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 .
Acknowledgements
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission for the RCE filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2026 was filed after the Notice of Allowance mailed on 03/31/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16 and 18-20, as set forth in the Notice of Allowance mailed on 03/31/2026, is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) provided with the IDS and disclosed below. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/Primary Examiner, AU 2497
In the application, claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are pending and being considered, claims 4, 9, 14 and 17 have been cancelled, and claims 1, 11 and 12 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just Tim (“Testing Tableau and automating it with Wiiisdom Ops for Tableau,” YouTube Website, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MoWsngubI4, April 27, 2022, 16 pages (screenshots), hereinafter “Tim”; provided with IDS) in view of Zoho One(“Create custom reports and dashboards from any data set”, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5i5yRPPMDs, Jan 13, 2020, 7 pages (screenshots); hereinafter “Zoho”).
Regarding claim 1, Tim teaches A computer-method for data analytics, the method comprising: dynamically and automatically (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates data analytics with automated tableau testing):
- [[obtaining one or more datasets, and]] a visual report generated [[based on the one or more datasets]] (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates ‘Reports’ tab comprising visual report(s) generated based on the collected data.);
- applying a plurality of tests each to the one or more [[datasets and/or]] the visual report, the plurality of tests including at least one test applied to the visual report (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to apply plurality of tests (e.g., Functional Tests, Regression Tests, cross Environment Tests, Performance & Stress Tests) each to the tableau data and/or the visual reports selected for the contextual information), the at least one test applied to the visual report comprising at least one of: (i) a data quality test configured for verifying that data displayed in the visual report satisfies a business rule or satisfies predetermined values, [[(ii) a metadata test configured for determining the validity of the integrity of metadata associated to the data displayed in the visual report, or (iii) a security test configured for evaluating if the visual report is accessed by an authorized user]] (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to perform functional testing comprising data quality, freshness and data quality assurance based on the provided/selected filters and parameters (e.g., a business rule or satisfies predetermined values)); and
- computing a level of certification for the visual report based on a number of tests providing a positive result (Tim (pdf page 7, 10-11 & 16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to compute Test Statistics (e.g., success, partial success, failed, etc.) based on different test runs (e.g., regression test run, functional test run, performance test run, etc.). The Test Statistics includes Test Summary that indicates the status (e.g., success with a green check mark)” of the respective test runs. The status of “success with green checkmark” on the “Test Run Report” of the respective test run indicates that the test is successful and the report is certified. (Herein, the “green checkmark” with a status of “success” represents a “badge 3020 (mark sign) indicating that the visual report is certified” as illustrated in Fig. 3 and associated para. [0064] of the immediate application));
the method further comprising:
during user-interaction with a computer system within a data analytics or [[business intelligence process]] (Tim (youtube video) illustrates user interaction with a computer system within data analytics):
- accessing, by an end user, the visual report (Tim (pdf page 10-11 & 16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to access a report by a user);
- displaying, by the computer system, a graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report (Tim (pdf page 10-15, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to display a “Green Success Checkmark” on the accessed report– herein the “Green Success Checkmark” on the report represents a graphical representation of the level of certification, as recited in dependent claim 6 of the immediate application); and
- displaying, by the computer system, the visual report (Tim (pdf page 10-15, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to display the accessed report with a Green Success Checkmark);
the method further comprising:
- applying a performance test to at least one of the displaying or user-interaction of the visual report (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to apply plurality of tests (e.g., Functional Tests, Regression Tests, cross Environment Tests, Performance & Stress Tests) to the tableau data or visual reports. In particular, pdf page 9-13 of youtube screenshots, illustrates the application of performance testing);
- computing a performance score based on a result of the performance test (Tim (pdf page 11, screenshot of youtube video) illustrates overall score “1.0, Excellent” on the “Test Run Report” of the performance test); and
- updating the level of certification of the visual report based on the result of the performance test (Tim (pdf page 10-11, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates an updated “Green Success Checkmark” on the report accessed for the performance test run– herein the “Green Success Checkmark” on the report represents a level of certification of the visual report, as illustrated in Fig. 3 and associated para. [0064] of the immediate application).
Although, as disclosed above, Tim teaches to “generate a visual report”. However, Tim fails to explicitly disclose but Zoho teaches obtaining one or more datasets, and a visual report generated based on the one or more datasets (Zoho (in pdf page 1-7, screenshots from youtube video) illustrates to automatically create/build reports and dashboards by using any data sets imported from any of data sources, such as online cloud data feeds, local databases and/or any third-party data storages);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Tim’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Zoho, such modification would provide enhanced business intelligence, productivity and custom solutions based on the reports created from the collected data sets; Zoho (youtube video, pdf page 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the at least one test applied to the visual report further comprises one or more of: - a functional or user-interaction test configured to evaluate performance of one or more of user-interactions with the visual report, opening of the visual report, filters. parameters, drill-downs, or buttons, or - an accessibility or design test configured to evaluate the accessibility of data displayed in the visual report to the end user, or - the performance test configured to evaluate behavior of the visual report under use (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to apply plurality of tests (e.g., Functional Tests, Regression Tests, cross Environment Tests, Performance & Stress Tests) to the tableau data or reports. For example, the functional testing comprising filters and parameters, data quality and freshness, test actions and interactions, style guidelines and quality assurance. The performance testing comprising workbook access and load times, load testing to simulate busy times, network issues under load, testing any factor relating to the performance of the end user experience, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report is displayed simultaneously to and/or before the displaying of the visual report (Tim (pdf page 9-11 and 15-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to display a “success green checkmark” simultaneously to and/or before the displaying of the report accessed for the respective test run).
Regarding claim 6, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report is one of: - a badge, [[- an icon, - a stamp, - a sticker, -a watermark, -a text box message; - a notification stemming from a custom extension, - a notification stemming from a native certification flagging feature, - a notification stemming from an email process, an instant messaging application, or a support ticket system, or - a notification stemming from a Browser extension]] (Tim (pdf page 9-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates a status of “success with a green checkmark” on the visual report. Herein, the “green checkmark” with a status of “success” represents a “badge 3020 (mark sign) indicating that the visual report is certified” as illustrated in Fig. 3 and associated para. [0064] of the immediate application.).
Regarding claim 8, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the method further comprises: storing a record and/or a result of each application of a respective test (Tim (pdf page 14, screenshot of youtube video) illustrates to integrate and store a record and/or a result of each test in a PostgreSQL database, and/or on other external applications).
Regarding claim 10, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Tim further teaches obtaining a certification date associated with the level of certification computed for the visual report (Tim (pdf page 7, 10-11 & 16, screenshot of youtube video) illustrates the last test run date (e.g., 2022-04-21) associated with the last test status (green checkmark with “success”) for the visual report of the respective test run (e.g., Functional_ Test, Regression_ Test, etc.)).
Regarding independent claim 11, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory storage medium and have limitations similar to the method claim 1. Therefore, the claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 12, the claim is drawn to a system and have limitations similar to the method claim 1. Therefore, the claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1.
Regarding claims 13, 15 and 16, the claims are drawn to the system and recite similar limitations as of the method claims 2, 5 and 6, respectively. Therefore, claims 13, 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claims 2, 5 and 6, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the at least one test applied to the visual report comprises the performance test, the application of the performance test being based on at least one of: a result of an evaluation of the behavior of the visual report when accessed simultaneously by a large quantity of users, or a determination of specific actions on the visual report, the actions comprising at least one of [[clicking buttons displayed on the visual report or]] changing filters displayed with the visual report (Tim (pdf page 5-6 & 9-13, screenshots of the youtube video) illustrates performance testing that will drive the load to the tableau server and access response time and statuses. Performance testing comprising and results in workbook access and load times of multiple users, results in load testing to simulate busy times when a report is being accessed by a large number of users, network issues under load, and testing any factor relating to the performance of the end user experiences. Users of the visual report can further define SLA’s with goals such as performance availability or Apdex score).
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just Tim (“Testing Tableau and automating it with Wiiisdom Ops for Tableau,” YouTube Website, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MoWsngubI4, April 27, 2022, 16 pages (screenshots), provided with IDS, hereinafter “Tim”) in view of Zoho One(“Create custom reports and dashboards from any data set”, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5i5yRPPMDs, Jan 13, 2020, 7 pages (screenshots); hereinafter “Zoho”) and further in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 2013/0054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”).
Regarding claim 3, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim further teaches the plurality of tests comprises one or more tests each applied to a respective subject element among the one or more datasets and/or the visual report (Tim (pdf page 1-16, screenshots of youtube video) illustrates to apply plurality of tests (e.g., Functional Tests, Regression Tests, cross Environment Tests, Performance & Stress Tests) each to the tableau data and/or the visual reports selected for the contextual information (e.g., respective subject element)), and
However, Tim as modified by Zoho fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf teaches each to one or more results of applying a filtering to the respective subject element (Sharaf in para. [0043-0047], FIG. 3 is a flow chart that illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a performance testing process 300. The exemplary embodiment of the process 300 begins by obtaining a defined or otherwise designated use case, function, features or work flow to be tested (task 302). A use case, function, work flow, or feature to be tested can be obtained in any appropriate manner. After obtaining the use case to be tested, the process 300 continues by executing at least one automated performance test on the use case (task 304). [...] Upon completion of the performance test(s) on the obtained use case, the process generates a report or other suitable output that summarizes the performance test results for the obtained use case. In certain implementations, task 306 simplifies, condenses, or filters the performance test results for the obtained use case into a format that is easy to read, interpret, and understand. The report may include certain performance metrics for the defined use case, such as response times, number of http requests, etc. (e.g., respective subject element)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Tim-Zoho’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide enhanced performance analysis and testing tools that can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. The performance analysis and testing tools, thus, can detect and resolve the performance issues while executing performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like. Thus, one ordinary skilled in the art would also realize and conclude that the automated performance testing would solve the problem of low efficiency and low accuracy of manually monitoring of data in the existing technology; Sharaf in para. [0024, 0056].
Regarding claim 7, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: Tim as modified by Zoho fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf teaches securing access to the visual report to authorized users and validating the integrity of data for the authorized users, the securing of access comprising restricting access to data based on actors, security roles and/or settings (Sharaf in para. [0030-0031], discloses to securely provide access to the data 132 in the database 130 for each of the various tenants subscribing to the system 100. In accordance with one non-limiting example, the system 100 may be implemented in the form of a multi-tenant customer relationship management system that can support any number of authenticated users of multiple tenants. A "tenant" or an "organization" generally refers to a group of users that shares access to common data within the database 130. And as disclosed in para. [0034], Metadata within a universal data directory (UDD) 136, for example, can be used to describe any number of forms, reports, workflows, user access privileges, business logic and other constructs that are common to multiple tenants. And as disclosed in para. [0039], System 100 maintains security of the stored data by ensuring that queries are consistent with access privileges granted to the user that initiated the request. And as disclosed in para. [0042], the user typically authenticates his or her identity to the server 102 to obtain a session identifier ("SessionlD") that identifies the user in subsequent communications with the server 102. When the identified user requests access to a virtual application 128, the runtime application generator 120 suitably creates the application at run time based upon the metadata 138, as appropriate. The query generator 114 suitably obtains the requested data 132 from the database 130 as needed to populate the tables, reports or other features of the particular virtual application 128.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Tim-Zoho’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide a technique to prevent an unauthorized access to the data and grant access consistent with access privileges granted to the user; Sharaf, para. [0039, 0042].
Regarding claim 20, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim as modified by Zoho fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf teaches the at least one test applied to the visual report is the security test, the security test being based on the application of row level security techniques for securing access to the data, the method thereby dynamically verifying that users are correctly verified during the operation of the visual report (Sharaf in para. [0030-0031], discloses to securely provide access to the data 132 in the database 130 for each of the various tenants subscribing to the system 100. In accordance with one non-limiting example, the system 100 may be implemented in the form of a multi-tenant customer relationship management system that can support any number of authenticated users of multiple tenants. A "tenant" or an "organization" generally refers to a group of users that shares access to common data within the database 130. And as disclosed in para. [0039] the runtime application generator 120 suitably interacts with the query generator 114 to efficiently obtain multi-tenant data 132 from the database 130 as needed. In a typical embodiment, the query generator 114 considers the identity of the user requesting a particular function, and then builds and executes queries to the database 130 using system-wide metadata 136, tenant specific metadata 138, pivot tables 134, and/or any other available resources. The query generator 114 in this example therefore maintains security of the common database 130 by ensuring that queries are consistent with access privileges granted to the user that initiated the request. And as disclosed in para. [0042], the user typically authenticates his or her identity to the server 102 to obtain a session identifier ("SessionlD") that identifies the user in subsequent communications with the server 102. When the identified user requests access to a virtual application 128, the runtime application generator 120 suitably creates the application at run time based upon the metadata 138, as appropriate. The query generator 114 suitably obtains the requested data 132 from the database 130 as needed to populate the tables, reports or other features of the particular virtual application 128).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Tim-Zoho’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide a technique to prevent an unauthorized access to the data and grant access consistent with access privileges granted to the user; Sharaf, para. [0039, 0042].
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just Tim (“Testing Tableau and automating it with Wiiisdom Ops for Tableau,” YouTube Website, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MoWsngubI4, April 27, 2022, 16 pages (screenshots), provided with IDS, hereinafter “Tim”) in view of Zoho One(“Create custom reports and dashboards from any data set”, Available Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5i5yRPPMDs, Jan 13, 2020, 7 pages (screenshots); hereinafter “Zoho”) and further in view of CURRY et al. (US
20080086342 A1; hereinafter “Curry”).
Regarding claim 19, Tim as modified by Zoho teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Tim as modified by Zoho fails to explicitly disclose but Curry teaches the level of certification is comprised among a range of numerical values (Curry in para. [0089] discloses that the levels of certification may be defined based on ranges of possible numeric values).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Tim-Zoho’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Curry, such modification would reduce fraud by assessing and reducing the risk of fraud, and by deterring, and/or detecting, and/or mitigating fraud occurring within an organization; Curry in para. [0001].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose contact number is 571-272-1239 and email: ali.cheema@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:00AM – 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. 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.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights