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
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 03/29/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the phrases “…data widgets…in an adjustable hierarchical tree format…”,“…serves as the pivotal point for managing and organizing all critical aspects of the user interaction…”. As to the phase “…data widgets…in an adjustable hierarchical tree format…”, fig.3 and [0038] of the specification describes spreadsheet cells in a tree structure, the specification does not disclose a tree representation of data widgets. As to the phase “…serves as the pivotal point for managing and organizing all critical aspects of the user interaction…”, the specification does not define metrics of defining aspects of data analysis environment being “pivotal”. Additionally, the phrase “all critical aspects of user interactions” does not define what “all critical aspects” are.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are rejected summarily because they are depended on claims 3 and 12.
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 and 10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the phrases " and other visual representations", “and other features to facilitate coding tasks” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what others are.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the phrases “a tool widget”, “the workspace manager widget”, “the environment widget”, “the overview widget” and “the main widget”. It is not clear if the above phrases are independent of each other.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 12 and 17, the phrase “the active command interpreter's evaluation stack” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear where the limitation refers back to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Cabral (US 2016/0246490 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Cabral discloses a method executed by a computer system for operating a graphical user interface (GUI) for integrated data analysis, the method comprising: displaying a plurality of data widgets alongside a plurality of tool widgets on a computer system's display (fig.10; [0034], [0066]; different categories of widgets are available for user to select in a graphical manner);
receiving user input through various interaction mechanisms with the GUI, including direct manipulation of widgets (such as dragging, dropping, resizing) ([0043], [0044], widgets are dragged/dropped and resized), gesture inputs, voice commands ([0022]; voice and touch based inputs are provided), and traditional input methods (keyboard and mouse actions) ([0041], [0066]; keyboard and mouse inputs are provided); and
dynamically and instantaneously updating the display of the said data and tool widgets in response to the user inputs ([0044]; the display is undated when the user drags and drops a widget to a widget display region).
INDEPENDENT claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabral in view of Abulleil et al. (US 2001/0027455 A1) and Eberlein et al. (US 10,534,585 B1).
As to claim 2, Cabral discloses wherein the plurality of data widgets comprises: a plurality of data visualization widgets that graphically represent datasets, enabling users to visually analyze and interpret complex information through charts, graphs, and other visual representations (Cabral, fig.5; different visualizations are disclosed); a plurality of spreadsheet widgets that display and manage tabular data and analyze information within a grid format (Cabral, fig.10, “1006”). Cabral does not expressly disclose … allowing users to interact with, manipulate, complete with functionalities for formula calculations, data sorting, and formatting; and a plurality of code editors that allow users to display, edit, and manage code, offering syntax highlighting, line numbering, and other features to facilitate coding tasks.
In the same field of endeavor, Abulleil discloses … allowing users to interact with, manipulate, complete with functionalities for formula calculations, data sorting, and formatting ([0097]; basic spreadsheet functions are provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching Cabral and Abulleil before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the customizable dashboard taught by the prior art as combined to include spreadsheet manipulation functions taught by Abulleil with the motivation being to provide enhance data integration by providing spreadsheet functionality. Cabral-Abulleil does not expressly disclose a plurality of code editors that allow users to display, edit, and manage code, offering syntax highlighting, line numbering, and other features to facilitate coding tasks.
In the same field of endeavor, Eberlein discloses a plurality of code editors that allow users to display, edit, and manage code, offering syntax highlighting, line numbering, and other features to facilitate coding tasks (fig.3B; col.2, l.64-col.3, l.16; code editing, syntax highlighting and line numbering are presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Eberlein before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the customizable dashboard taught by the prior art as combined to include code editing tools taught by Eberlein with the motivation being to provide enhance data integration by providing code editing functionality.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179