i) retrieving data values from a data storage module in communication with the data visualization system, wherein a first data value is associated with a first data point, ii) determining a size and a transparency value for a first icon based on the first data value, iii) rendering the first icon in two dimensions in a position associated with the first data point in the image space, wherein the first icon is rendered based on the determined size and transparency values to generate a representation of the data value. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, discloses the amended limitation that for each start data parameter and each end data parameter: rendering a directional shape from start to end along the visualization parameter axis, the directional shape being translucent and asymmetrical; wherein, for a plurality of the directional shapes rendered, visually display one or more overlapping directional shapes so that each of the overlapping dimensional shapes are visible in an overlapping portion of the overlapping dimensional shapes. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that discloses the applicant’s invention includes “Integrated Spatio-temporal Storyline Visualization with Low Crossover” (He, Xi, et. al., 2020) which discloses a storyline visualization technique that integrate both time and location information in a single view, develops a timeline-based visualization method that maintains regular ordering of temporal and spatial dimensions, and a heuristic method to reduce excessive line crossovers for large data sets. The reference does not disclose the amended limitation that for each start data parameter and each end data parameter: rendering a directional shape from start to end along the visualization parameter axis, the directional shape being translucent and asymmetrical; wherein, for a plurality of the directional shapes rendered, visually display one or more overlapping directional shapes so that each of the overlapping dimensional shapes are visible in an overlapping portion of the overlapping dimensional shapes. The claims overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights