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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2, “[Produst 5]” should read “[Product 5]”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 10 recite "a CPU of the information processing apparatus". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the information processing apparatus". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 refer to a “control means”. [0037] of the applicant’s specification describes control means as “control means 11 is realized by a central processing unit (CPU), for example, executes an application program, an operating system (OS), a control program, and the like stored in a hard disk (HD) 12 described below, and executes control for temporarily storing information, files, and the like, which are required for program execution, in random access memory (RAM) 13.” Therefore, “control means” will be interpreted as “a central processing unit (CPU), for example, executes an application program, an operating system (OS), a control program, and the like stored in a hard disk (HD)” and equivalents thereof.
Claims 13 and 14 refer to a “display means”. [0047] of the applicant’s specification describes display means as “The display means 16 is a liquid-crystal display, an organic EL display, or a dot- matrix display, for example, and displays the command input from the input means 15, response output of the information processing apparatus 1 to the command, and the like.” Therefore, “display means” will be interpreted as “liquid-crystal display, an organic EL display, or a dot- matrix display, for example, and displays the command input from the input means 15, response output of the information processing apparatus 1 to the command, and the like” and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a pictorial figure" in lines 5 and 7, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 5, 7, and 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” of lines 7 and 9 are referring to the “a pictorial figure” of line 5 or 7. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 7 is referring to a new pictorial figure or to the “a pictorial figure” of line 5. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is suggested to apply numberings to the pictorial figures (i.e. “a first pictorial figure”, “a second pictorial figure”, “the first pictorial figure”)
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a pictorial figure" in lines 5 and 7, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 5, 7, and 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” of lines 7 and 9 are referring to the “a pictorial figure” of line 5 or 7. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 7 is referring to a new pictorial figure or to the “a pictorial figure” of line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in line 3 and “the pictorial figure” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” is referring to the “a pictorial figure” of line 3, or to one of the pictorial figures introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in lines 6 and 8, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 6, 8, and 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” in line 6 is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 1. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 8 is referring to a new pictorial, “a pictorial figure” of line 6, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 1. It is unclear which “a pictorial figure” is being referred to by “the pictorial figure” in lines 6, 8, and 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in lines 6 and 8, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 6, 8, and 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” in line 6 is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 2. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 8 is referring to a new pictorial, “a pictorial figure” of line 6, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 2. It is unclear which “a pictorial figure” is being referred to by “the pictorial figure” in lines 6, 8, and 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in lines 7 and 9, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” in line 7 is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 1. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 9 is referring to a new pictorial, “a pictorial figure” of line 7, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 1. It is unclear which “a pictorial figure” is being referred to by “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in lines 7 and 9, and “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” in line 7 is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 2. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” of line 9 is referring to a new pictorial, “a pictorial figure” of line 7, or to one of the pictorial figures of claim 2. It is unclear which “a pictorial figure” is being referred to by “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a pictorial figure” in line 3 and “the pictorial figure” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “a pictorial figure” is referring to a new pictorial figure, or to one of the pictorial figures introduced in claim 2. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” is referring to the “a pictorial figure” of line 3, or to one of the pictorial figures introduced in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to a pictorial figure introduced in claim 6, to a pictorial figure introduced in claim 1, or to a new pictorial figure. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” in line 9 is referring to the pictorial figure of line 7, to a pictorial figure from claim 1 or 6, or to a new pictorial figure. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” in line 11 is referring to a new pictorial figure, to the pictorial figure of line 7, to the pictorial figure of line 9, or to a pictorial figure from claim 1 or 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the pictorial figure” in lines 7, 9, and 11 of the claim There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to a pictorial figure introduced in claim 7, to a pictorial figure introduced in claim 2, or to a new pictorial figure. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” in line 9 is referring to the pictorial figure of line 7, to a pictorial figure from claim 2 or 7, or to a new pictorial figure. It is unclear if “the pictorial figure” in line 11 is referring to a new pictorial figure, to the pictorial figure of line 7, to the pictorial figure of line 9, or to a pictorial figure from claim 2 or 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the method to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, it recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes, Claim 1 recites:
An accounting information display method for displaying information on accounting, the accounting information display method comprising:
displaying a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales;
placing a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client;
and placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense, wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at a position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph.
Placing pictorial figures in a graph with size and position corresponding to sales amount, expense amount, profit, and sales can all be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, by analyzing sales, expense, and profit values and displaying results of that analysis (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A - “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," ”)
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the limitations identified as an abstract idea (mental process) in Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements other than the abstract idea limitations.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the limitations identified as an abstract idea (mental process) in Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements other than the abstract idea limitations.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, it depends from claim 1, wherein a pictorial figure that relates to a factor reducing the profit is displayed and connected to the pictorial figure relating to the sales.
However, this displaying a pictorial figure relating to a factor reducing profit limitation is still a mental process because placing a pictorial figure can be performed in one’s mind in response to a condition.
No additional elements are recited, and therefore the answers to step 2A prong two and step 2B are no. Claim 3 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4:
Step 1: Is the method to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
No, claim 4 recites
A program using an accounting information display method of claim 1 for displaying information on accounting, the program causing an information processing apparatus to:
display a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales;
place a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client;
and place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense, wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at a position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Claim 4 describes a program which performs the method of claim 1 on a generic computer. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as a computer program.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim only recites a program and an information processing apparatus which is a generic computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim only recites a program and an information processing apparatus which is a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 1: Is the method to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, it recites an apparatus, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes, Claim 6 recites
An information processing apparatus using an accounting information display method of claim 1 for displaying information on accounting, the information processing apparatus comprising:
control means that displays a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales;
places a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client;
and places a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense, wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at a position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph.
Claim 6 describes performing the method of claim 1 on a generic computer (See 112(f) interpretation of “control means”). As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites “An information processing apparatus” and “control means” which are a generic computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites “An information processing apparatus” and “control means” which are a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, it depends from claim 1, wherein the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer, and claim 9 only recites limitations describing performing the mental process on a computer. Claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11: It depends on claim 4, stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus.
Step 1: Is the method to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, it recites an apparatus, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes, it describes the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims recite “memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus”, which describes a generic computer. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 1: Is the method to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, it recites an apparatus, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes, Claim 13 recites
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, comprising a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means to:
display on display means the graph in which one of the vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales;
place the pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to the sales amount of each client;
and place the pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to the expense and being in the size that corresponds to the amount of the expense,
wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at the position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph.
Claim 13 further describes the generic computer from claim 6 (See 112(f) interpretation of “control means” and “display means”). As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites “An information processing apparatus” and “control means” which are a generic computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites “a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus” and “a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus” which describes a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 13 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 4 recites “A program using an accounting information display method of claim 1 for displaying information on accounting, the program causing an information processing apparatus to:”, the body of the claim recites computer program steps, such as “display a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales;
place a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client;
and place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense, wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at a position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph”, which are nothing more than just programmed instructions to be performed by the system. Therefore the steps/elements recited in claims 4 and 5 are non-statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
Therefore, claim 4 recites a program per se and does not provide any structural recitations, and therefore is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutao (Application of Tableau in Visual Analysis Data of a US Supermarket Sales) and Kumar (Common Size Income Statement Analysis).
Regarding claim 1, Yutao teaches An accounting information display method for displaying information on accounting, the accounting information display method comprising (I. Introduction “This paper uses the data visualization tool”, II. Data and Method “The data set I used was from Kaggle, and it is about online orders of a US superstore from 2014-2018”):
displaying a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales (Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
placing a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig.3);
(C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor, Kumar teaches placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Regarding claim 2, Yutao teaches An accounting information display method for displaying information on accounting, the accounting information display method comprising (I. Introduction “This paper uses the data visualization tool”, II. Data and Method “The data set I used was from Kaggle, and it is about online orders of a US superstore from 2014-2018”):
displaying a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales (Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
placing a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each product (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig.3);
and placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense, wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at a position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph (C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor, Kumar teaches placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Regarding claim 3, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the accounting information display method according to claim 1, and in another embodiment Yutao teaches wherein a pictorial figure that relates to a factor reducing the profit is displayed and connected to the pictorial figure relating to the sales (D. Cost Profile of the Various Products “the red circle represents sales, the blue circle represents profit on sales, and the line segment between the two points represents the difference between sales and profit on sales, namely total cost.”, fig.4).
PNG
media_image3.png
303
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao and Kumar to include a pictorial figure that relates to a factor reducing the profit is displayed and connected to the pictorial figure relating to the sales as taught by Yutao. Doing so would provide a good way to visualize the difference in costs (D. Cost Profile of the Various Products “The chart on the left is a good way to visualize the difference in costs”)
Regarding claim 4, the program claim 4 (Yutao II. Data and Method “The main tool used in this paper is tableau 2021.2. Tableau is a software”) is similar in scope to claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, the program claim 5 (Yutao II. Data and Method “The main tool used in this paper is tableau 2021.2. Tableau is a software”) is similar in scope to claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the accounting information display method according to claim 2, and in another embodiment Yutao teaches wherein a pictorial figure that relates to a factor reducing the profit is displayed and connected to the pictorial figure relating to the sales (D. Cost Profile of the Various Products “the red circle represents sales, the blue circle represents profit on sales, and the line segment between the two points represents the difference between sales and profit on sales, namely total cost.”, fig.4).
PNG
media_image3.png
303
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao and Kumar to include a pictorial figure that relates to a factor reducing the profit is displayed and connected to the pictorial figure relating to the sales as taught by Yutao. Doing so would provide a good way to visualize the difference in costs (D. Cost Profile of the Various Products “The chart on the left is a good way to visualize the difference in costs”)
Claims 6, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutao and Kumar as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Tableau Software.
Regarding claim 6, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches an accounting information display method of claim 1 for displaying information on accounting. Yutao further teaches (Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
places a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each client (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig. 3);
(C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach places a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor, Kumar teaches placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Yutao as modified by Kumar fails to explicitly teach an information processing apparatus and the information processing apparatus comprising: control means. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches an information processing apparatus comprising control means (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include an information processing apparatus comprising control means as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 7, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches an accounting information display method of claim 2 for displaying information on accounting. Yutao further teaches displays a graph in which one of a vertical axis and a horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales (Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
places a pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to a sales amount of each product (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig.3);
(C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach places a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor, Kumar teaches placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include placing a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Yutao as modified by Kumar fails to explicitly teach an information processing apparatus and the information processing apparatus comprising: control means. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches an information processing apparatus comprising control means (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include an information processing apparatus comprising control means as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 9, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the accounting information display method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches wherein the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 10, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the accounting information display method according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches wherein the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include the method is executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 11, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the program according to claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 12, Yutao as modified by Kumar teaches the program according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus to be executed by a CPU of the information processing apparatus as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 13, Yutao as modified by Kumar and Tableau Software teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6. Yutao further teaches display (I. Introduction “Massive data can only be perfectly displayed after being properly collected, interpreted and expressed, and visualization is undoubtedly the most effective way to make data user-friendly and easy to understand”, Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
place the pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to the sales amount of each client (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig.3); and
wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at the position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph (C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach place the pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to the expense and being in the size that corresponds to the amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor Kumar teaches place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Yutao as modified by Kumar fails to explicitly teach comprising a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Regarding claim 14, Yutao as modified by Kumar and Tableau Software teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7. Yutao further teaches display on display means the graph in which one of the vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents profit and the other thereof represents sales (I. Introduction “Massive data can only be perfectly displayed after being properly collected, interpreted and expressed, and visualization is undoubtedly the most effective way to make data user-friendly and easy to understand”, Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
place the pictorial figure in the graph, the pictorial figure relating to the sales and being in a size that corresponds to the sales amount of each product (III. Visual Analysis of a US Supermarket Data “the size of the bubble represents how much they sell, and the bigger the bubble, the more they sell.”, Fig.3); and
wherein the pictorial figure relating to the sales is placed at the position corresponding to the profit and the sales in the graph (C. Sales and Profits of the Various Products “The product types are divided into four areas. The ordinate is based on the average of sales, and the abscissa is based on the average of profits.”).
Yutao fails to explicitly teach place the pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to the expense and being in the size that corresponds to the amount of the expense. In related field of endeavor Kumar teaches place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “We will make Pie chart of A Ltd and B Ltd by taking its % sales, % cost of goods sold.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
248
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yutao to include place a pictorial figure in the pictorial figure relating to the sales, the pictorial figure relating to an expense and being in a size that corresponds to an amount of the expense as taught by Kumar. Doing so would allow analysis of cost of sales and gross profit (1st Base of Analysis : Comparison of Gross Profit “By seeing its pie chart, it is clear that A Ltd has manage better its cost of sales. Due to this, its gross profit is more than B Ltd”)
Yutao as modified by Kumar fails to explicitly teach comprising a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means. In related field of endeavor, Tableau Software teaches a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means (Tableau Desktop, System Requirements “Microsoft® Windows® 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, or XP sp3; or Server 2012 R2, 2012, 2008 R2, or 2003 R2 (on x86 or x64 chipsets)
32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows2
Minimum of an Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron processor3
2 GB memory
250 megabytes minimum free disk space”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Yutao as modified by Kumar to include a display means and a computer program comprising instructions stored on memory storage of the information processing apparatus which when executed by a CPU of the control means of the information processing apparatus, enable the control means as taught by Tableau Software. Doing so would provide the minimum system requirements to run Tableau.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rick Borup (Data Visualization for the Database Developer) teaches using bubble charts to present accounting information (Page 17-18, Figure 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
411
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK GOCO whose telephone number is (571)272-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/J.P.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights