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 .
Claims 1-20 of this US application are presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 14 recites “An apparatus”. The claim recites the apparatus comprising processing circuitry and therefore is a machine.
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions” and therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 14 and 20 recite the limitation “displaying” which specifically recites “displaying a visual representation corresponding to an event sequence data set, the visual representation being formed by splicing a plurality of polygons, each of the plurality of polygons corresponding to a respective piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set, the respective piece of the event sequence data indicating a sequence formed by events;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting “processing circuitry”, a “processor” and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating a picture of an event sequence data set by splicing a plurality of polygons, each of the plurality of polygons corresponding to a respective piece of the event sequence data, the respective piece of the event sequence data indicating a sequence formed by events. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1, 14 and 20 recite the additional element “when an operation is performed on a first polygon in the visual representation, displaying the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using “processing circuitry”, a “processor” and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the visual representation is divided into a plurality of regions, each of the plurality of regions including different event sequence data and including polygons from the plurality of polygons corresponding to the same event sequence data.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “each of the plurality of regions has an edge contour, and different regions of the plurality of regions are associated with different edge contours” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “each polygon of the plurality of polygons corresponding to the same event sequence data has the same appearance, and the polygons corresponding to different event sequence data have different appearances” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on the claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the appearance is color” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “attribute marks are displayed inside the polygons, and the attribute marks indicate one or more attribute parameters of the event sequence data corresponding to the polygons.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on the claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the attribute marks indicate different attribute parameters” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on the claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “sizes of the attribute marks are based on values of the attribute parameters” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the displaying the event sequence data comprises: when a first operation is performed on the first polygon, displaying basic information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon; and when a second operation is performed on the first polygon, displaying detailed information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon.” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the displaying the visual representation comprises: displaying each piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set in a list form; and when a display mode switching operation is performed, displaying the visual representation corresponding to the event sequence data set.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “each polygon of the plurality of polygons is a regular hexagon” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “generating a tree structure corresponding to the event sequence data set, wherein each node except for a root node in the tree structure corresponds to an event, each node except for the root node in the tree structure is associated with an event sequence data group, the event sequence data group associated with a selected node in the tree structure including at least one piece of the event sequence data having an event corresponding to the selected node as a last event;” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim also recites the additional elements “sequencing each piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set based on the tree structure to obtain an ordered event sequence data list; mapping each piece of the event sequence data in the ordered event sequence data list into a two-dimensional space to determine two-dimensional space coordinates for each piece of the event sequence data; and wherein the displaying the visual representation includes displaying the visual representation with the polygons corresponding to each piece of the event sequence data based on the determined two-dimensional space coordinates.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “the generating the tree structure comprises: generating the root node of the tree structure; for each piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set, determining the root node as a current node;” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim also recites the additional elements “traversing each of a plurality of events in the respective piece of the event sequence data based on an occurrence order of the events in the respective piece of the event sequence data, wherein when a child node corresponding to the respective traversed event is included in the child nodes of the current node, updating the current node to the child node and proceeding to a next event; when the child node corresponding to the respective traversed event is not included in the child nodes of the current node, adding a new child node corresponding to the currently traversed event under the current node, updating the current node to the new child node; and after the pieces of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set have been traversed, constructing the tree structure corresponding to the event sequence data set.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barritz et al. (US 6,519,766, hereinafter “Barritz”).
Regarding claim 1, Barritz teaches A method for displaying event sequence data (col. 2 ln 58 -67: discussing about an output is created based on the path map), the method comprising;
displaying a visual representation corresponding to an event sequence data set, the visual representation being formed by splicing a plurality of polygons, each of the plurality of polygons corresponding to a respective piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set, the respective piece of the event sequence data indicating a sequence formed by events (col. 2 ln 58 -67: It is an object of the present invention to provide a method for profiling one or more operational characteristics of a computer program, the computer program performing one or more transactions, at least one of the transactions having one or more events in which data is gathered corresponding to one or more of the events. A path map is constructed from the gathered event data in which the path map represents program operation performance relationships between the gathered events, the path map being in execution-time sequence, and an output is created based on the path map. Col 33 ln 33-42: FIGS. 18T-18EE illustrate the determination of each event's position in the time dimension of the output diagram (that is, the start location, which is the vertical location of each event when the time dimension is vertically disposed in the output diagram) as well as the determination of which path on the path map is the longest path. Determining each event's position in the time dimension is accomplished in step 1404 shown in FIG. 14, and this information is stored as the event duration in the PECBs comprising path map 1801.); and
when an operation is performed on a first polygon in the visual representation, displaying the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon (Col 19 ln 62 -col 20 ln 20: FIGS. 18B-FF are pictorial representations of PECBs and PECB chains. In all such representations, PECBs are represented by hexagons and the information contained in a represented PECB is shown inside the hexagon. In addition, pointers from one PECB to another are shown as arrows drawn between the linked PECBs. The pointer represented by each arrow is stored in the PECB represented by the hexagon at the base of the arrow, and the pointer itself contains information necessary to locate the PECB represented by the hexagon at the tip of the arrow. Although every PECB on the path map has at least one forward and one backward pointer (except for the header and trailer PECBs), only forward pointers are shown in FIGS. 18C-18FF for ease of readability. Nevertheless, it is to be understood that a corresponding backward pointer exists in the path map for every forward pointer. As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810. Not all of these fields are necessary to build a path map, but they are preferably included to facilitate creating the ultimate output diagram as discussed below. Data contained in the fields of each PECB in FIGS. 18C-18FF are shown in the order noted in FIG. 18B.).
Regarding claim 2, Barritz teaches wherein the visual representation is divided into a plurality of regions, each of the plurality of regions including different event sequence data and including polygons from the plurality of polygons corresponding to the same event sequence data (Fig. 18T: discussing about plurality of paths in path map are represented by hexagons).
Regarding claim 3, Barritz teaches wherein each of the plurality of regions has an edge contour, and different regions of the plurality of regions are associated with different edge contours (col 40 ln 46-55: Colors, greyscales and shading can be used to distinguish combinations of high event occurrence quantity and/or high event durations to indicate potential bottlenecks. For example, the value of event occurrences multiplied by event duration can be represented by varying colors, greyscales or shades (or combinations thereof) for values within a group of banded ranges. Using this approach, a user can quickly identify problematic areas. By setting the uppermost band to red, for example, a user is quickly alerted that the depicted event requires further attention.).
Regarding claim 4, Barritz teaches wherein each polygon of the plurality of polygons corresponding to the same event sequence data has the same appearance, and the polygons corresponding to different event sequence data have different appearances (col 40 ln 46-55: Colors, greyscales and shading can be used to distinguish combinations of high event occurrence quantity and/or high event durations to indicate potential bottlenecks. For example, the value of event occurrences multiplied by event duration can be represented by varying colors, greyscales or shades (or combinations thereof) for values within a group of banded ranges. Using this approach, a user can quickly identify problematic areas. By setting the uppermost band to red, for example, a user is quickly alerted that the depicted event requires further attention.).
Regarding claim 5, Barritz teaches wherein the appearance is color (col 40 ln 46-55: Colors, greyscales and shading can be used to distinguish combinations of high event occurrence quantity and/or high event durations to indicate potential bottlenecks. For example, the value of event occurrences multiplied by event duration can be represented by varying colors, greyscales or shades (or combinations thereof) for values within a group of banded ranges. Using this approach, a user can quickly identify problematic areas. By setting the uppermost band to red, for example, a user is quickly alerted that the depicted event requires further attention.).
Regarding claim 6, Barritz teaches wherein attribute marks are displayed inside the polygons, and the attribute marks indicate one or more attribute parameters of the event sequence data corresponding to the polygons (col 20 ln 11-20: As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810. Not all of these fields are necessary to build a path map, but they are preferably included to facilitate creating the ultimate output diagram as discussed below. Data contained in the fields of each PECB in FIGS. 18C-18FF are shown in the order noted in FIG. 18B.).
Regarding claim 7, Barritz teaches wherein the attribute marks indicate different attribute parameters (col 20 ln 11-20: As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810. Not all of these fields are necessary to build a path map, but they are preferably included to facilitate creating the ultimate output diagram as discussed below. Data contained in the fields of each PECB in FIGS. 18C-18FF are shown in the order noted in FIG. 18B.).
Regarding claim 8, Barritz teaches wherein sizes of the attribute marks are based on values of the attribute parameters (col 20 ln 11-20: As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810. Not all of these fields are necessary to build a path map, but they are preferably included to facilitate creating the ultimate output diagram as discussed below. Data contained in the fields of each PECB in FIGS. 18C-18FF are shown in the order noted in FIG. 18B.).
Regarding claim 9, Barritz teaches wherein the displaying the event sequence data comprises: when a first operation is performed on the first polygon, displaying basic information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon (col 20 ln 11-20: As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810.); and
when a second operation is performed on the first polygon, displaying detailed information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon (col 30 ln 29-39: (108) The output diagram generally comprises event symbols and connecting lines. Connecting lines will be depicted on the output diagram between event symbols to show the sequential relationship of the depicted events to one another. Likewise, connecting lines will be drawn between various path segments (sequential groups of connected events) on the output diagram to show how sequences of events transpire from one path segment to another. The connecting lines between events within a path segment are generally drawn vertically downward from one event to the next event on the output diagram in the time dimension.).
Regarding claim 10, Barritz teaches wherein the displaying the visual representation comprises: displaying each piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set in a list form (col 20 ln 11-20: As shown in FIG. 18B, each PECB 1800 contains a number of fields for storing data related to the event represented by the PECB. These data fields preferably include an event ID field 1802, a time field 1804, a start location field 1806, an event count field 1808, and a path number field 1810.); and
when a display mode switching operation is performed, displaying the visual representation corresponding to the event sequence data set (col 30 ln 29-39: (108) The output diagram generally comprises event symbols and connecting lines. Connecting lines will be depicted on the output diagram between event symbols to show the sequential relationship of the depicted events to one another. Likewise, connecting lines will be drawn between various path segments (sequential groups of connected events) on the output diagram to show how sequences of events transpire from one path segment to another. The connecting lines between events within a path segment are generally drawn vertically downward from one event to the next event on the output diagram in the time dimension.).
Regarding claim 11, Barritz teaches wherein each polygon of the plurality of polygons is a regular hexagon (Col 19 ln 62 -col 20 ln 4: FIGS. 18B-FF are pictorial representations of PECBs and PECB chains. In all such representations, PECBs are represented by hexagons and the information contained in a represented PECB is shown inside the hexagon. In addition, pointers from one PECB to another are shown as arrows drawn between the linked PECBs. The pointer represented by each arrow is stored in the PECB represented by the hexagon at the base of the arrow, and the pointer itself contains information necessary to locate the PECB represented by the hexagon at the tip of the arrow.).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Barritz also teaches An apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry (col 5 ln 61-65: Analysis of a program's operation using the above-described program profilers is further complicated when the operation of the program is distributed across multiple processors, or multiple networked CPUs.).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Barritz also teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform (col 5 ln 47-65: discussing about storage medium such as a tape, disk or other media and multiple processors, or multiple networked CPUs.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts of made record fail to teach mapping each piece of the event sequence data in the ordered event sequence data list into a two-dimensional space to determine two-dimensional space coordinates for each piece of the event sequence data; and wherein the displaying the visual representation includes displaying the visual representation with the polygons corresponding to each piece of the event sequence data based on the determined two-dimensional space coordinates.
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.
Vishnoi et al. (US 11,573,973) discloses that when a hexagon representing a specific system-component is clicked, a context-menu 2240 is opened on the right side of the GUI screen 2200 allowing more detailed information to be entered about how that specific component may be used. In this example, the user has clicked on a source-data hexagon “MKT-03.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
January 14, 2026