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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-16, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 20190065014 A1), in view of Ma et al. (US 20150309719 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Richter discloses A computing system comprising:
a hardware computer processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium having software instructions stored thereon, the software instructions executable by the hardware computer processor to cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (¶13 reciting “a computer program product that is tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and includes instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, are configured to cause the at least one computing device to obtain a plurality of application data, the application data being associated with a role of a user and a plurality of applications, generate at least one tabular graphic representing a portion of the application data and at least one chart graphic representing the portion, the at least one tabular graphic and at least one chart graphic being interactive and selectable by a user, and generate and display a user interface, the user interface being based on the role of the user and including the at least one tabular graphic and the at least one chart graphic.”)
display a first data visualization indicating first data items of a first data set, wherein the first data visualization is linked to the first data set; (Fig. 6C showing a chart 620. Further, Fig. 12 showing a process 1200 for generating interactive graphics; and ¶216 reciting “At block 1204, the process 1200 may include generating at least one tabular graphic representing a portion of the application data. For example, a table of data may be generated for an application. One example of such a table is shown in FIG. 6A—bottom portion of 606. The table may represent a portion of the application data available. The process 1200 may additionally generate at least one chart graphic representing the portion of data.” )
receive a first user input selecting a first one or more portions of the first data visualization;
generate a first cohort of data items including a first filtered set of the first data items, filtered based on the selected first one or more portions;
(¶218 reciting “At block 1208, the process 1200 may include, filtering the tabular graphic to display application data corresponding to the first filter location, in response to receiving, from the user, a selection on a first filter location within the chart graphic. For example, if the user wishes to narrow the focus on a portion of data, the user can select such data from a graphic (e.g., point 626 in FIG. 6C). The chart 620 can be filtered to show only aspects of selected point 626, as shown at graphic 628.”)
receive a second user input selecting a second one or more portions of the first data visualization;
generate a second cohort of data items including a second filtered set of the data items, filtered based on the selected second one or more portions;
(¶220 reciting “Receiving a selection on a second filter location may function to execute a filtering of the application data to update the user interface. The update may include generating additional interactive chart graphics, each representing different aspects of the portion of the application data.”)
receive user selection of a second data set having second data items; (Fig. 1L. ¶86 reciting “Each collection list entry 164a-d can provide a representation of a collection that can include a title, a timestamp (e.g., last changed), a visual content summary, and a textual content preview. In some implementations, the collection list 164 can be searched and/or filtered.” Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to select a second data set for visualization.)
Richter, Fig. 6C shows Target and Target margin bar chart in area 620.
However, Richter does not explicitly disclose to generate a data visualization, linked to the first data set and the second data set, and indicating, on a primary dimension, a measure of the second data items and on a secondary dimension, a measure of the first cohort of data items and the second cohort of data items.
Ma teaches “systems and techniques for time-based display of data objects” (¶3). More specifically, Fig. 1M shows visualization for different data sets, and ¶93 recites “purple line 1142 represents Phone Calls, while blue line 1143 represents Emails”. Further, ¶94 recites “FIG. 1N shows an example user interface similar to FIG. 1M in which a Line Chart version of the Time Chart is shown. As shown, the user may select a portion or region 1151 of the Time Chart that may include only object of particular types for select time periods. Accordingly, in the example show, the user has selected four phone calls and eight emails. The user may select portions of the Line Chart, rather than particular information bins (as in the Line Chart version of the Time Chart). As shown, objects corresponding to the selected portion of the Line Cart are highlighted in object display pane.” In other words, a second data set is displayed on a primary dimension (i.e. 7:59-8:23); and the filtered data items are displayed as highlighted on a second dimension (selection 1151).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Richter) to generate data visualization as shown in Fig. 1N (taught by Ma). The suggestions/motivations would have been for “efficient analysis of data objects.” (¶65), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first data visualization is a chart or graph. (Richter, Fig. 6C)
Regarding Claim 3, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first cohort of data items includes at least one filter condition based on user input. (Richter, ¶218 reciting “At block 1208, the process 1200 may include, filtering the tabular graphic to display application data corresponding to the first filter location, in response to receiving, from the user, a selection on a first filter location within the chart graphic. For example, if the user wishes to narrow the focus on a portion of data, the user can select such data from a graphic (e.g., point 626 in FIG. 6C). The chart 620 can be filtered to show only aspects of selected point 626, as shown at graphic 628.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 3, wherein the second cohort of data items includes at least one filter condition based on user input that is different from the first filter condition. (Richter, ¶220 reciting “Receiving a selection on a second filter location may function to execute a filtering of the application data to update the user interface. The update may include generating additional interactive chart graphics, each representing different aspects of the portion of the application data.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein indicators of the linked data sets and filters are displayed in a sidebar. (Richter, Figs. 6A-6D)
Regarding Claim 6, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the second data set has at least one common data type with the first data set. (Ma, Figs. 1M, 1N showing the same timeline for the phone calls and emails. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 7, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the data visualization is updated in real-time as user inputs are received. (Richter, ¶47 reciting “any action that may be carried out can be provided via links or a context menu. Provision of actions in such a manner may be referred to as “insight-to-action,” which can enable a seamless UI navigation from analytics to the relevant business transactions in real-time in order to show an immediate effect of an action.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first cohort of data items is filtered based on multiple conditions. (Richter, ¶168 reciting “The single or multiple values may then be used as input for other parts of the application, (e.g. a detail chart). In this example, the user is interacting with and on the aggregated data. An analytical chart supports this usage type by offering different selection modes (e.g. single, multiple, categories, series),”)
Regarding Claim 9, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 8, wherein the second cohort of data items is filtered based on multiple conditions different from those used for filtering the first cohort. (See Claim 4 and 8 rejections for detailed analysis.)
Regarding Claim 11, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the second data set is selected by dragging and dropping a representation of the second data set from a list of available data sets onto the data visualization. (It is well known in the art to select an item by dragging and dropping. In addition, Richter, ¶68 disclosing a drag and drop action.)
Regarding Claim 12, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a comparison chart comparing the first cohort of data items with the second cohort of data items. (Richter, Fig. 6C. Ma, Figs. 1M 1N. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 13. Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the data visualization includes multiple panels that can be expanded or collapsed to display different information. (Richter, ¶191 reciting “The object page header 902 makes use of the dynamic page layout, which uses a snapping behavior that collapses when scrolling.” ¶212 reciting “The report 1112 is an example of embedded analytics in which condensed KPI information (e.g., charts, project notes, and graphical content) is collapsed within a notification. In one example, the user selects the notification to expand additional information.”)
Regarding Claim 14. Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first cohort of data items is filtered based on user input that includes a date range. (Richter, ¶160 disclosing filtering based on user input of a month.)
Regarding Claim 15. Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a report summarizing information displayed in the data visualization. (Richter, ¶206 reciting “to display a summary of the report embedded into the object page”)
Regarding Claim 16. Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1, wherein the software instructions are executed on a client-side browser and communicate with a server-side database to retrieve linked data sets and generate data visualizations. (¶97-98, ¶231)
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 4.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 5.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Ma, and in view of Armstrong et al. (US 20090164387 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Richter in view of Ma discloses The computing system of claim 1.
However, Richter in view of Ma does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: monitoring changes to the linked data sets and generating alerts when changes occur.
Armstrong teaches “Clients can specify subscriptions of interest over data in the semantic graph. Based on those subscriptions, the semantic server can automatically collect the latest information from data sources coupled to it. Once the collected data is semantically annotated, it can be organized and correlated with previous data in the semantic graph. As the semantic graph changes, the semantic server can alert clients when new information comes in that match their subscriptions.” (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Richter in view of Ma) to monitor changes to the data sets and generating alerts when changes occur (taught by Armstrong). The suggestions/motivations would have been for providing semantically enhanced information (¶5), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619