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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 3-5 are 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.
With regards to claim 3, it recites “”a judgement criteria as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation requires the data of the list or a judgement criterion as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation is capable of using the data of the list”. Yet determining ‘whether or not’ with respect to data requirement or ‘capable of using’ is subjective as the claim lacks an objective way to establish each of these judgements. The examiner will interpret that any preexisting association between a type of statistical calculation to referencing of the list data is sufficient to implement requirement and capability.
With regards to claim 4, it recites “ it recites a “a judgement criterion as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation requires graph drawing or a judgment criterion as to whether or not graph drawing helps understanding of a user”. Yet determining ‘whether or not’ with respect to a statistical calculation requires a graph drawing, or determining ‘whether or not’ with respect to assessing a user comprehension (understanding) for a graph drawing, is subjective as the claim lacks an object way to establish each of these judgements. The examiner will interpret that any preexisting association between executing a statistical calculation and referencing a graph drawing is sufficient to implement requirement and capability.
With regards to claim 5, it depends upon claim 4 and since it does not resolve upon the subject matter that it depends upon, it is also rejected under similar rationale as the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akae et al (US Application: US 20190317664, published: Oct. 17, 2019, filed: April 17, 2019).
With regards to claim 1, Akae et al teaches a statistical processing system (paragraph 0087: a processing system using a processor and memory is implemented) comprising a processor,
wherein the processor selectively performs plural types of statistical calculations (Fig., 21E: a plurality of statistical calculations can be performed and are depicted), and
wherein the processor controls such that at least part of options are different between
(i) a case where the processor controls a display to display options for types of statistical calculations to be selectively performed by the processor, in response to an operation performed on a list display area where a list of data to be used for statistical calculation is displayed (fig. 21E a list of operations are displayed such as ‘logistic regression’, ‘scatter plot’, ‘histogram’, etc.), and
(ii) a case where the processor controls the display to display options for types of statistical calculations to be selectively performed by the processor, in response to an operation performed on a graph display area where a graph indicating a result of statistical calculation is displayed (Fig. 21C: a user can initiate from a graph display first for types of statistical calculations and then the user can then access a list of statistical operations and Fig. 21F: a graph displays the statistical operations. ).
With regards to claim 2. The statistical processing system according to claim 1, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor sets in advance the options for types of statistical calculations which are displayed in response to the operation on the list display area and the options for types of statistical calculations which are displayed in response to the operation on the graph display area, on basis of predetermined judgment criteria (Fig. 21A, 0279: a software keyboard is defined and displayed (ref 14), and as displayed it is defined with different options, such as ‘statistics’, number, ‘math’, etc. that includes ‘logistic regression’, ‘ scatter plot’, etc. on the basis of input board initiation criteria via a check field and the earlier selected ref 131 in Fig. 21C).
With regards to claim 3. The statistical processing system according to claim 2, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor determines the options for types of statistical calculations which are displayed in response to the operation on the list display area, on basis of a judgment criterion as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation requires the data of the list or a judgment criterion as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation is capable of using the data of the list (paragraph 0278 and 0279: data listed in a table area is obtained for the selected statistical calculation on the basis that the statistical calculation requires/sources data from the data listed in the table).
With regards to claim 4. The statistical processing system according to claim 2, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor determines the options for types of statistical calculations which are displayed in response to the operation on the graph display area, on basis of a judgment criterion as to whether or not each type of statistical calculation requires graph drawing or a judgment criterion as to whether or not graph drawing helps understanding of a user (paragraph 0280 and 0281: based upon the selected option for a statistical calculation, a judgment is made that the statistical calculation requires graph drawing and the graph is also updated in graph tag 103).
With regards to claim 5. The statistical processing system according to claim 1, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor controls the display to display a menu display area independent from the list display area in response to the operation performed on the list display area, and display the options in the menu display area (Fig. 21E: a menu 140 is displayed separate from the table listing and the menu displays the options).
With regards to claim 6. The statistical processing system according to claim 1, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor controls the display to display a menu display area derived from the graph display area in response to the operation performed on the graph display area, and display the options in the menu display area (Fig. 21E: a menu 140 is displayed in response to the operation initially invoked via ref 131 in graph display area that allowed statistic menu to be subsequently invoked transitively via request at ref 125 made available from selection of 131).
With regards to claim 8. The statistical processing system according to claim 1, Akae et al teaches wherein the plural types of statistical calculations include calculation of statistics, statistical estimation, and statistical testing (Fig. 21E: statistical calculations include a histogram, statistical estimation include a Box and Whisker Plot to provide visual estimate of spread/distribution of data, and statistical testing includes logistic regression to test for probability of an event occurring).
With regards to claim 9, Akae et al teaches a display control device comprising a processor, wherein the processor controls such that at least part of options are different between (i) a case where the processor controls a display to display options for types of statistical calculations, in response to an operation performed on a list display area where a list of data to be used for statistical calculation is displayed, and (ii) a case where the processor controls the display to display options for types of statistical calculations, in response to an operation performed on a graph display area where a graph indicating a result of statistical calculation is displayed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The display control device according to claim 9, Akae et al teaches wherein the processor selectively performs the plural types of statistical calculations in response to a selection operation performed on the options displayed on the display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11, Akae et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that is executable by a computer to perform processing of controlling such that at least part of options are different between (i) a case where a display is controlled to display options for types of statistical calculations, in response to an operation performed on a list display area where a list of data to be used for statistical calculation is displayed, and (ii) a case where the display is controlled to display options for types of statistical calculations, in response to an operation performed on a graph display area where a graph indicating a result of statistical calculation is displayed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akae et al (US Application: US 20190317664, published: Oct. 17, 2019, filed: April 17, 2019) in view of Trueblood (US Patent: 5675755, issued: Oct. 7, 1997, filed: Jun. 7, 1995)
With regards to claim 7. The statistical processing system according to claim 1, Akae et al teaches … the list display area, …a display area of the display … the graph display area , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Akae et al does not expressly teach … wherein the processor changes, in response to an operation of moving the list display area, a position of the list display area in a display area of the display to a position specified by the moving operation, and wherein the processor changes, in response to an operation of moving the graph display area, a position of the graph display area in the display area of the display to a position specified by the moving operation.
Yet Trueblood teaches … wherein the processor changes, in response to an operation of moving [a first window] area, a position of the [first window] display area in a display area of the display to a position specified by the moving operation, and wherein the processor changes, in response to an operation of moving the [second window] display area, a position of the [second window] display area in the display area of the display to a position specified by the moving operation (column 8, lines 65-67, column 9, lines 1-17: a user can push a first window to reposition the first window and a second window is moved to retain visibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Akae et al’s ability to implement a display list area and graph areas in a display, such that the areas are individually moveable and yet also adaptive to user positioning of one or more of the areas, as taught by Trueblood. The combination would have allowed different areas to retain visibility even when the areas are moveable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akaza et al (US Application: US 20110234624): This reference teaches list and graph display areas.
Kincaid (US Application: US 20100188406): This reference teaches context-viewing of graph data.
Kauffman et al (US Patent: 7707091): This reference teaches dynamically adapting to changing data by selecting a model from a set of models.
Rabin (US Application: US 20100079463): This reference teaches visualizing and interactively manipulating profile data and allowing for statistical function selection in a graph area.
Zigon et al (US Application: US 20100070904): This reference teaches selecting statistical function execution and display of statistical data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights