DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The amendment of “wherein the workflow comprises a network of a plurality of standardized data transformations”, does not clearly point out what is meant by a network. The instant app, 0043 states: “Graphical icons corresponding to containers and transformation can be arranged (i.e., ordered) by a user interacting with the graphical interface in the form of a graph or directed or network or flowchart (i.e., a workflow) in a manner that corresponds to the analytical steps of the data analysis”. This suggest that the word network herein implies a plurality, which is also listed in the claim. Later, in par. 0083, the instant states: “the workflow comprises a network of containers and transformations”; which again simply implies a plurality. The examiner has modified his mapping of claim to add material from Ogievetsky, to comply with this point (see 103 rejections below).
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 27, 82, and 83, 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.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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) 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15-16, 20, 21, 35, 49, 59-61, 64, 77, 84, 85, 90, and 136, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontebride et al. (US 20180322422 A1, published: 11/8/2018), in view of Ogievetsky (US 20220382779 A1, published: 12/1/2022).
Claim 1: Fontebride teaches a computer-implemented method of representing data analysis comprising: selecting input data comprising standardized data containers, based on a first input from a user (the user may submit the service request to the content management system 100 by entering information at the client device 7 through a user graphical interface generated on the client device 7 by an application executing on the content management system 100 (e.g., in the form of a web service) [Fontebride, 0046]. The attributes of the non-standard data container are filtered according to filtering rules generated, for example, based on the rearrangement criteria (e.g., chronologic order the filtering criteria will select date attributes) [Fontebride, 0198]).
Fontebride does not teach and arranging on a graphical interface graphical icons into a graphical workflow representing a data analysis, based on a second input from the user, wherein the workflow comprises a network of a plurality of standardized data transformations and standardized data containers comprising intermediate and final results of the data analysis.
However, Ogievetsky teaches and arranging on a graphical interface graphical icons into a graphical workflow representing a data analysis (the layout engine 201 queries the data container engine 203 to retrieve data in view of the display screen from the associated data container via the signal line 315 and receives the needed data from the data container engine 203 via the signal line 317. The layout engine 201 then renders the needed data in the visualization on the display screen 301 via signal line 319 [Ogievetsky, 0120]. FIG. 4 shows a graphical representation of an example user interface 400 depicting a table visualization for data exploration and analysis [Ogievetsky, 0121]), based on a second input from the user, wherein the workflow comprises a network of a plurality of standardized data transformations and standardized data containers comprising intermediate and final results of the data analysis (receiving user interaction in association with rendering a visualization of a data cube, determining a set of visibility constraints based on the user interaction [Ogievetsky, 0006]. The analytics database server 120 may be configured to implement an analytics database service (e.g., Apache Druid™) that is configured to receive, store, extract, load, and transform company raw data (e.g., Big data) associated with the plurality of data sources 125 for performing data exploration and visualization in conjunction with the visualization interface server 101 [Ogievetsky, 0028]. The layout engine 201 detects 10 fields (cells) in plain view from the top in the visualization of the data cube as a table. The 10 fields are bound by the height, the width, and the area visible in the display screen. The layout engine 201 computes [0, 10] as a set of visibility constraints. The layout engine 201 sends the set of visibility constraints to the data container engine 203 and the data fetch engine 205 [Ogievetsky, 0056]; [Ogievetsky, FIGs. 4 and 5]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated in the cited figures, including time graphs which would depict final results at the end of said graphs, and intermediate results in the middle. The examiner is interpreting the network to represent a cluster or a data cube containing fields).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the standardized data container selection invention of Fontebride to include the graphical data analysis workflow feature of Ogievetsky.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to implement a dynamic query mechanism for facilitating data visualization. In particular, for implementing a dynamic query mechanism to facilitate on-demand data exploration, ad-hoc data analytics, and interactive visualizations (Ogievetsky, 0002).
Claim 2: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Ogievetsky further teaches further comprising: selecting one or more containers, based on input from the user; arranging one or more graphical icons representing the one or more containers in the graphical workflow representing the data analysis (selecting a type of visualization, a measure, and a comparison of measure in the visualization of the data cube, and scrolling a user interface depicting the visualization of the data cube on a display screen of a device [Ogievetsky, 0008]).
Claim 3: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers are associated with one or more files (each type of non-standard data container may be associated with a structure description file (e.g., XSD) describing attribute structure of the data element (attribute layout, attribute dependencies, attribute format, etc.) [Fontebride, 0135]).
Claim 7: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise standardized data (the standard data container is thus only adapted to standardized data formats and data types [Fontebride, 0112]).
Claim 9: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise input for the workflow (input/output (I/O) interface 38 [Fontebride, 0067]).
Claim 10: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise output of the workflow (input/output (I/O) interface 38 [Fontebride, 0067]).
Claim 11: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise input for applying a transformation (the non-standard data container can accordingly be transformed into any target format independent of the data contained in the data container [Fontebride, 0131]).
Claim 12: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise output of applying a transformation (the non-standard data container can accordingly be transformed into any target format independent of the data contained in the data container [Fontebride, 0131]).
Claim 15: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise standardized metadata (the record includes a record identifier in association with at least one non-standard data container including the non-standard data elements [Fontebride, 0052]).
Claim 16: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 15. Fontebride further teaches wherein the standardized metadata are container attributes (the record includes a record identifier in association with at least one non-standard data container including the non-standard data elements [Fontebride, 0052]).
Claim 20: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches further comprising: creating new containers or transformations or attributes by importing one or more data set or analytical operation, based on input received from the user (the non-standard data container can accordingly be used to create a new record in the non-standard PNR 91 independent of the type of content [Fontebride, 0094]).
Claim 21: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches further comprising: annotating a container (the content management engine 3 may be configured to add new data into a non-standard data container by updating the structure description files (e.g., XSD) describing the non-standard data container structure, such as new attributes [Fontebride, 0139]).
Claim 35: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise data sets (the common record identifier is shared between one or more standard data elements (standard content) in the standard record data structure 90 and/or one or more non-standard data containers (comprising non-standard data elements) in the non-standard record data structure 91 [Fontebride, 0053]).
Claim 49: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the containers comprise a second attribute linking the data set to an associated publication (each type of non-standard data container may be associated with a structure description file (e.g., XSD) describing attribute structure of the data element (attribute layout, attribute dependencies, attribute format, etc.) [Fontebride, 0135]).
Claim 59: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 11. Ogievetsky further teaches further comprising: selecting one or more transformations, based on input from the user; arranging one or more graphical icons representing the one or more transformations in the graphical workflow representing the data analysis (selecting a type of visualization, a measure, and a comparison of measure in the visualization of the data cube, and scrolling a user interface depicting the visualization of the data cube on a display screen of a device [Ogievetsky, 0008]; [Ogievetsky, FIGs. 4 and 5]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 60: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the transformations comprise operations performed on at least one input data set resulting in at least one output data set (the client mapping rules 117 define the transformation rules towards the format of the interface of the target client device 7, for example for display to the graphical user interfaces (GUI) of the target client device [Fontebride, 0171]).
Claim 61: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Fontebride further teaches wherein the transformations comprise operations performed on at least one input container resulting in at least one output container (the non-standard data container can accordingly be transformed into any target format independent of the data contained in the data container [Fontebride, 0131]).
Claim 64: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 61. Fontebride further teaches wherein operations performed on at least one input container resulting in at least one output container comprise computer-executable code configured to take as input one or more data containers and produce as output one or more data containers (in transmission mode, the data exchange unit 11 receives as input a non-standard data container (containing a non-standard data element or a standard data element of type Ti previously converted into a non-standard data container) [Fontebride, 0169]).
Claim 77: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Ogievetsky further teaches further comprising: annotating a transformation (in the context of dimensions and splits, is a transformation applied to the dimension that changes its granularity in the visualization of the data cube [Ogievetsky, 0052]).
Claim 84: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Ogievetsky further teaches further comprising: performing data analysis based on the workflow (the visualization interface server 101 may serve as a middle layer and permit interactions between the client device 115 and each of the analytics database server 120 and the plurality of data sources 125 to flow through and from the visualization interface server 101 [Ogievetsky, 0026]).
Claim 85: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 84. Fontebride further teaches wherein performing data analysis based on the workflow comprises: applying one or more transformations present in the workflow to one or more input containers present in the workflow; and generating output results contained in one or more output containers present in the workflow, based on results of applying one or more transformations (the client mapping rules 117 define the transformation rules towards the format of the interface of the target client device 7, for example for display to the graphical user interfaces (GUI) of the target client device [Fontebride, 0171]).
Claim 90: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Ogievetsky further teaches wherein the workflow comprises a visual representation of data analysis (selecting a type of visualization, a measure, and a comparison of measure in the visualization of the data cube, and scrolling a user interface depicting the visualization of the data cube on a display screen of a device [Ogievetsky, 0008]; [Ogievetsky, FIGs. 4 and 5]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 136: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. Ogievetsky further teaches further comprising: using the workflow to reproduce a data analysis (selecting a type of visualization, a measure, and a comparison of measure in the visualization of the data cube, and scrolling a user interface depicting the visualization of the data cube on a display screen of a device [Ogievetsky, 0008]; [Ogievetsky, FIGs. 4 and 5]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim(s) 142 and 143, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontebride et al. (US 20180322422 A1, published: 11/8/2018) and Ogievetsky (US 20220382779 A1, published: 12/1/2022), and in further view of Mitkar et al. (US 20200301783 A1, published: 9/24/2020).
Claim 142: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, does not teach further comprising: generating a checksum value for one or more containers, one or more transformations or the workflow.
However, Mitkar teaches further comprising: generating a checksum value for one or more containers, one or more transformations or the workflow (the configuration data included with the container image may be compared to the configuration of the container image as a checksum process to determine whether the container image has become corrupted [Mitkar, 0313]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the standardized data container selection invention of the combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, to include the checksum analysis feature of Mitkar.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to offer users a complete suite of analysis.
Claim 143: The combination of Fontebride, Ogievetsky, and Mitkar, teaches the method of claim 142. Mitkar further teaches further comprising: verifying the integrity of the one or more containers, the one or more transformations, or the workflow by comparing the checksum value against a reference value (the configuration data included with the container image may be compared to the configuration of the container image as a checksum process to determine whether the container image has become corrupted [Mitkar, 0313]).
Claim(s) 146 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontebride et al. (US 20180322422 A1, published: 11/8/2018) and Ogievetsky (US 20220382779 A1, published: 12/1/2022), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20230262113 A1, filed: 6/30/2021).
Claim 146: The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, does not teach further comprising: utilizing a blockchain to verify integrity of the workflow.
However, Li teaches further comprising: utilizing a blockchain to verify integrity of the workflow (the workflow may include initiating transactions (1), broadcasting and verifying transactions (2), building new blocks (3), validating new blocks based on a consensus protocol (4) and updating a blockchain (5) [Li, 0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the standardized data container selection invention of the combination of Fontebride and Ogievetsky, to include the blockchain analysis feature of Li.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to offer users a complete suite of analysis.
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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights