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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 02, 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 8, 9 and 14 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment of claims 8, 9 and 14, Applicant amended claim 8 to describe “wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color to indicate a positive delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint”; amended claim 9 to describe “wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color to indicate a negative delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint”; amended claim 14 to clarify the second of “a graphical user interface”. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 8-9 and 14-17 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Remarks, filed June 02, 2026 have been fully considered. But they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicants state in pages 8-9 of Remarks that “Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lynner in view of Yoshimoto and Patwari. Claims 3, 8-9, and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lynner in view of Yoshimoto, Patwari, and Shannon. Claim 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lynner in view of Yoshimoto, Patwari, and Ganti. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "determining, by the one or more processors, that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset; causing, by the one or more processors, display of a graph depicting the first dataset, the second dataset, and the third dataset via a graphical user interface; receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint."
The Examiner has alleged that Lynner discloses the claimed first dataset, second dataset, and third dataset, and that the variability subsystem of Lynner determines a relationship between these datasets. See Office Action, pages 4-7. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Lynner fails to disclose or suggest the specific functional relationships and interaction-driven workflow recited in claim 1.
In Lynner, the variability index is a computed metric representing a statistical comparison between datasets, such as variance, correlation, or coefficient of determination. See Lynner, paragraph [0119]. Critically, the variability index in Lynner is an aggregate statistical measure, not a dataset structured such that its datapoints correspond to and are traceable to datapoints of the underlying datasets. Lynner does not describe these indices as structured datasets having datapoints that can be individually selected and mapped back to corresponding datapoints in the original datasets.
In contrast, the claimed invention requires a fundamentally different technical framework. Specifically, claim 1 requires that a user selects a datapoint within the third dataset, and in response, the system identifies corresponding datapoints in the first and second datasets. This necessitates a defined correspondence or mapping at the datapoint level between the third dataset and the underlying datasets. Lynner does not disclose or suggest any such datapoint-level correspondence. There is no disclosure in Lynner of identifying corresponding datapoints across datasets based on a user-selected datapoint in a derived dataset.
Additionally, claim 1 requires dynamically displaying an element indicating a relationship between the identified datapoints of the first and second datasets in response to the user interaction. Lynner, while disclosing the display of variability indices in graphical or tabular formats, does not disclose generating or displaying a graphical element that represents the relationship between two specific mapped datapoints. The display in Lynner is limited to presenting computed metrics or ranked lists and does not involve interaction-driven visualization linking datapoints across datasets.
The Examiner has cited Yoshimoto and Patwari to disclose user interaction and graphical visualization features of claim 1. However, this reliance does not remedy the deficiency of Lynner with respect to the claimed third dataset. Yoshimoto merely discloses interaction with graphical representations of datasets, such as selecting points and coordinates on a graph. See Yoshimoto, paragraphs [0024], [0029]. Patwari discloses presenting data structures, such as tables and charts, for visualization of performance metrics. See Patwari, paragraphs [0058]-[0065]. Neither Yoshimoto nor Patwari discloses or suggests a dataset defined as a relationship between a first and a second dataset, nor any correspondence between such dataset and the underlying datasets at the datapoint level. Accordingly, these references do not cure the deficiency in Lynner.
Therefore, the combination of Lynner, Yoshimoto, and Patwari fails to teach or suggest the features of "determining, by the one or more processors, that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset; causing, by the one or more processors, display of a graph depicting the first dataset, the second dataset, and the third dataset via a graphical user interface; receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint," as recited in independent claim 1. Similar arguments are applicable to independent claims 14 and 18.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”.
Examiner replies:
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusion. Claim 1 is directed to a method and recites “receiving, by one or more processors, a first dataset, a second dataset, and a third dataset of a plurality of datasets; determining, by the one or more processors, that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset; causing, by the one or more processors, display of a graph depicting the first dataset, the second dataset, and the third dataset via a graphical user interface; receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint”.
The claims can be interpreted several the broadest reasonable interpretation during the examination according to MPEP 2111. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art rejections in this case are proper for the following reasons. In respond to the applicant’s arguments, the examiner recites the combination of LYNNER, Yoshimoto and Patwari in order to disclose the issue.
LYNNER discloses a system includes a processor for executing the instructions to receive and display datasets on a graphical user interface (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0069] and [0106]). More specifically, the system receives a first corresponding product model output, a second corresponding product model output (FIG. 2; paragraph [0116]) and the product model output (Paragraph [0118]). In the previous office action dated on 03/02/2026, the examiner interpreted “a first corresponding product model output” as a first dataset; “a second corresponding product model output” as a second dataset; “the product model output” as a third dataset. Thus, LYNNER discloses “receiving, by one or more processors, a first dataset, a second dataset, and a third dataset of a plurality of datasets” recited in claim 1.
Further, LYNNER discloses that the subsystem compares the product model output to both the first corresponding product model output and the second corresponding product model output to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output with relation to the product model output ) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output with relation to the product model output) (Paragraph [0120]). Thus, LYNNER discloses “determining, by the one or more processors, that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset” recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, LYNNER discloses that the graphical user interface displays a graph depicting first corresponding product model output, a second corresponding product model output and the product model output (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0120] and [0122]). Thus, LYNNER discloses “causing, by the one or more processors, display of a graph depicting the first dataset, the second dataset, and the third dataset via a graphical user interface” recited in claim 1.
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose “receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset; identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint” recited in claim 1.
In additional, the examiner cited the prior art references Yoshimoto and Patwari to disclose those limitations.
The prior art references Yoshimoto discloses a method for identifying a data value of a dataset presented on a graph. More specifically, Yoshimoto discloses that the graph of three datasets displayed on the graphical user interface (FIG. 1) and the user selects a datapoint of the dataset using the touch input (Paragraph [0029]). Thus, Yoshimoto discloses “receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset” recited in claim 1.
The prior art references Patwari disclose a data processing system for receiving the measured datasets to determine an accuracy level of the operation; generate a graphical representation of the chart and present the graphical representation to a user in a user interface on a user device (FIGS. 4 and 5; paragraphs [0059]-[0060] and [0063]-[0065]). As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, “the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3” and “the trend 510 can be a trend of resource consumption for replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3”. In the previous office action dated on 03/02/2026, the examiner interpreted “the trend 505” as a first dataset; “the trend 510” as a second dataset and “operations D0, D1, D2, and D3” as a third dataset. Thus, each selected datapoint of “operations D0, D1, D2, and D3” corresponding a first datapoint within “the trend 505” and a second datapoint within “the trend 510”. Accordingly, Patwari disclose “identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint” recited in claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto and Patwari to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction and the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets in order to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 (Independent claims 14 and 18 have the same reasons).
Dependent claims 2-13 depend upon independent claim 1; dependent claims 15-17 depend upon independent claim 14; dependent claims 19-20 depend upon independent claim 18. They have the same reasons at least due to their respective dependencies from an independent claim.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYNNER (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0328684 A1) in view of Yoshimoto et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0187923 A1) in view of Patwari et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0336272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LYNNER discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (FIG. 1; paragraph [0069], the originator system 102 may include a processor and non-transitory, computer-readable medium, including instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform one or more methods disclosed herein ... functions of the originator system 102 may be partly or entirely performed by the execution system 104; paragraph [0106], the product dataset may be generated at the originator system 102 or generated by the product modeler 132 at the execution system 104 if the originator system 102 is accessing the product modeler 132 on the execution system 104 ... upon receipt of the product dataset by the execution system 104 (in some embodiments, at the product modeler 132), the product modeler 132 deconcatenates the individual data points in the product dataset for modeling; paragraph [0110], FIG. 2, a system 200 is shown for modeling a product 240 for corresponding product identification and selection. The system 200 may include, in some embodiments, a product modeler 202. The product modeler 202 may, in some embodiments, be substantially the same as the product modeler 132 of FIG. 1 ... the product modeler 202 may also be resident on an originator system (e.g., the originator system 102 of FIG. 1)), a first dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 214; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 214 to generate the first corresponding product model output 254; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the first corresponding product model output 254), a second dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 216; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 216 to generate the second corresponding product model output 256; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the second corresponding product model output 256), and a third dataset of a plurality of datasets (Paragraph [0112], a product dataset 212 is received by the product modifier 204; paragraph [0116], the transformation may be substantially similar to that of the product 240 to the product model output 244; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the product model output 244);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product);
causing, by the one or more processors, display of a graph depicting the first dataset (FIG. 3; paragraph [0122], the first corresponding product 308), the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the second corresponding product 310), and the third dataset (Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], the VWP of each of the constituent subproducts 242 is summed for a single, value-weighted price (“SVWP”) of the product 240 ... Turning briefly to FIG. 3, a graphical illustration 300 of a product's SVWP 306 over a look-back period is shown ... The SVWP 306 is shown graphed on the graphical illustration with relation to a first corresponding product 308 and a second corresponding product 310) via a graphical user interface (Paragraph [0122], FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of the GUI).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose receiving, by the one or more processors, a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses (Abstract, various arrangements for identifying and selected a data value of a dataset presented on a graph are described ...) receiving, by the one or more processors (Paragraph [0006], the computer program product may comprise processor-readable instructions configured to cause a processor to receive a selection of the dataset via the legend of the graph, wherein the dataset is part of the plurality of datasets; FIG. 1; paragraph [0024], the graph of embodiment 100 contains graphical representations of three datasets, graphical representation of dataset 110, graphical representation of dataset 120, and graphical representation of dataset 130), a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset (Paragraph [0029], The graph of FIG. 3 may represent the graphs of FIGS. 1 and 2 after a user has selected "Dataset 3" via touch input. User's hand 210 may then touch a point on the graph. By indicating a point on the graph of FIG. 3, the user may select the approximate value along the x-axis that the user is interested in for the selected dataset .. a graphical representation may allow the user to precisely select a data point of the selected dataset by showing a graphical indicator (e.g., the line) that intersects with the graphical representation of the dataset 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
However, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto does not specifically disclose identifying, by the one or more processors, a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
causing, by the one or more processors, display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses (Abstract, a system can include a data processing system ... The data processing system can receive a model trained by machine learning comprising first operations, the model to generate an output to operate a vehicle. The data processing system can search the model to identify a non-linear operation of the first operations. The data processing system can select, from second operations, a second operation that approximates the non-linear operation, the selection based on a level of computing resources consumed by the second operations, an accuracy of the model generated with the second operations, and an accuracy threshold to operate the vehicle ...) identifying, by the one or more processors (Paragraph [0003], the data processing system can include memory devices coupled with one or more processors), a first datapoint within the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D. The accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint (FIG. 1; paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second datapoint within the second dataset (Paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ... Because the resource consumption is measured relative to operation D, the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%; paragraph [0064], the trend 510 can be a trend of resource consumption for replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected point (Paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3); and
causing, by the one or more processors, display (Paragraph [0063], the data processing system 105 can generate a graphical representation of the chart 500 and present the graphical representation to a user in a user interface on a user device) of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint (Paragraph [0065], element 515 in chart 500 can identify a most mathematically exact operation, D ...; paragraph [0060], the accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy ... the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose further comprising providing, by the one or more processors, a graphical user interface configured to enable user interactions with the displayed graph.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses further comprising providing, by the one or more processors, a graphical user interface configured to enable user interactions (Paragraph [0029], The graph of FIG. 3 may represent the graphs of FIGS. 1 and 2 after a user has selected "Dataset 3" via touch input. User's hand 210 may then touch a point on the graph. By indicating a point on the graph of FIG. 3, the user may select the approximate value along the x-axis that the user is interested in for the selected dataset .. a graphical representation may allow the user to precisely select a data point of the selected dataset by showing a graphical indicator (e.g., the line) that intersects with the graphical representation of the dataset 130) with the displayed graph (FIG. 1; paragraph [0024], the graph of embodiment 100 contains graphical representations of three datasets, graphical representation of dataset 110, graphical representation of dataset 120, and graphical representation of dataset 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein the user interaction corresponds to a placement of a cursor.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses wherein the user interaction corresponds to a placement of a cursor (FIG. 2; paragraph [0027], the dataset selected by the user's hand 210 is used to determine which dataset should be active ... While embodiments detailed herein may function in conjunction with a touchscreen device, it should be understood that similar principles may be applied to computerized devices that use other input methods, such as a cursor controlled by a trackball or mouse; FIG. 7; paragraph [0049], an input may be received from a user of a point on the graph. This point may be selected by the user touching a point of the graph using a touch screen of the device performing method 700. An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 3 ... Other forms of input are also possible, such as a user using a cursor to select a point on the graph or dragging his or her finger to the desired point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose further comprising detecting, by the one or more processors, movement of the cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses further comprising detecting, by the one or more processors, movement of the cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset (Paragraph [0043], FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment of a method 700 for selecting and identifying a data point of a dataset presented on a graph ...; paragraph [0049], the user inputting a point anywhere on the graph that has the x-axis coordinate of the point selected by the user may result in selection of the same data point of the selected dataset. Other forms of input are also possible, such as a user using a cursor to select a point on the graph or dragging his or her finger to the desired point. If dragging or a cursor is used, during dragging or cursor movement, a line passing through the point where the user is currently touching the touchscreen may be displayed ...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first additional datapoint of the first dataset and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint; and
displaying, by the one or more processors, an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first additional datapoint of the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1, as shown in table 400, the accuracy of the level of the operation D1 is 80% ; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset (As shown in table 400, the resource consumption level of the node D1 can be 70%) corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint (Paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1); and
displaying, by the one or more processors, an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint (Paragraph [0065], the chart 500 can include an element 520 in the chart 500 identifying an operation D1 selected to replace the operation D in the machine learning model 115. The replacement selector 125 can identify the operation D1 as providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a resource consumption level less than a threshold. The replacement selector 125 can identify an operation D1 providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a smallest resource consumption level of all of the replacement operations 130 that have an accuracy level above the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), and LYNNER discloses further comprising displaying, by the one or more processors, a text overlay describing the relationship between the first datapoint, the second datapoint, and the third datapoint (FIG. 2; paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product; paragraph [0122], upon determining, by the variability subsystem 208, the first variability index and the second variability index, the product modeler 202 may display the first variability index and/or the second variability index on the GUI as a visual indicator, as shown in FIG. 3. Returning to FIG. 3, a variability index 312 corresponding to the first corresponding product 308 is displayed as a first visual indicator and the variability index 314 corresponding to the second corresponding product 310 is displayed as a second visual indicator).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), and LYNNER discloses further comprising defining, by the one or more processors, one or more relationships between a plurality of data types (Paragraph [0090], protected data may be any data within the dynamic order dataset. In an embodiment in which the dynamic order is associated with the first underlyer class, the protected data may be an identity of the entity associated with the origination of the dynamic order, an implied volatility/option amount, and/or the request type (e.g., to buy or sell) ... The various data associated with the plurality of order attributes included in the dynamic order dataset may have corresponding metadata tags and/or labels for distinguishing a type of order attribute and used to determine whether the order attribute is protected data or not).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), and LYNNER discloses further comprising storing, by the one or more processors, the defined one or more relationships between the plurality of data types in a data library (FIG. 1; paragraph ]0084], the database 114 may store various information from the originator system 102, the execution system 104, the respondent system 106, the exchange system 108, the client device 110, the client device 112, and/or some other data feed. Such information may include historical data (e.g., values) related to one or more standard underlyers (e.g., benchmark assets/instruments) ...; paragraph [0109], the execution system 104 also retrieves corresponding product datasets (e.g., a first corresponding product dataset and a second corresponding product dataset). The execution system 104 may retrieve these corresponding product datasets at regular intervals, storing the collected data in a database (e.g., the database 114)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11), and LYNNER discloses wherein determining that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset comprises querying the data library to identify the relationship (FIG. 1; paragraph [0107], the historical data requested is hosted in a data storage location (e.g., the database 114); FIG. 2; paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product).
Regarding claim 14, LYNNER discloses a system comprising:
a graphical user interface (Paragraph [0122], FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of the GUI); and
memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (FIG. 1; paragraph [0069], the originator system 102 may include a processor and non-transitory, computer-readable medium, including instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform one or more methods disclosed herein ... functions of the originator system 102 may be partly or entirely performed by the execution system 104; paragraph [0106], the product dataset may be generated at the originator system 102 or generated by the product modeler 132 at the execution system 104 if the originator system 102 is accessing the product modeler 132 on the execution system 104 ... upon receipt of the product dataset by the execution system 104 (in some embodiments, at the product modeler 132), the product modeler 132 deconcatenates the individual data points in the product dataset for modeling; paragraph [0110], FIG. 2, a system 200 is shown for modeling a product 240 for corresponding product identification and selection. The system 200 may include, in some embodiments, a product modeler 202. The product modeler 202 may, in some embodiments, be substantially the same as the product modeler 132 of FIG. 1 ... the product modeler 202 may also be resident on an originator system (e.g., the originator system 102 of FIG. 1)), the one or more processors configured to:
receive a first dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 214; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 214 to generate the first corresponding product model output 254; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the first corresponding product model output 254), a second dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 216; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 216 to generate the second corresponding product model output 256; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the second corresponding product model output 256), and a third dataset of a plurality of datasets (Paragraph [0112], a product dataset 212 is received by the product modifier 204; paragraph [0116], the transformation may be substantially similar to that of the product 240 to the product model output 244; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the product model output 244);
determine that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product);
cause display of a graph depicting the first dataset (FIG. 3; paragraph [0122], the first corresponding product 308), the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the second corresponding product 310), and the third dataset via the graphical user interface (Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], the VWP of each of the constituent subproducts 242 is summed for a single, value-weighted price (“SVWP”) of the product 240 ... Turning briefly to FIG. 3, a graphical illustration 300 of a product's SVWP 306 over a look-back period is shown ... The SVWP 306 is shown graphed on the graphical illustration with relation to a first corresponding product 308 and a second corresponding product 310).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose receive a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset;
identify a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
cause display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses (Abstract, various arrangements for identifying and selected a data value of a dataset presented on a graph are described ... FIG. 1; paragraph [0024], the graph of embodiment 100 contains graphical representations of three datasets, graphical representation of dataset 110, graphical representation of dataset 120, and graphical representation of dataset 130) receive a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset (Paragraph [0029], The graph of FIG. 3 may represent the graphs of FIGS. 1 and 2 after a user has selected "Dataset 3" via touch input. User's hand 210 may then touch a point on the graph. By indicating a point on the graph of FIG. 3, the user may select the approximate value along the x-axis that the user is interested in for the selected dataset .. a graphical representation may allow the user to precisely select a data point of the selected dataset by showing a graphical indicator (e.g., the line) that intersects with the graphical representation of the dataset 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
However, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto does not specifically disclose identify a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
cause display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses (Abstract, a system can include a data processing system ... The data processing system can receive a model trained by machine learning comprising first operations, the model to generate an output to operate a vehicle. The data processing system can search the model to identify a non-linear operation of the first operations. The data processing system can select, from second operations, a second operation that approximates the non-linear operation, the selection based on a level of computing resources consumed by the second operations, an accuracy of the model generated with the second operations, and an accuracy threshold to operate the vehicle ...) identify a first datapoint within the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D. The accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint (FIG. 1; paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second datapoint within the second dataset (Paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ... Because the resource consumption is measured relative to operation D, the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%; paragraph [0064], the trend 510 can be a trend of resource consumption for replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected point (Paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3); and
cause display (Paragraph [0063], the data processing system 105 can generate a graphical representation of the chart 500 and present the graphical representation to a user in a user interface on a user device) of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint (Paragraph [0065], element 515 in chart 500 can identify a most mathematically exact operation, D ...; paragraph [0060], the accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy ... the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 14).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose the one or more processors further configured to:
detect movement of a cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset;
identify a first additional datapoint of the first dataset and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint; and
cause display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses the one or more processors further configured to:
detect movement of a cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset (Paragraph [0043], FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment of a method 700 for selecting and identifying a data point of a dataset presented on a graph ...; paragraph [0049], the user inputting a point anywhere on the graph that has the x-axis coordinate of the point selected by the user may result in selection of the same data point of the selected dataset. Other forms of input are also possible, such as a user using a cursor to select a point on the graph or dragging his or her finger to the desired point. If dragging or a cursor is used, during dragging or cursor movement, a line passing through the point where the user is currently touching the touchscreen may be displayed ...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose identify a first additional datapoint of the first dataset and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint; and
cause display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses identify a first additional datapoint of the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1, as shown in table 400, the accuracy of the level of the operation D1 is 80% ; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset (As shown in table 400, the resource consumption level of the node D1 can be 70%) corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint (Paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1); and
cause display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint (Paragraph [0065], the chart 500 can include an element 520 in the chart 500 identifying an operation D1 selected to replace the operation D in the machine learning model 115. The replacement selector 125 can identify the operation D1 as providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a resource consumption level less than a threshold. The replacement selector 125 can identify an operation D1 providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a smallest resource consumption level of all of the replacement operations 130 that have an accuracy level above the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 14), and LYNNER discloses the one or more processors further configured to:
define one or more relationships between a plurality of data types (Paragraph [0090], protected data may be any data within the dynamic order dataset. In an embodiment in which the dynamic order is associated with the first underlyer class, the protected data may be an identity of the entity associated with the origination of the dynamic order, an implied volatility/option amount, and/or the request type (e.g., to buy or sell) ... The various data associated with the plurality of order attributes included in the dynamic order dataset may have corresponding metadata tags and/or labels for distinguishing a type of order attribute and used to determine whether the order attribute is protected data or not);
store the defined one or more relationships between the plurality of data types in a data library (FIG. 1; paragraph ]0084], the database 114 may store various information from the originator system 102, the execution system 104, the respondent system 106, the exchange system 108, the client device 110, the client device 112, and/or some other data feed. Such information may include historical data (e.g., values) related to one or more standard underlyers (e.g., benchmark assets/instruments) ...; paragraph [0109], the execution system 104 also retrieves corresponding product datasets (e.g., a first corresponding product dataset and a second corresponding product dataset). The execution system 104 may retrieve these corresponding product datasets at regular intervals, storing the collected data in a database (e.g., the database 114)); and
query the data library to identify the relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset (Paragraph [0107], the historical data requested is hosted in a data storage location (e.g., the database 114); FIG. 2; paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product).
Regarding claim 18, LYNNER discloses a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor (FIG. 1; paragraph [0069], the originator system 102 may include a processor and non-transitory, computer-readable medium, including instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform one or more methods disclosed herein ... functions of the originator system 102 may be partly or entirely performed by the execution system 104; paragraph [0106], the product dataset may be generated at the originator system 102 or generated by the product modeler 132 at the execution system 104 if the originator system 102 is accessing the product modeler 132 on the execution system 104 ... upon receipt of the product dataset by the execution system 104 (in some embodiments, at the product modeler 132), the product modeler 132 deconcatenates the individual data points in the product dataset for modeling; paragraph [0110], FIG. 2, a system 200 is shown for modeling a product 240 for corresponding product identification and selection. The system 200 may include, in some embodiments, a product modeler 202. The product modeler 202 may, in some embodiments, be substantially the same as the product modeler 132 of FIG. 1 ... the product modeler 202 may also be resident on an originator system (e.g., the originator system 102 of FIG. 1)), configures the computer program product for:
receiving a first dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 214; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 214 to generate the first corresponding product model output 254; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the first corresponding product model output 254), a second dataset (Paragraph [0115], the corresponding product modifier 206 receives corresponding product datasets 216; paragraph [0116], the corresponding product modifier 206 may apply various transformations or adjustments to the corresponding product datasets 216 to generate the second corresponding product model output 256; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the second corresponding product model output 256), and a third dataset of a plurality of datasets (Paragraph [0112], a product dataset 212 is received by the product modifier 204; paragraph [0116], the transformation may be substantially similar to that of the product 240 to the product model output 244; paragraph [0118], the variability subsystem 208 receives the product model output 244);
determining that the third dataset of the plurality of datasets corresponds to a relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product);
causing display of a graph depicting the first dataset (FIG. 3; paragraph [0122], the first corresponding product 308), the second dataset (Paragraph [0120], the second corresponding product 310), and the third dataset (Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], the VWP of each of the constituent subproducts 242 is summed for a single, value-weighted price (“SVWP”) of the product 240 ... Turning briefly to FIG. 3, a graphical illustration 300 of a product's SVWP 306 over a look-back period is shown ... The SVWP 306 is shown graphed on the graphical illustration with relation to a first corresponding product 308 and a second corresponding product 310) via a graphical user interface (Paragraph [0122], FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of the GUI).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose receiving a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset;
identifying a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
causing display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses (Abstract, various arrangements for identifying and selected a data value of a dataset presented on a graph are described ... FIG. 1; paragraph [0024], the graph of embodiment 100 contains graphical representations of three datasets, graphical representation of dataset 110, graphical representation of dataset 120, and graphical representation of dataset 130) receiving a user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset Paragraph [0029], The graph of FIG. 3 may represent the graphs of FIGS. 1 and 2 after a user has selected "Dataset 3" via touch input. User's hand 210 may then touch a point on the graph. By indicating a point on the graph of FIG. 3, the user may select the approximate value along the x-axis that the user is interested in for the selected dataset .. a graphical representation may allow the user to precisely select a data point of the selected dataset by showing a graphical indicator (e.g., the line) that intersects with the graphical representation of the dataset 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
However, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto does not specifically disclose identifying a first datapoint within the first dataset corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint within the third dataset and a second datapoint within the second dataset corresponding to the first user-selected point within the third dataset; and
causing display of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses (Abstract, a system can include a data processing system ... The data processing system can receive a model trained by machine learning comprising first operations, the model to generate an output to operate a vehicle. The data processing system can search the model to identify a non-linear operation of the first operations. The data processing system can select, from second operations, a second operation that approximates the non-linear operation, the selection based on a level of computing resources consumed by the second operations, an accuracy of the model generated with the second operations, and an accuracy threshold to operate the vehicle ...) identifying a first datapoint within the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D. The accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected datapoint (FIG. 1; paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second datapoint within the second dataset (Paragraph [0060], the replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ... Because the resource consumption is measured relative to operation D, the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%; paragraph [0064], the trend 510 can be a trend of resource consumption for replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) corresponding to the first user-selected point (Paragraph [0060], The replacement selector 125 can use the measured values to determine an accuracy level of the operation D ...) within the third dataset (Paragraph [0059], the table 400 can include a column of replacement operations 130 for an identified operation of a sub-model, e.g., node D for the sub-model represented by sub-graph G2. For example, the replacement operations 130 can be D0, D1, D2, and D3); and
causing display (Paragraph [0063], the data processing system 105 can generate a graphical representation of the chart 500 and present the graphical representation to a user in a user interface on a user device) of an element indicating a relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint (Paragraph [0065], element 515 in chart 500 can identify a most mathematically exact operation, D ...; paragraph [0060], the accuracy of the level of the operation D may be 84% accuracy ... the resource consumption level of the node D can be 100%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 18).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, further configures the computer program product for:
detecting movement of a cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset;
identifying a first additional datapoint of the first dataset and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint; and
causing display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint.
In additional, Yoshimoto discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, further configures the computer program product for:
detecting movement of a cursor from the first user-selected datapoint to a second user-selected datapoint of the third dataset (Paragraph [0043], FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment of a method 700 for selecting and identifying a data point of a dataset presented on a graph ...; paragraph [0049], the user inputting a point anywhere on the graph that has the x-axis coordinate of the point selected by the user may result in selection of the same data point of the selected dataset. Other forms of input are also possible, such as a user using a cursor to select a point on the graph or dragging his or her finger to the desired point. If dragging or a cursor is used, during dragging or cursor movement, a line passing through the point where the user is currently touching the touchscreen may be displayed ...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto, and applying the arrangements for interacting with graphs taught by Yoshimoto to provide the selection of the dataset via the graph based on the user interaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER according to the relied-upon teachings of Yoshimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose identifying a first additional datapoint of the first dataset and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint; and
causing display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint.
In additional, Patwari discloses identifying a first additional datapoint of the first dataset (FIGS. 1 and 4; paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1, as shown in table 400, the accuracy of the level of the operation D1 is 80% ; FIG. 5; paragraph [0064], the trend 505 can be a trend of accuracy for the replacement operations D0, D1, D2, and D3) and a second additional datapoint of the second dataset (As shown in table 400, the resource consumption level of the node D1 can be 70%) corresponding to the second user-selected datapoint (Paragraph [0061], the model 115 is executed with operation D1 can be used to generate an accuracy level for the operation D1); and
causing display of an element indicating a relationship between the first additional datapoint and the second additional datapoint (Paragraph [0065], the chart 500 can include an element 520 in the chart 500 identifying an operation D1 selected to replace the operation D in the machine learning model 115. The replacement selector 125 can identify the operation D1 as providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a resource consumption level less than a threshold. The replacement selector 125 can identify an operation D1 providing an accuracy level greater than a threshold but a smallest resource consumption level of all of the replacement operations 130 that have an accuracy level above the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto incorporate the teachings of Patwari, and applying the data processing system taught by Patwari to provide the element in the graphical user interface for indicating most mathematically exact operation between two datapoints within two different datasets. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto according to the relied-upon teachings of Patwari to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 18), and LYNNER discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, further configures the computer program product for:
defining one or more relationships between a plurality of data types (Paragraph [0090], protected data may be any data within the dynamic order dataset. In an embodiment in which the dynamic order is associated with the first underlyer class, the protected data may be an identity of the entity associated with the origination of the dynamic order, an implied volatility/option amount, and/or the request type (e.g., to buy or sell) ... The various data associated with the plurality of order attributes included in the dynamic order dataset may have corresponding metadata tags and/or labels for distinguishing a type of order attribute and used to determine whether the order attribute is protected data or not);
storing the defined one or more relationships between the plurality of data types in a data library (FIG. 1; paragraph ]0084], the database 114 may store various information from the originator system 102, the execution system 104, the respondent system 106, the exchange system 108, the client device 110, the client device 112, and/or some other data feed. Such information may include historical data (e.g., values) related to one or more standard underlyers (e.g., benchmark assets/instruments) ...; paragraph [0109], the execution system 104 also retrieves corresponding product datasets (e.g., a first corresponding product dataset and a second corresponding product dataset). The execution system 104 may retrieve these corresponding product datasets at regular intervals, storing the collected data in a database (e.g., the database 114)); and
querying the data library to identify the relationship between the first dataset and the second dataset (Paragraph [0107], the historical data requested is hosted in a data storage location (e.g., the database 114); FIG. 2; paragraph [0120], the variability subsystem 208 compares the product model output 244 to both the first corresponding product model output 254 and the second corresponding product model output 256 to determine a first variability index (corresponding to the first corresponding product model output 254 with relation to the product model output 244) and a second variability index (corresponding to the second corresponding product model output 256 with relation to the product model output 244) ... the product model output 244, the first corresponding product model output 254, and the second corresponding product model output 256 each comprise at least 35 days of historical data of the respective product or corresponding product).
Claims 3, 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYNNER (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0328684 A1) in view of Yoshimoto et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0187923 A1) in view of Patwari et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0336272 A1) in view of Shannon (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0289886 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein a data item of the third dataset indicates a delta value between a corresponding data item of the first dataset and a corresponding data item of the second dataset.
In additional, Shannon discloses wherein a data item of the third dataset indicates a delta value between a corresponding data item of the first dataset and a corresponding data item of the second dataset (Paragraph [0009], the method comprises providing a group of datasets, gathering raw data points relating to performance of each dataset in a first metric, wherein the first metric is an investment metric, and gathering raw data points relating to performance of each dataset in a second metric, wherein the second metric is an investment metric. The method further comprises comparing the performance of the raw data points of each dataset in the first metric against a benchmark ... plotting the performance of the raw data points in the first metric against the benchmark on a graph, wherein the graph comprises quadrants, each quadrant representing a different set of values, and developing a delta data point for each raw data point in the first metric by assigning a comparative value to the performance of each raw data point in the first metric based on a position of the raw data point in one of the quadrants on the graph ...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari incorporate the teachings of Shannon, and applying the method for generating and displaying investment analytics taught by Shannon to provide the delta data point for each data point between two datasets and display the delta data point in a summary visual display. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari according to the relied-upon teachings of Shannon to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari in view of Shannon discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 3).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color to indicate a positive delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint.
In additional, Shannon discloses wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color (Paragraph [0012], colors are assigned to the delta data points) to indicate a positive delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint (Paragraph [0012], colors are assigned to the delta data points in the third metric and the delta data points in the fourth metric based on whether the raw data point beat the benchmark).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari incorporate the teachings of Shannon, and applying the method for generating and displaying investment analytics taught by Shannon to provide the delta data point for each data point between two datasets and display the delta data point in a summary visual display using visual coding. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari according to the relied-upon teachings of Shannon to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari in view of Shannon discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 3).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color to indicate a negative delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint.
In additional, Shannon discloses wherein displaying the element indicating the relationship between the first datapoint and the second datapoint comprises displaying the element in a color (Paragraph [0012], colors are assigned to the delta data points) to indicate a negative delta value from the first datapoint to the second datapoint (Paragraph [0012], colors are assigned to the delta data points in the third metric and the delta data points in the fourth metric based on whether the raw data point was below the benchmark).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari incorporate the teachings of Shannon, and applying the method for generating and displaying investment analytics taught by Shannon to provide the delta data point for each data point between two datasets and display the delta data point in a summary visual display using visual coding. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari according to the relied-upon teachings of Shannon to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 14).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein a data item of the third dataset indicates a delta value between a corresponding data item of the first dataset and a corresponding data item of the second dataset.
In additional, Shannon discloses wherein a data item of the third dataset indicates a delta value between a corresponding data item of the first dataset and a corresponding data item of the second dataset (Paragraph [0009], the method comprises providing a group of datasets, gathering raw data points relating to performance of each dataset in a first metric, wherein the first metric is an investment metric, and gathering raw data points relating to performance of each dataset in a second metric, wherein the second metric is an investment metric. The method further comprises comparing the performance of the raw data points of each dataset in the first metric against a benchmark ... plotting the performance of the raw data points in the first metric against the benchmark on a graph, wherein the graph comprises quadrants, each quadrant representing a different set of values, and developing a delta data point for each raw data point in the first metric by assigning a comparative value to the performance of each raw data point in the first metric based on a position of the raw data point in one of the quadrants on the graph ...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari incorporate the teachings of Shannon, and applying the method for generating and displaying investment analytics taught by Shannon to provide the delta data point for each data point between two datasets and display the delta data point in a summary visual display. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari according to the relied-upon teachings of Shannon to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYNNER (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0328684 A1) in view of Yoshimoto et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0187923 A1) in view of Patwari et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0336272 A1) in view of Ganti et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0364043 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1).
However, LYNNER does not specifically disclose wherein the first dataset corresponds to an operational power dataset, the second set corresponds to a design power dataset, and the third dataset corresponds to a design power loss dataset.
In additional, Ganti discloses (Abstract, a system including a power plant having thermal generating units that operate according to multiple possible operating modes, which are differentiated by a unique operational or maintenance schedule ...) wherein the first dataset corresponds to an operational power dataset (FIG. 3; paragraph [0061], the plant controller 22 may simulate the operation, e.g., thermodynamic performance or parameters describing operation, of the power plant 12; paragraph [0068], the models 60, 61, 62, 63 may include filters that receives data inputs regarding actual physical and thermodynamic operating conditions of the combined-cycle power plant. These data inputs may be supplied to the filter in real-time or periodically every 5 minutes, 15 minutes, hour, day, etc. during the operation of the power plant 12. The data inputs may be compared to data predicted by the digital models 60, 61, 62, 63 and, based on the comparisons), the second set corresponds to a design power dataset (Paragraph [0072], a power plant design model 71 may include one or more of models that describe the physical aspects of the generating assets of the power plant 12. The engineering models of the design model 71 may be provided inputs from various sensors, such as temperatures, pressures, flow and other assumptions, and be used to calculate outputs, which then may be used as data inputs to the other models ...), and the third dataset corresponds to a design power loss dataset (Paragraph [0211], FIGS. 26 and 27 illustrates a power system 850 in which a block controller 855 is used to control a plurality of power blocks 860; paragraph [0222], the block controller 855, as indicated, further may include modules directed toward power generation models (which may include asset models, block models, fleet models, as well as degradation or loss models), an optimizer, and a cost function; paragraph [0223], the cost function module may include a fleet robustness index so to efficiently differentiate between alternative operating modes. The fleet robustness index may represent an averaged summation of losses accrued within the power blocks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the originator system taught by LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari incorporate the teachings of Ganti, and applying the system for enhancing control of power plant generating unit taught by Ganti to provide the operational power dataset, the design power dataset and the design power loss dataset as input for measuring the performance during the operation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LYNNER in view of Yoshimoto in view of Patwari according to the relied-upon teachings of Ganti to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
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 Xilin Guo whose telephone number is (571)272-5786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:30 PM EST.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/XILIN GUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights