Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the communications received 1/30/2025. As per the claims filed 1/30/2025:
Claim 1 was cancelled.
Claims 2-18 were added.
Claims 2-18 are pending.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9-10, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11030248 (hereinafter: The patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate all the limitations of the claims as shown below.
2. The patent discloses A computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more computer processors executing program instructions:
accessing a set of data items including associated dependency relationships; receiving a user input selecting a first data item, wherein the first data item is associated with a plurality of additional data items via one or more dependency relationships [claim 1, col 35, lines 51-57]
determining a first set of data items, of the plurality of additional data items,dependent on the first data item; determining a second set of data items, of the plurality of additional data items, that the first data item depends on [claim 1, col 35, lines 59];
generating a graphical chart displaying:the first data item, wherein an appearance of the first data item is differentiated from any of the data items in the first or second sets of data items by one or more visual effects; [claim 1, col 35-36, lines 60-7]
the first set of data items, wherein the first set of data items appears on a first side of the first data item; andthe second set of data items, wherein the second set of data items appears on a second side of the first data item, wherein the second side is opposite the first side [claim 1, col 36, lines 1-7].
Claim 3, the patent discloses wherein the graphical chart comprises at least one of: a graph or a directed graph [claim 5].
Claim 6, the patent discloses further comprising, by one or more computer processors executing program instructions: monitoring the dependency relationships for changes; determining one or more changes in the one or more dependency relationships, wherein the one or more changes indicate a third set of data items is dependent on the first data item; and updating the graphical chart to remove the first set of data items and display the third set of data item on the first side of the first data item [claim 10].
Claim 8, the patent discloses wherein the user input comprises a search input [claim 13].
Claim 9, the patent discloses further comprising, by one or more computer processors executing program instructions: accessing the set of data items and/or the associated dependency relationships from an external system or data source [claim 9].
Claims 2, 5, 7, are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites a system executing the steps of the method of claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 11, 14, 16, 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3, 6, 8, 9,
Claims 12-13, 15 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In summary, Claim 18 recites “one or more computer-readable storage mediums” storing instructions that perform various functions. In the Specification of the present application, the “one or more computer-readable storage mediums” is not expressly defined as encompassing only statutory embodiments, Therefore the Examiner is interpreting the medium to include both, statutory and non-statutory embodiments (i.e. transitory signals).Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” encompasses non-statutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, Claim 18 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-18 are allowed over the prior art but remain rejected under double patenting as set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: independent claims include subject matter that was found to be allowable on parent application 17/315,750, now patent 11562025.
The prior art of record DeVorchik discloses navigation tools that provide links to various different computer files and folders. The system of DeVorchik discloses navigating folders organized in a hierarchical order. The second closest reference of record, Kim (see attached 892), discloses a multi-interface system in which a user can navigate through a hierarchical data items and visualize child-parent relationships between the selected data item and other items linked to the selected data item.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination failed to specifically disclose the limitations of the independent claims. The primary reason for allowance in the present application is the interconnectedness of the limitations in the independent claims. Particularly, “determining a second set of data items, of the plurality of additional data items, that the first data item depends on; and generating a graphical chart displaying: the first data item, wherein an appearance of the first data item is differentiated from any of the data items in the first or second sets of data items by one or more visual effects; the first set of data items, wherein the first set of data items appears on a first side of the first data item; and the second set of data items, wherein the second set of data items appears on a second side of the first data item, wherein the second side is opposite the first side”. (emphasis added). These elements, in combination with the other elements recited in the independent claims were not found in the prior art of record (See PTO-982 and 1449).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights