DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 8/27/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0371856 (“Can”), in view of Sreekanta, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 11,829,378 (“Sreekanta”).
With regard to Claim 1, Can, in view of Sreekanta teaches one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions (Can, [0070]) that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving input data comprising a chart type and underlying chart data for a chart, wherein the underlying chart data is used to generate the chart (Can teaches at [0188]-[0189] that a graph image is received, and a graph type determined. Sreekanta teaches Col. 43, lines 7-18 that a computing device receives a visualization of a portion of data values in a data stream, where the visualization illustrates the data or relationships between the data in the portion of the data stream);
determining, using the underlying chart data, insight data for each insight type from a plurality of insight types corresponding to analytical objectives defined for the chart type, the insight data for each insight type determined using a rule set defined for each insight type, the rule set defined for each insight type comprising executable instructions configured to determine the insight data for each insight type using the underlying chart data (Sreekanta teaches at Col. 43, lines 14-61 that the computing device performs one or more types of analyses on data based on a type of the visualization, where each analysis specifies which data from the data stream that is to be analyzed. Data can be selected, for example, for analytical objectives regard the changes of data values before or during the time period captured in the visualization. Analysis results are then used as data in the insight generation process, to indicate a characteristic of the change in values identified by the analysis);
generating, using the insight data for each insight type, natural language text for a caption for each insight type (Sreekanta teaches at Col. 43, lines 40-58 that the multiple analyses can be ranked, such that one or more can be selected to be formulated into insights, where each insight is a natural language representation of the metadata generated from the corresponding analysis result. Can also teaches at [0216] that insight messages, which match with a recognized graph pattern, are used to generate a natural language expression of the insight); and
providing a user interface presenting the chart and at least one of the captions (Can teaches at [0192] displaying the graph image and one or more generated textual descriptions of the graph image. Sreekanta also teaches at Fig. 7 and Col. 39, lines 33-48 that a natural language representation of the insight is presented in an interface along with the visualization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Can to enable the use of underlying chart data in the generation of insights, as described in Sreekanta. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by including additional data analysis capabilities into the insight generation process. By including additional analysis types, a system can provide more types of insights and in at least some cases, more accurate insights generated using underlying visualization data in addition to the actual chart itself.
With regard to Claim 2, Can teaches that the input data comprises configuration data providing information instructing how to determine at least a portion of the insight data. [0190] describes that pattern models are used to determine if candidate regions of interest match an associated pattern, where [0191] describes that the text template for which contextual data is identified, extracted and then inserted is retrieved based on the pattern models matching a region of interest.
With regard to Claim 3, Can teaches that the natural language text for a first caption for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types is generated by: accessing a template based on the first insight type, the template having one or more placeholders; and replacing the one or more placeholders with the insight data determined for the first insight type. [0191] describes that the extracted contextual data is inserted into the one or more text templates, in order to generate the textual description of the graph image. [0217] describes that the context can replace portions of the text within the template.
Claim 12 recites a method carried out by executing the instructions described in Claim 3, as Can teaches the indicator of the graph type as the determined graph type that is used as input data, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Can teaches that the natural language text for a first caption for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types is generated by: causing a generative model to produce the natural language text using input comprising an indication of the first insight type and the insight data determined for the first insight type. [0177] describes that the personalized graph summarizer learns types of visualizations and patterns, as well as user preferences. [0175] describes that the elements of the invention can be implemented using machine learning models, many types of which are disclosed at [0158] et seq. [0178] describes that the personalized graph summarizer which has learned the patterns then generates the text of the graph summary using the detected data identified in the graph, as well as a text template used in generating the text.
With regard to Claim 5, Can teaches that the operations further comprise: generating a ranking score for each of the plurality of insight types. [0225] describes that each text template can have a priority level determined therefor.
Claim 13 recites a method carried out by executing instructions including the additional elements of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites a system comprising one or more processors ([0004]) and the computer storage media of Claim 5, as Can teaches the indicator of the graph type as the determined graph type that is used as input data, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Can teaches that the ranking score for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types is based on a statistical significance of the insight data determined for the first insight type. [0225] describes that the priority level can be assigned based on user preferences, thereby assigning priorities based on determined significance of insight types to the user.
With regard to Claim 7, Can teaches that the ranking score for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types is based on an importance score assigned to the first insight type. [0225] describes that the priority level can be assigned based on user preferences, thereby assigning priorities based on importance of insight types to the user.
Claim 14 recites a method carried out by executing instructions including one of the additional elements of Claims 6 and 7, and is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites a system comprising one or more processors ([0004]) and a computer storage media carrying instructions which implement the additional elements of one of Claims 6 and 7, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Can teaches that a first caption is generated for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types based on the ranking score for the first insight type. [0192] describes that the system can generate a textual description based on the priority level associated with each text template.
With regard to Claim 9, Can teaches that a first caption for a first insight type from the plurality of insight types is provided for presentation on the user interface based on the ranking score for the first insight type. [0192] describes that the plurality of text templates completed for display can be displayed according to their priority level.
Claim 15 recites a method carried out by executing instructions including one of the additional elements of Claims 8 and 9, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Can teaches that the captions for two or more insight types from the plurality of insight types are ordered for presentation on the user interface based on the ranking scores for the two or more insight types. [0192] describes that one or more text templates can be arranged in an updated order according to the priority levels associated with each of the templates.
Claim 18 recites a system comprising one or more processors ([0004]) and a computer storage media with instructions to execute the additional element of Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Can teaches that a first caption for a first insight type is presented with the chart on the user interface, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining a portion of the chart data corresponding to a data item in the insight data for the first insight type; and providing a visual indicator in the chart identifying the portion of the chart data. [0192] describes displaying the graph image and one or more generated textual descriptions of the graph image, and [0195] describes that the text for identified regions of interest can generate insight messages therefor. [0197] describes that this data as well as the region of interest highlighted in the image can then be provided as further input.
Claim 16 recites a method carried out by executing instructions that includes the additional element of Claim 11, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a system comprising one or more processors ([0004]) and a computer storage media with instructions to execute the additional element of Claim 11, and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Sreekanta reference cures any deficiencies with regard to Can in teaching or suggesting the elements of the amended claims.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/30/2026
