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 .
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.
The claim 1 recites “at least two of more of..” appears to be a typo for “two or more of..” It is unclear whether the system must offer at least two types. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " present a menu of options for panels with display settings.. " then later “.. render the user selected panel according to display settings..” It is unclear whether “display settings” are something different from the panel type itself. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “..code to query to a data source; and a variable..” It is unclear whether the “variable” is part of the query code. “..Display and identifier and a value of the variable ..” then assumes a single definite variable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,527 in view of Ward et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0044699). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
Instant Application No. 18/987,976.
Claim 1. A computer system configured to display data from one or more data sources, the computer system comprising:
one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute code to cause the computer system to:
present a menu of options for panels with display settings, the options including at least two of more of: a first panel configured to display a dropdown menu; a second panel configured to display a chart; a third panel configured to display a control; a fourth panel configured to display a graph; a fifth panel configured to display a map; a sixth panel configured to display a plot; or a seventh panel configured to display a date picker;
receive an indication of a user selected panel from among the menu of options; display code associated with the user selected panel, the code comprising: code to query to a data source; and a variable; display an identifier and a value of the variable; execute the query to retrieve data from the data source; render the user selected panel according to display settings of the user selected panel to display at least a portion of the data retrieved from the data source; and assign the value of the variable based on at least one of the data retrieved from the data source or a human interaction with the user selected panel.
US Patent No. 12,204,527.
Claim 1. A computer system comprising:
one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute instructions to cause the computer system to:
provide a first user interface configured to display a first panel associated with a query; provide a second user interface configured to display a coding of the query that comprises a first section of code written in a first programming language and a second section of code written in a template syntax and referencing (1) a helper function, and (2) a variable of the first panel; execute, by a template engine, the helper function on the second section of code to evaluate a value of the variable of the first panel and change the second section of code based on the evaluation, wherein executing the helper function includes storing the value of the variable in a data structure for reference; and execute the query to retrieve data from, write data to, or update data in, a data source.
Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “render the user selected panel according to display settings of the user selected panel to display at least a portion of the data retrieved from the data source; and assign the value of the variable based on at least one of the data retrieved from the data source or a human interaction with the user selected panel..” However, Ward teaches the user can define variables associated with the panels that can be referenced in a query. For example, the user can define variable A for panel and variable B for panel, and the query for panel can reference variable A and variable B in the query. For example, variable A and variable B can be associated with the selected value of panel and panel, respectively. As explained above, panels can have global variables associated with them; [Ward para. 0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the user can define variables associated with the panels that can be referenced in a query. For example, the user can define variable A for panel and variable B for panel, and the query for panel can reference variable A and variable B in the query. For example, variable A and variable B can be associated with the selected value of panel and panel, respectively. As explained above, panels can have global variables associated with them; as disclosed in Ward, within the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, render the user selected panel according to display settings of the user selected panel to display at least a portion of the data retrieved from the data source; and assign the value of the variable based on at least one of the data retrieved from the data source or a human interaction with the user selected panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
After a thorough search, and in light of the prior art of record, claims 1 and 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior arts, Papale (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0212663); Eckerd et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0012551); Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,194,680) and Toad for Oracle filed date 2012 combination fail to disclose or suggest one or more of the features of the independent claims 1 and 9.
In summary, Papale discloses identifying a visualization to be displayed for the panel based on the identified panel definition, and/or the identified query and/or inputs, each panel definition may include a selection of a visualization type and/or of one or more pre-defined visualizations, such as a bar chart, table.
Eckerd teaches an HTML template containing replaceable tags for "title" and "body" is included in a script block. The templating engine then compiles the template. Then, a data source is defined, which may be static data or a web service that returns the data in a usable format.
Roy discloses the translation process involves the conversion of each source language statement of a given computer program into machine language suitable for execution. A user wishing to execute an application program written in the programming language will invoke an interpreter in order to execute the application program. The interpreter can simply parse the page as an XML or HTML document, and then using the standard DOM interface for accessing such a document, it can find the content annotations, fetch the required content, and substitute for the placeholders.
TOAD for Oracle discloses right clicking the objects and selecting Custom Queries <query names>" corresponds to receiving a query in structured query language code for writing data to the one or more data sources, the query being treated as editable variable; to define master/detail relationship, Use the Master Detail Browser and combined with displaying one defined detail dataset.
None of the prior art of record alone or in any reasonable combination, disclose the claimed invention as recites in the independent claim 1 similarly recited in independent claim 9.
Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach a computer system configured to display data from one or more data sources, the computer system comprising: one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute code to cause the computer system to: present a menu of options for panels with display settings, the options including at least two of more of: a first panel configured to display a dropdown menu; a second panel configured to display a chart; a third panel configured to display a control; a fourth panel configured to display a graph; a fifth panel configured to display a map; a sixth panel configured to display a plot; or a seventh panel configured to display a date picker; receive an indication of a user selected panel from among the menu of options; display code associated with the user selected panel, the code comprising: code to query to a data source; and a variable; display an identifier and a value of the variable; execute the query to retrieve data from the data source; render the user selected panel according to display settings of the user selected panel to display at least a portion of the data retrieved from the data source; and assign the value of the variable based on at least one of the data retrieved from the data source or a human interaction with the user selected panel.
The recited limitations, in conjunction with all the features of the independent and dependent claims are not taught nor suggested by the prior arts of record.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent claims.
Accordingly, the scope of the invention has been sufficiently narrowed to bring the claims into compliance with novelty and non-obviousness requirement of the Patent Act.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAO H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights