DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 3/31/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannard et al. (US 2010/0058250), hereinafter Stannard, in view of Blades et al. (US 5,990,888), hereinafter Blades.
As per claim 1, Stannard teaches the following:
A method executed by a computer system for interactive data value editing through graphical visualization techniques within a computing environment, (see abstract), the method comprising:
generating a graphical visualization tailored to a selected data source, wherein the said graphical data visualization is of a type selected from a group consisting of bar charts, scatter plots, line graphs, and surface plots, providing a direct and intuitive correspondence between the position of a data point and its actual value across various data categories including time series, categorical, and continuous data. As Stannard shows in Figs. 2 (bar chart) and Fig. 5 (line graph), both series and category data may be shown;
displaying a graphical overlay element on top of the graphical data visualization, wherein the graphical element is configured as a multifunctional interactive tool capable of performing geometric transformations including but not limited to translation, rotation, and scaling, to interactively adjust according to user interactions. This graphical element is designed to support modifications of data points through direct manipulation, providing users with an intuitive means of adjusting data values by altering the element's geometric properties. As Stannard teaches in paragraph [0030], and corresponding Fig. 5, an example graphical tool 508 is presented which allows a user to drag a cursor to manipulate a selected data point. Given the different types of charts of Stannard, the examiner interprets the transformation of the bar chart of Fig. 3A as “scaling”, the pie chart of Fig. 4 as “rotating”, and the line chart of Fig. 5 as “translation”. As Stannard shows in Fig. 7, step 712, numeric data for an object is displayed with the cursor. As the cursor is “above” and object, this is interpreted as being a form of “overlay element”;
dynamically refreshing geometric properties of the said graphical element in real-time in response to user interactions, wherein the user interactions include at least one of clicking, dragging, resizing, scrolling, or inputting numerical adjustments to the graphical element through a user interface. As Stannard teaches in paragraph [0026], a readout value of a selected point is updated AS the point is clicked and dragged via a cursor. Stannard further teaches in paragraph [0027], and corresponding Fig. 3B, of a “data entry field”, i.e., inputting numerical adjustments;
generating value modification records for affected data points, wherein the value modification records include modifications to be applied to the data points based on the geometric properties of the graphical element and the type of user interaction,
applying the value modification records to the underlying data source of the data visualization, wherein applying includes modifying data values of the affected data points in the data source according to the value modification record. As Stannard teaches in paragraph [0005], changes to variables within the graphics program are tracked and the edits are applied to the underlying data storage structures. Stannard lists example storage structures in paragraph [0004];
notifying all data sources and dependent systems linked to the underlying data of the graphical visualization about the value modification, including providing details of the modification and optionally triggering predefined actions or updates in the linked systems. As Stannard teaches in paragraph [0005], changes to variables within the graphics program are tracked and the edits are applied to the underlying data storage structures. Updating the underlying data storage is interpreted as encompassing the structure being “notified” with the details of the user edit. Furthermore, as Applicant recites predefined actions being “optional”, such actions are given no patentable weight.
However, Stannard does not explicitly teach of the modifications being calculated via algorithm and updating the data visualization accordingly. In a similar field of endeavor, Blades teaches of manipulating a graphic object associated with variables (see abstract). Blades further shows in Fig. 3B that a bar chart 302 may be associated with an algorithm 306. Blades teaches in column 5, lines 48-65, that a user changing a value for one variable may result in values for other variables changing depending upon the algorithm and that values of a corresponding underlying record, such as a spreadsheet, are also changed in response to the user changes. This results in the visualization being updated as seen in Fig. 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the graph displays of Stannard with the equation based display and updates of Blades. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Blades teaches in column 1, lines 25-44, such equation based alterations benefit users in allowing the users to edit values and visualize the overall effect of said edited values on other values.
Regarding claim 5, modified Stannard teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Stannard further teaches the following:
the displayed graphical overlay element is a circle with its center placed at the geometric center of a data point on the graphical visualization that is closest to the current pointer location, hereto referred to as the center data point. As Stannard shows in Fig. 5, and corresponding paragraph [0030], when a cursor is moved over and editable data point (geometric center of the point), it assumes the shape 506 of a dot with arrows, where a dot is interpreted to encompass a circle.
Regarding claim 6, modified Stannard teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. Stannard further teaches the following:
the center of the displayed circle is dynamically adjusted in response to pointer movements. This adjustment occurs during a drag operation, wherein the circle's center is relocated to follow the movement path of the pointer. As Stannard teaches in paragraph [0030], the cursor assumes the form 506 and is drug upward or downward where the display is updated based upon the current position of the cursor, thus teaching the dot’s center is relocated following the path of the cursor.
As per claim 11, Stannard teaches the following:
a computer system comprising:
a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon. See Fig. 1.
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Stannard teaches the system of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 5 and 6 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stannard in view of Blades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barkley et al. (US 2018/0225083), hereinafter Barkley.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stannard teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Stannard does not explicitly teach of the overlay being a Bezier curve determined by user inputs. In a similar field of endeavor, Barkley teaches of a modifiable line graph (see abstract and Fig. 1). Barkley further teaches the following:
the displayed graphical overlay element is a Bezier curve, the positioning and shaping of which are determined by a sequence of control points. These control points are established through user inputs, including a series of mouse button clicks or touch interactions on a display interface, wherein the context of this interaction and the subsequent graphical representation is confined to a two-dimensional coordinate system with a categorical axis and a value axis. As Barkley teaches in paragraph [0108], a Bezier path is generated to a user’s input drag across a GUI and is a complex multi-node path (sequence of control points. Barkley further shows in Fig. 1 how the graph is a two-dimensional coordinate system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the graph displays of Stannard with user entered Bezier path of Barkley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Barkley teaches in paragraph [0004], such Bezier path application benefits users in allowing defining paths via nodes where previous methods were limited in modifiability.
Regarding claim 3, modified Stannard teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. However, as described above, Stannard does not explicitly teach of the overlay being a Bezier curve determined by user inputs. Barkley further teaches the following:
wherein the construction of the displayed line is such that its initiating and terminating control points align with the geometric centers of selected data points within the graphical data visualization, and the displayed line is dynamically updated to accommodate the incremental addition of control points. As Barkley teaches in paragraph [0108], a Bezier path is generated to a user’s input drag across a GUI. Thus, the user may form the line such that the initial and terminal points align with the center of data points. Barkley further teaches in paragraph [0015] that more calculation points are added to the Bezier path corresponding to user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the graph displays of Stannard with user entered Bezier path of Barkley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Barkley teaches in paragraph [0004], such Bezier path application benefits users in allowing defining paths via nodes where previous methods were limited in modifiability.
Regarding claim 4, modified Stannard teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Stannard further teaches the following:
wherein the modification of values within the value modification record for each affected data point is calculated as the difference between the coordinate values along the value axis of an intercept point on the line and that of the geometric center of the affected data point, wherein the intercept point is identified as having a coordinate along the categorical axis that matches that of the affected data point.
Regarding claims 12-14, modified Stannard teaches the system of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-4 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hernandez et al. (US 4,674,043), see Figs. 1-4.
Chhaparwal et al. (US 2010/0060642), drawing curved edges in graphs using Bezier curves.
Crouch (US 2019/0220157), see abstract.
Weissbrod et al. (US 2019/0096102), see Fig. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174