DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed December 23rd, 2025. Claims 8-9 and 23-24 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-19, 26-27, and 29-30 are presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Beginning on pages 8-9 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues “the claims do not recite a mental process because they do not recite performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.” Examiner begins by asserting that while Applicant states that the claims “do not recite performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components”, per the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.” Regarding the following limitations, Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the limitations regarding providing feedback based on a received indication of user interaction with a visual representation of the timeline operator and generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the timeline operator, are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, evaluation, and opinions. The generic computer components are merely used as a tool to perform these concepts. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 9-10 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues regarding Step 2A Prong Two analysis that “the claims are directed to a specific interface and implementation for visually programming complex stateful metrics using techniques to computers.” Citing various limitations within the independent claims as well as Paragraphs [0439] and [0508] of the as-filed Specification, Applicant continues on page 11 of the provided remarks to reiterate the above argument. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that while both Specification paragraphs refer to the improved efficiency and ease created by the claimed system, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, while paragraph [0439] points to the user being able to build a stateful metric, the present claim recites “receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set” and “detect, via the user interface frontend, an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric that is being visually composed via the graphical user interface”. The receipt of input does not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the detection of an update to the visual representation is claimed at a high-level of generality such that the claim could be a mere observation, judgment, and evaluation of the human mind. Finally, while paragraph [0508] argues the present system “supports stateful data explorations, rapid prototyping of stateful metrics, validation of stateful metrics, etc.” the argued “exploration, prototyping, and validation” occurring as presentation utilizing a graphical user interface are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Therefore, the 35 USC 101 is maintained. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-19, 26-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), 16 (method), and dependent claims 2-4, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, 26-27, and 29-30, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite a stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors configured to: provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; detect, via the user interface frontend, an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric that is being visually composed via the graphical user interface, wherein the stateful metric is represented in the graphical user interface via a connected plurality of visual representations of timeline operators, and wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface; and in response to detecting, via the user interface frontend, the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric composing addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric, provide visual feedback with respect to the timeline operator, wherein providing the visual feedback comprises: sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend, wherein responsive to the request, the backend performs computation based at least in part on the stateful metric including the timeline operator and the input data set, and wherein sending the request comprises translating the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend; receiving, from the backend, an output timeline associated with the timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the computation performed by the backend; and generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the timeline operator at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions (Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are detecting an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric; providing feedback based on a receiving indication of user interaction with a visual representation of the timeline operator and generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the timeline operator; and suggesting at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator based on compatibility of input type, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. Additionally, the generation of a visualization could be performed utilizing pen & paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are detecting updates to a visual representation of a stateful metric; providing feedback based on a receiving indication of user interaction with a visual representation of the timeline operator; generating a visualization of the output timeline; and suggesting a next timeline operator based on compatibility, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the feedback of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator; detecting incompatibility between a next timeline operator whose visual representation is connected to the visual representation of the timeline operator; and selection of the timeline operator. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2-3, 14, 17-18, and 29 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; provide visual feedback with respect to the timeline operator; sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend, wherein responsive to the request, the backend performs computation based at least in part on the stateful metric including the timeline operator and the input data set; receiving an output timeline associated with the timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the computation performed by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; provide the one or processors with instructions” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite “wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface”. The steps/functions of the dependent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application because the construction of the metric utilizing “dragging and dropping” are recited at a high level of generality such that it presents insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Additionally, the claimed “graphical user interface” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recites “translating the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend” and “at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend”. The steps/functions of the dependent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application because the transformation of an input into an output timeline representation are recited at a high level of generality such that it presents insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception.
In addition, dependent claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-4, 14, 17-19, and 29 additionally recite “the visual representation of the timeline operator is included as a node in a graph representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed”; “the graph representation comprises a directed acyclic graph (DAG)”; “the visual feedback comprises a representation of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator”; which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors” and “graphical user interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 14 and 29 recites “wherein the graphical user interface comprises a node-graph editor”. The claimed “graphical user interface” and “node-graph editor” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 16-19, 26-27, and 29-30; and system claims 1-4, 11-12, and 14-15 recite “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; user interface frontend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph 0048 and Figure 26A. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; provide visual feedback with respect to the timeline operator; sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend, wherein responsive to the request, the backend performs computation based at least in part on the stateful metric including the timeline operator and the input data set; receiving an output timeline associated with the timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the computation performed by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; provide the one or processors with instructions” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite “wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface”. When the “dragging and dropping” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See Varpela et al. U.S2005/0021877 A1 noting in paragraph [0240] “In conventional graphical user interfaces, the drag and drop technique works such that if a user drags an icon of a disk file on top of a software tool's icon, the operating system interprets this user input as an instruction to open the specified disk file with the specified software tool”. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed “graphical user interface” do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recites “translating the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend” and “at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend”. Per MPEP 2106.05(c) ‘Particular Transformation’ the following is stated, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.” The following factors regarding the transformation need be considered, including, “The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrates a judicial exception into a practical application).” Within the present independent & dependent claims noted above, the translation of the stateful metric into a configuration file and the output time into a visually compatible format is generically recited and therefore would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
In addition, claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2-4, 14, 17-19, and 29 additionally recite “the visual representation of the timeline operator is included as a node in a graph representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed”; “the graph representation comprises a directed acyclic graph (DAG)”; “the visual feedback comprises a representation of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator”; which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors” and “graphical user interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 14 and 29 recites “wherein the graphical user interface comprises a node-graph editor”. The claimed “graphical user interface” and “node-graph editor” do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The closest prior art discloses:
Potharaju (U.S 2019/0370408 A1) discloses mechanisms to modify or reconfigure a dataflow execution graph that processes on or more data streams. However, Potharaju does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, anoperator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
Jugel (U.S 2014/0059109 A1) discloses distributing pre-rendered processing tasks by providing a user interface frontend graphical user interface to receive indication of input data and provide visual feedback through a generated visualization. However, Jugel does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, aninteraction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
Mukherjee (U.S 2020/0310599 A1) discloses a self-serve content classification platform utilizing a user interface to send requests from the front end to the backend to perform computations based on the stateful metric including the timeline operator. However, Mukherjee does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, anintermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
Abeln (U.S 2012/0144335 A1) discloses interactive data visualization features including an interaction graphical data representation that result in the receipt of an output timeline and the generation of a visualization of the output timeline through translation of the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend. However, Abeln does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, anvisually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
Vermeulen et al. (EP3195117 B1) discloses managing distributed application state using replication nodes organized as a graph, and of deploying such graphs to implement a logging service that can be used for transaction management. However, Vermeulen does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, anrepresentation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface; wherein sending the request comprises translating the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
Happe (“Stateful component-based performance models.”) discloses identifying and classifying stateful information in component-based software systems, study the performance impact of the individual state categories, and discuss the costs of their modelling in terms of the increased model size. However, Happe does not disclose detect, via the user interface frontend, anuser interface via a connected plurality of visual representations of timeline operators, and wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface; wherein sending the request comprises translating the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator.
However, the present claims are not in condition for allowance because the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101, as set for in the current office action. Therefore, the claims are not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wininger, Florian, Naser Ezzati-Jivan, and Michel R. Dagenais. "A declarative framework for stateful analysis of execution traces." Software Quality Journal 25.1 (2017): 201-229.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2018/0084024 A1
Xie et al.
INTERACTIVE REALT-IME VISUALIZATION SYSTEM FOR LARGE-SCALE STREAMING DATA
US 2017/0053008 A1
Frenkel et al.
Time Series Explorer
US 2015/0205827 A1
Sengupta et al.
Analyzing Time Variations In A Data Set
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624