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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on claim rejections 35 USC 102, filed 4/27/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Agnew.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-11 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8, 10-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew et al. (US 10,459,939, hereinafter “Agnew”) in view of Barritz et al. (US 6,519,766, hereinafter “Barritz”).
Regarding claim 1, Agnew teaches A method for displaying event sequence data (column 5 lines 24-25: discussing about generating and displaying interactive visualizations of data), the method comprising;
outputting for display a visual representation corresponding to an event sequence data set, the visual representation being formed by splicing a plurality of polygons (Agnew, column 44 line 60 – column 45 line 4: FIG. 49 illustrates an example of a visualization tab displaying a treemap. The treemap 4820 can include a plurality of first-level rectangles 4822A-4822D. Each of the first-level rectangles 4822A-4822D represents events with a different characteristic of a first level. For example, the first-level rectangles 4822A-4822D can represent credit card transactions involving VISA® cards, MASTERCARD® cards, AMEX® cards, and Discovery® cards respectively. Each first-level rectangle is displayed using a unique color. Although the treemap 4820 includes rectangles, other treemaps can include other types of objects with different shapes.),
determining a user operation is performed on a first polygon in the visual representation (Agnew, column 45 lines 23-24: The treemap is user-interactive. For example, the user can move a cursor over a rectangle, or click a rectangle.);
when the user operation performed on the first polygon in the visual representation is determined to be a first user operation, outputting for display first information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon (Agnew, column 45 lines 24-37: In some embodiments, when a user moves a cursor over a rectangle of a treemap, the visualization tab automatically displays additional information related to the rectangle. FIG. 50 illustrates an example of a treemap showing additional information in response to a user interaction. As illustrated in FIG. 50, for example, in response to a user input of moving a cursor over a second-level rectangle 4824A, the visualization tab can generate an information block (also referred to as hovering window) that includes, e.g., the characteristic of the first level (e.g., VISA), the characteristic of the second level (e.g., approved transactions), the total dollar amount of the transaction represented by the rectangle, etc.); and
when the user operation performed on the first polygon in the visual representation is determined to be a second user operation, outputting for display second information of the event sequence data corresponding to the first polygon, an amount of information in the second information being greater than an amount of information in the first information (Agnew, column 45 lines 38-45: A user can select a subset of the search results and the visualization tab can then visualize of the subset (e.g., using another treemap). For example, if a user clicks a first-level rectangle (or any second-level rectangle within the first-level rectangle), the visualization tab can generate another treemap display data or events represented by that first-level rectangle.).
Agnew does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of polygons corresponding to a respective piece of event sequence data in the event sequence data set, the respective piece of the event sequence data indicating a sequence formed by events.
Barritz teaches each of the plurality of polygons corresponding to a respective piece of event sequence data in the event sequence data set, the respective piece of the event sequence data indicating a sequence formed by events (Barritz, column 2 line 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. Column 12 lines 58-62: After loops have been processed, a forward-processing task 1004 is initiated to determine whether the event sequence or "path" of the new PECB chain, or an initial segment of it, is identical to a path or path segment already on the path map.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 2, Agnew in view of 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 (Barritz, Fig. 18T: discussing about plurality of paths in path map are represented by hexagons).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 3, Agnew in view of 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 (Barritz, column 40 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 4, Agnew in view of 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 (Barritz, column 40 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 5, Agnew in view of Barritz teaches wherein the appearance is color (Barritz, column 40 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 6, Agnew in view of 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 (Barritz, column 20 line 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 7, Agnew in view of Barritz teaches wherein the attribute marks indicate different attribute parameters (Barritz, column 20 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 8, Agnew in view of Barritz teaches wherein sizes of the attribute marks are based on values of the attribute parameters (Barritz, column 20 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 10, Agnew in view of Barritz teaches wherein the outputting for display the visual representation comprises: outputting for display each piece of the event sequence data in the event sequence data set in a list form (Barritz, column 20 lines 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, outputting for display the visual representation corresponding to the event sequence data set (Barritz, column 30 lines 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 11, Agnew in view of Barritz teaches wherein each polygon of the plurality of polygons is a regular hexagon (Barritz, column 19 line 62 -column 20 line 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive visualizations of Agnew with the teaching about the event data of Barritz because it would enhance the readability of the output diagram by ensuring that connections among events can be easily routed without crossing each other (Barritz, column 18 lines 60-62).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Agnew also teaches An apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry (Agnew, column 55 lines 14-15: discussing about the illustrated processing system 7700 includes one or more processors 7710, one or more memories 7711).
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. Agnew also teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform (Agnew, column 55 lines 14-15: discussing about the illustrated processing system 7700 includes one or more processors 7710, one or more memories 7711).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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
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.
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
May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights