DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0190453; hereinafter Wilson) in view of Martin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0293464; hereinafter Martin).
With reference to claims 1, 9 and 10, Wilson discloses an information processing apparatus (110) comprising at least one processor (130), a display control method, and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing (in teaching the usage of computing devices communicating with the computing server; see paragraphs 44-46; Fig. 1, 3), the at least one processor carrying out:
a direction determination process of, in a case where at least one second node (414, 416, 418) related to a first node (410) is switched from a non-displayed state to a displayed state in a graph (400) in which a relation between a plurality of elements is represented by nodes and an edge (see paragraph 99), determining a direction in which the second node (414, 416, 418) is to be displayed relative to the first node (410) (see paragraph 95, 100-103; Figs 1, 3-4), with a boundary line, which is displayed or not displayed (see paragraph 110); and
a display control process of causing the second node to be displayed in the direction that has been determined by the direction determination process (see paragraph 101-103; Figs. 3-9).
While Wilson discloses the information processing apparatus as described, there fails to be specific disclosure of the usage of latent variables as recited.
Martin discloses a system for clustering patterns of activity of latent variables wherein the first node indicates a latent variable derived from a plurality of observed variables, and the second node indicates another latent variable derived from the plurality of observed variables (see paragraphs 61-63; Figs. 3-7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of latent variables similar to that which is taught by Martin in a system similar to that which is taught by Wilson thereby providing distinct groups of interacting latent variables to be displayed to the user (see Martin; paragraph 60).
With reference to claims 11, 13, and 15, Wilson and Martin disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, 9, or 10, wherein Wilson further discloses that the at least one processor carries out: a reception process of receiving designation of nodes to be grouped (in teaching data extraction service server (125); see paragraphs 48-49; Fig. 1); a set process of setting the designated nodes in a single group (see paragraphs 50-51; Figs. 1, 3); and a display process of displaying the designated nodes in the single group as an alternative node (see paragraph 50-51, 101; Figs. 1, 3-4).
With reference to claim 12, 14, and 16, Wilson and Martin disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, 13, or 15, wherein Wilson further discloses the at least one processor carries out: a reception process of receiving an operation for changing a position of the alternative node (in teaching centering the target individual to the center of the display area; see paragraph 133); a determine process of determining an expansion direction of the nodes included in the alternative node (David J. Smith), wherein no other nodes are displayed in the expansion direction (see paragraphs 133-134; Fig. 8C-8D); and a display process of displaying the nodes included in the alternative node in the expansion direction instead of the alternative node (see paragraphs 134-135; 8A-9).
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US Patent No. 6,031,415).
With reference to claim 2, Wilson and Martin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however fails to teach that the direction is determined on the basis on the position of the first node as recited.
Chang discloses a system and method for displaying multiple dialog boxes in a window display (see abstract), wherein in the direction determination process (see columns 5, line 1-55), the at least one processor determines the direction in which the second node (156) is to be displayed, on the basis of a position of the first node (158) in a display area of the graph (see column 10, lines 19-42; Fig. 7A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a determining direction of displaying the second node based on the position of the first node, similar to that which is taught by Chang to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Wilson and Martin to thereby provide sufficient display area for expanding the first node to the second node (see Chang; page 5, lines 27-38).
With reference to claim 3, Wilson, Martin, and Chang disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein Chang further discloses wherein in the direction determination process, the at least one processor determines, as the direction in which the second node is to be displayed, a direction from the first node to an outer side of the display area (see column 5, lines 15-55; Figs. 5-6).
With reference to claim 4, Wilson, Martin, and Chang disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein Chang further discloses wherein in the direction determination process, the at least one processor determines, as the direction in which the second node is to be displayed, a direction assigned to a sectional area in which the first node is disposed among a plurality of sectional areas into which the display area is divided (in teaching regions 258, 260, 204; see column 4, lines 22-62; Figs. 3-4).
With reference to claim 5, Wilson, Martin, and Chang disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein Chang further discloses wherein the at least one processor carries out a division process of setting the plurality of sectional areas by dividing the display area in accordance with the graph (see column 8, line 63-33).
With reference to claim 6, Wilson and Martin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however fails to teach that the direction is determined as recited.
Chang discloses a system and method for displaying multiple dialog boxes in a window display (see abstract), wherein in the direction determination process, the at least one processor determines the direction in which the second node is to be displayed on the basis of a position of another node which is displayed in a surrounding area of the first node (see column 10, lines 19-42; Fig. 7A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a determining direction of displaying the second node based on the position of the first node, similar to that which is taught by Chang to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Wilson and Martin to thereby provide sufficient display area for expanding the first node to the second node (see Chang; page 5, lines 27-38).
With reference to claim 7, Wilson, Martin, and Chang disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein Chang wherein in the direction determination process, the at least one processor divides the surrounding area of the first node into a plurality of sectional surrounding areas, and determines the direction in which the second node is to be displayed, on the basis of the number of other nodes disposed in each of the sectional surrounding areas (see column 5, lines 15-55).
With reference to claim 8, Wilson and Martin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however fails to teach change in position of the first node as recited.
Chang discloses a system and method for displaying multiple dialog boxes in a window display (see abstract), wherein: the at least one processor carries out a reception process of receiving an operation for changing a position of the first node; and in a case where a change in the position of the first node is made while the second node is in the displayed state, the at least one processor changes, in accordance with the change in the position, the direction in which the second node is to be displayed (in teaching expanding based on the pointer position in a text document, wherein it is well-known for reposition word; column 10, line 19-column 11, line 25; Figs. 7A-B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a determining direction of displaying the second node based on the position of the first node, similar to that which is taught by Chang to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Wilson and Martin to thereby provide sufficient display area for expanding the first node to the second node (see Chang; page 5, lines 27-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Wilson fails to disclose “determining a direction in which the second node is to be displayed relative to the first node” as recited. The examiner disagrees. The examiner finds that Wilson teaches the recited “determining” in disclose the usage of expand buttons associated with a particular family member which allows the user to expand the family tree in the direction associated with the particular gamily member (see paragraphs 100-101; Fig. 4A). Additionally the computing server including a plurality of processing engines to generate ancestry information wherein parents, spouses, and children are directional generated with reference to a target individual (see paragraphs 52, 89-93; Figs. 1-9). Therefore the examiner finds that Wilson discloses the limitation argued by the applicant. The applicant also argues that Wilson fails to disclose the newly recited limitation of “latent variables” as recited. While the examiner finds that the variables (family members) can be latent variable, as family members can be observed to determine if said family member is older or younger that the target individual to determine parent or child, newly cited reference Martin, clearly discloses the usage of latent variables. No arguments were presented to newly presented claims 11-16. The examiner finds the claims to be disclosed by the teachings of Wilson.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MORRIS (US2011/0179390) discloses a method and system for traversing nodes in a path on a display system based on a hierarchy wherein a node user interface element may be configured to display visual representations of each node in the path determined by a path selector component (see paragraphs 104-153; Figs. 1-8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached M0n.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights