Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/629,751

Dynamic axes splitting and recombination for enhanced graphical data visualization and analysis

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
SAMS, MICHELLE L
Art Unit
2611
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
364 granted / 481 resolved
+13.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
491
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§112
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 481 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
HDETAILED ACTION 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 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 1-3, 5-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREGG, III (2010/0235771 A1). RE claim 1, Gregg teaches a real-time graph data feedback system and method, to a user during a drag-and-drop graph display creation process [abstract]. Gregg teaches a computer implemented method for dynamically splitting and recombining axes in a data visualization system to facilitate enhanced analysis and interaction with graphical data visualizations, the method comprising: (a) generating a two-dimensional chart within a computing device, the chart capable of displaying a plurality of graphical representations, wherein the graphical representations include at least one of scatter plots, line graphs, bar graphs, and stem graphs, and wherein the chart is configured to display an unlimited number of said graphical representations simultaneously; Fig. 1, memory repositories (24, 22) contain variable data for plotting or other incorporation into the graph creation display region [0048]. Fig.2, a user (32) is provided a user viewable display (34) that includes a graph creation display region for specifying the construction of a graph for data display [0049]. Using a pointing device (40), a user (32) dictates associations between variables and graph display components that define the graph creation display region. A graph is the entire area being constructed and may include axes, legend, titles, grouping headers, and the graph panels (said two-dimensional chart) [0049]. The graph panel is an area of the graph that contains data representations such as symbols, lines, and bars (said line graphs, bar graphs) [0049]. Gregg does not discuss the number of graphical representations that can be displayed simultaneously. However, from the teachings of Gregg, it is implied that the number of graphs that can be displayed simultaneously is based on the amount of data being selected within the variable selection region (378) and the actual data of the variable. As shown in Fig. 7, 6 different graphs are displayed based on the age of the data set, and the age consists of years 12-17 [0066]. It is implied that if the ages were to be a wider range, additional graphs would be displayed. Thus, Gregg provides a means for said display[ing] an unlimited number of said graphical representations simultaneously. (b) initiating an axes splitting operation in response to a user command, wherein said operation divides the original chart into multiple sub-charts, each sub-chart created to host at least one graphical representation from the plurality of graphical representations; Fig. 16 depicts an initial state of a graph creation display region. The graph creation display region (300) includes a graph panel (302), an x-axis (304), y-axis (306), and variable selection region (308) from which a user may select variables and drag them to graph hotspots to create associations between the variables and graph components associated with the hotspots [0075]. Fig. 21A depicts a graph creation display region following dragging a weight variable to a y-axis hotspot (348) [0081] and a height variable over an x-axis hotpot [Fig. 18, 0078] (said original chart). Fig. 23 depicts a graph creation display region during a dragging operation making an association between a sex variable and a group X hotspot [0085]. The sex variable from variable selection region (378) is dragged to group X hotspot (380) (said in response to a user command) [0085]. The association between the sex variable and the group X graph component results in the graph display being split into two graph panels (382, 384), i.e., female weight vs. height data and male weight vs. height data (said operation divides the original chart into multiple sub-charts, each sub-chart created to host at least one graphical representation from the plurality of graphical representations) [0085]. (c) reassigning graphical representations from the original chart to the corresponding sub-charts, wherein each graphical representation becomes a child object of its respective sub-chart, and wherein each sub-chart is further defined as a child of the original chart, thereby establishing a hierarchical structure; Gregg is silent to the use of a hierarchical structure. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the modifications of the original graphs of Gregg create a hierarchy. As shown in the example of Fig. 21A to Fig. 23, a hierarchy is established since the split graphs stem from an original graph, i.e., height vs. weight. As the user adds additional variables from the variable selection region, modification of the original graph is made, producing said children. (d) updating the display properties and positions of the sub-charts within the original chart's display area, wherein each sub-chart undergoes scaling and mapping procedures to accurately render its contained graphical representations; As shown in the comparison between Figs. 21A and 23, when the user adds the sex variable to the original chart of Fig. 21A, the original chart of Fig. 21A is split as shown in Fig. 23. Furthermore, the x-axis of the female and male chart are scaled to properly fit within the graph panel that was originally the full graph of Fig. 21A. (e) dynamically updating the sub-charts in real-time based on user interactions, including adjusting the value range along at least one axis across all sub-charts and modifying the layout of sub-charts upon the repositioning of graphical representations through drag-and-drop actions; and The graph of Fig. 23 (said sub-charts) is displayed in real-time, i.e., live feedback, as the user drags the sex variable from the variable selection region (378) to the group X hotspot (380) (said dynamically updating, drag-and-drop actions) [0085]. As can be seen in comparison of Fig. 21A to Fig. 23, the height x-axis is modified as the graph panel changes from 1 to 2 graphs (said adjusting the value range of at least one axis across all sub-charts, modifying layout). (f) reverting the sub-charts to a unified chart layout upon receiving a user command to recombine axes, wherein the process involves hiding or removing the sub-charts, reassigning the graphical representations back to the original chart, and applying the original scaling and mapping procedures to display the graphical representations within the unified chart area. Fig. 24 depicts a graph creation display region when the sex variable is dragged off of the group X hotspot (392) and onto the overlay hotspot (394) [0086]. This results in a disassociation of the sex variable and the group X graph component. The live feedback drag-and-drop graph builder plots the male and female weight vs. height data points (308) along with smoother lines corresponding to the male weight vs. height data (400) and the female weight vs. height data (402) (said removing sub-charts) [0086]. The live feedback drag-and-drop graph builder may also plot the weight vs. height data points (398) in different colors corresponding to male data points and female data points [0086]. As can be seen in Fig. 24, the scaling has been set to the same as Fig. 21A (said original scaling and mapping, unified chart area). RE claim 2, Gregg teaches wherein the sub-charts are generated based on either a default mode that creates one sub-chart per graphical representation or a selective mode that groups selected and non-selected graphical representations into at least two sub-charts. The language of claim 2 recites, “either or”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Gregg teaches wherein the sub-charts are generated based on a default mode that creates one sub-chart per graphical representation. It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of a selective mode that groups selected and non-selected graphical representations into at least two sub-charts are mute. In the example of Figs. 21A and 23, Fig. 21A depicts a graph creation display region following dragging a weight variable to a y-axis hotspot (348) [0081] and a height variable over an x-axis hotpot [Fig. 18, 0078] (said original chart). Fig. 23 depicts a graph creation display region during a dragging operation making an association between a sex variable and a group X hotspot [0085]. The sex variable from variable selection region (378) is dragged to group X hotspot (380) [0085]. The association between the sex variable and the group X graph component results in the graph display being split into two graph panels (382, 384), i.e., female weight vs. height data and male weight vs. height data (said sub-charts are generated based on a default mode that creates one sub-chart per graphical representation) [0085]. RE claim 3, Gregg teaches (a) wherein the sub-charts are arranged according to a user-selected configuration including a vertical stacking option, Gregg teaches a graph hotspot is a region on the computer-human interface display (52) that is associated with a graph display component (60). By dragging a candidate graph variable (64) over a graph hotspot (70), a temporary association (66) is made between the associated graph display component (60) and the candidate graph variable (64) in a graph display data structure (72) [0052]. A dragging feedback generation program (74) provides immediate or near real-time dragging feedback of the temporary associations created via a user display manipulation detection program (76) that senses user commands of a user manipulate device (63) [0053]. As in the example of Fig. 27, the sex variable is dropped on the group X hotspot, which results in 2 sub-graphs depicting the weight vs. height of females and males [0089]. Fig. 28A shows further dropping the age variable on the hotspot (432) on the Y-axis, which presents a row of age vs. height by sex plots (434) above a row of weight vs. height by sex plots (436) (said vertical stacking option) [0090]. Furthermore, the user is in control of dragging the selected variable on to a desired hotspot [0053]. Therefore, the user selected y-axis hotspot results in a vertical stacking configuration (said user-selected configuration). (b) wherein each sub-chart occupies an equal segment of the master chart's vertical dimension, and As can be seen in the configuration change from Fig. 27 to Fig. 28A, the y-axis is split equally as the user drags the age variable onto the hotspot (432). (c) an overlay option, wherein all sub-charts share the same display area as the master chart. Fig. 25 depicts a graph creation display region following dropping the sex variable on the overlay hotspot [0087]. Similarly, Fig. 37 depicts a graph creation display region following a dragging of the age variable over the overlay hotspot [0100]. Although Gregg does not provide the example of when both the sex variable (said sub-chart) and age variable (said sub-chart) dragged to the overlay hotspot, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a combination of Fig. 25 and Fig. 37 would be displayed. As shown in Fig. 25, the overlay graph encompasses the graph panel (said share the same display area as the master chart). RE claim 5, Gregg teaches wherein a user can toggle between consolidated and detailed views of graphical data for enhanced data visualization and analysis. Gregg teaches a graph hotspot is a region on the computer-human interface display (52) that is associated with a graph display component (60). By dragging a candidate graph variable (64) over a graph hotspot (70), a temporary association (66) is made between the associated graph display component (60) and the candidate graph variable (64) in a graph display data structure (72) [0052]. A dragging feedback generation program (74) provides immediate or near real-time dragging feedback of the temporary associations created via a user display manipulation detection program (76) that senses user commands of a user manipulate device (63) [0053]. As shown in Fig. 25, the sex variable is dropped on the overlay hotspot (408), thus plotting on the graph panel (410) weight vs. height for both male and female together (said consolidated views) [0087]. With reference to Fig. 26, the user can pick up the sex variable from the overlay drag zone and drag the sex variable back over the group X drop hotspot (said toggle between), resulting in disassociating the sex variable from the overlay graph component (said detailed views) [0088]. RE claim 6, claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied. Additionally, Gregg teaches a processor (38) [Fig. 2, 0049] and memory (44) [0050]. RE claim 7, claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 2 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 2 is applied. RE claim 8, claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 3 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 3 is applied. RE claim 10, claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 5 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 5 is applied. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREGG, III (2010/0235771 A1) in view of Penguin Analytics (“How to Dynamically Hide NULLs in Table Calculations – Tableau in Two Minutes” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7wHa3chFkw). RE claim 4, Gregg teaches the limitations of claim 4 with the exception of discussing removing empty sub-charts. Penguin teaches wherein sub-chart layouts are automatically updated with empty sub-charts removed following the repositioning of graph objects via drag-and-drop actions across sub-charts created with the vertical stacking option. Penguin is made of record as teach functions of Tableau. Penguin illustrates a situation when multiple charts based on years are displayed together [Fig. 1]. As can be seen in Fig. 1, there are null values in the year 2014 [0:46]. Penguin teaches that in order to avoid displaying the null value, the “Include Null Values” setting within the Filter settings of the data set, is unchecked [1:13]. This is shown in Fig. 2. Once the filter is applied, the display is refreshed to remove the area of 2014 (said sub-chart layouts are automatically updated with empty sub-charts removed) [1:18, Fig. 3]. Gregg teaches using a drag-and drop method for adding values to the graph, which in turn updates the display to show multiple graphs according to the added values (said repositioning of graph objects via drag-and-drop actions across sub-charts) [0052-0053]. As taught in the rationale of claim 3, in the example of Fig. 27, the sex variable is dropped on the group X hotspot, which results in 2 sub-graphs depicting the weight vs. height of females and males [0089]. Fig. 28A shows further dropping the age variable on the hotspot (432) on the Y-axis, which presents a row of age vs. height by sex plots (434) above a row of weight vs. height by sex plots (436) (said vertical stacking option) [0090]. Furthermore, the user is in control of dragging the selected variable on to a desired hotspot [0053]. Therefore, the user selected y-axis hotspot results in a vertical stacking configuration. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hidden graph when the data set is null, as taught by Penguin, within the interface of Gregg. Penguin teaches showing the empty graph area of 2014 is a little bit ugly [0:48]. By hiding the area of null data, it helps to clean up the space and make a desirable view. RE claim 9, claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 4 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 4 is applied. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE L SAMS: direct telephone number: (571) 272-7661 email: michelle.sams@uspto.gov The examiner is currently part time and can be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30am-9:30am. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Kee M. Tung can be reached on (571)272-7794. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHELLE L SAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611 13 November 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 09, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592009
MEDICAL MONITORING ANALYSIS AND REPLAY INCLUDING INDICIA RESPONSIVE TO LIGHT ATTENUATED BY BODY TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12561861
DYNAMIC RESOURCE CONSTRAINT BASED SELECTIVE IMAGE RENDERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555297
PRESENTATION OF TOPIC INFORMATION USING ADAPTATIONS OF A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548536
Image Processing Method Based on Vertical Sychronization Signal and Electronic Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548213
IMAGE INSPECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 481 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month