DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant Arguments and Remarks filed on July 23, 2026.
Claim amendment filed on July 23, 2026, has been acknowledged and considered.
Claim 21 has been amended.
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
Applicant's Remarks, filed July 23, 2026, has been fully considered and entered.
Accordingly, Claims 1-21 are pending in this application. Claim 21 has been amended. Claims 1, 10 and 21 are independent claim. In light of Applicant amendment, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 7 “the Office Action reduces the claims to the mental act of “generating summaries”... omits the specific ordered relationship required by the claims: a first summary is generated for a first snapshot, and the second summary is then generated based on both the first summary and the change between the first and second snapshots… They recite a particular incremental data-processing technique."
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 101 rejection explicitly quoted and analyzed the full limitation, including its dependence on the first summary. The abstract idea was not reduced to "generating summaries" in isolation. The recited order does not remove the limitation from the mental-process grouping. A person can form a summary of a first version of a data set (a total, a tally, a chart) and then form a second summary by adjusting that first summary for the differences observed between the two versions , mentally or with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 1 places no limit on how a summary is generated, and under the BRI, consistent with Specification paragraphs [0056, 0112] a "summary" may be a chart. Reciting a relationship between two mental steps does not make the combination non-mental. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that "Direct visualization may require reading and processing terabytes of snapshot data... The disclosed solution computes compact snapshot summaries and, rather than recomputing a later summary from the entire later snapshot, updates the prior summary using the change between the snapshots… The claims expressly reflect that technological improvement by requiring the second summary to be generated “based on the first summary and a change” between the snapshots."
Response to Argument 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued improvement appears in the Specification but is not recited in the claims, and the improvement must be reflected in the claim itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Claim 1 recites no data volume or storage characteristic, no limitation that the second summary is generated without processing the second snapshot, no reduction in processing or storage, and no data structure or delta-encoding technique. The phrase "based on" is open-ended and requires only that the first summary and the change be among the inputs, it does not exclude computing the second summary from the second snapshot as well. A claim that does not require the asserted efficiency cannot be directed to it. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argues on page 8 that "the claimed ordered combination amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. The Office's separate characterization of “obtaining” as data gathering and “presenting” as output does not address the claimed incremental generation of the second summary or the interaction of the limitations as a whole."
Response to Argument 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The "incremental generation of the second summary" is part of the abstract idea itself, not an additional element. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(I), the Step 2B inquiry considers whether the additional elements provide an inventive concept, and an incentive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Applicant argument on the recited summary generation therefore cannot supply significantly more. The additional elements of generic processor and memory (MPEP 2106.05(f)), obtaining stored snapshots and presenting a comparison (MPEP 2106.05(g), (d)(II)), add nothing beyond applying the exception on a generic computer and reporting the result, individually or as an ordered combination. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 4: Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that "Beers instead generates a result data object using data from two time-point data objects and thereafter generates a visualization representing changes reflected in that result data object... Beers does not disclose that a first summary of the first snapshot is generated and then used, together with a detected change between the snapshots, to generate a second summary… the positive and negative delta bars relied upon by the Office Action represent the changes themselves, not a second summary generated based on a first summary and those changes. Nor does the cited disclosure establish that Beers' ending value is generated from a previously generated first summary rather than determined directly from the second time-point data object."
Response to Argument 4: Examiner respectfully disagrees, for three reasons. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the claim. Claim 1 requires only that the second summary be generated "based on the first summary and a change" and that does not exclude the second snapshot as an additional input, does not recite "updating," and does not require avoiding re-computation. That Beers' ending value may also be "determined directly from the second time-point data object" therefore does not distinguish.
Beers paragraph [0162] and FIG. 10 disclose a waterfall visualization showing "the beginning and ending values of a particular metric as a bar" with "positive and negative changes... shown as “delta bars”" In a waterfall visualization the ending value bar is the running total of the beginning value and the intervening deltas, it is therefore generated based on the beginning value (the first summary) and the changes.
Beers computation proceeds from the first time point as adjusted by the changes, not from two independent readings. Beers paragraphs [0117, 0122] generate a result data object joining the records of time point data objects 502 and 504, classify each record relative to the first time point as "gone", "new", or "retained" and disclose that "changes may be aggregated by computing totals for each class of records." Beers paragraph [0148] describes the output as a summary: "changes between time points may be summarized as: one item/record gone (ID=1); one item/record retained (ID=2)...." Beers [0237-0239] then generate the visualization from that result data object, incorporating the changes between the first time point and the second time point into visualizations.
Regarding the delta bars, the rejection does not read the second summary on the delta bars alone, it reads it on the value/visualization that incorporates the beginning value together with those changes. And Beers paragraph [0031] defines a time point data object as "a state or condition of a data object/data set at a particular point in time" with Beers paragraphs [0109, 0196] describing those versions as periodic snapshots (e.g., sales-20201001, sales-20201002), supporting the mapping to the claimed "snapshots." See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a system, claims 10-20 are directed to a method, and claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step2A analysis:
Based on determining the claim fall within or can be amended to fall within a statutory category (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A: Prong One:
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1 (Similarly in claims 10 and 21) :
“generate a first summary of a first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots;” recite an abstract idea as a mental process in the form of an evaluation or opinion. The claim does not impose any limits on how the summary is generated, and based on the specification [0056] the BRI of such summary is a chart. One can mentally generate a summary or with the aid of pen and paper.
“generate a second summary based on the first summary and a change between the first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots and a second snapshot of the plurality of snapshots;” recite an abstract idea as a mental process in the form of an evaluation or opinion. The claim does not impose any limits on how the summary is generated, and based on the specification [0056] the BRI of such summary is a chart. One can mentally generate a summary or with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A: Prong Two:
The claim(s) recites the following additional elements:
“An apparatus… comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
“obtain a plurality of snapshots in a dataset;” represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“present a visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Adding a final step of "present a visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary" merely communicates the results, and adding such to a process that only recites generating summaries (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process.
In claim 21, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor coupled to the computer-readable storage medium cause the at least one processor to be configured to” are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to retrieving the "obtain a plurality of snapshots in a dataset;" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "present a visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Regarding claim 2 (Similarly in claim 11), it recites the same abstract idea and additional elements as identified in claim 1. Claim 2 further recites further abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One of:
“generate the first summary and the second summary based on a user-defined summarization method.” This further recites an abstract idea as a mental process in the form of an evaluation or judgement. The claim does not impose any limits on how the summary is generated, and based on the specification [0056] the BRI of such summary is a chart. One can mentally generate a summary or with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3 (Similarly in claim 12) it further recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the dataset comprises one or more of images, tables, machine learning models, text, alphanumeric data, dashboard data, comma-separated values files, spreadsheets, audios and/or videos.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4 (Similarly in claim 13) it further recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the first summary and the second summary comprise one or more of statistical information, data samples, graphs, charts, metadata, a schema and/or a preview rendering.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5 (Similarly in claim 14), it further recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the metadata comprises one more of a size associated with data in the dataset, a color associated with the data in the dataset, an image embedding, a location associated with an image, an audio file or a video.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6 (Similarly in claim 20) the claim recites the same abstract idea and additional elements as identified in claim 1. Claim 6 further recites abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One of:
“wherein the apparatus is configured to process a plurality of summaries generated in which each respective summary is associated with a respective snapshot of the plurality of snapshots and wherein the visual comparison comprises a second visual comparison of the plurality of summaries” further recite the abstract idea of mental process in the form of an evaluation or opinion. One can mentally generate a summary and visual comparison with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 6 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7 (Similarly in claim 16) further recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“receive, via the visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary, an interaction with an object that causes the object to be dragged from a presentation of the first snapshot to a presentation of the second snapshot which illustrates changes between the presentation of the first snapshot and the presentation of the second snapshot.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8 (Similarly in claims 17 and 18) it recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the dataset comprises multiple snapshots of versions of a machine learning model over time and wherein the visual comparison comprises a graph illustrating an accuracy metric over time reflecting the multiple snapshots of versions of the machine learning model over time.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9 (Similarly in claims 19) it recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the dataset comprises multiple snapshots of data related to historical user interactions with website or apps.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15 it recites additional elements that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the visual comparison comprises an inline comparison of the first snapshot.” This limitation represents insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the abstract idea and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). When re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Claim 15 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Beers (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20230113933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beers teaches an apparatus for providing time traveling visualization on large datasets, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: obtain a plurality of snapshots in a dataset; (See Beers [0109, 0154-0157] “some systems may build snapshots of operational data sets, capturing the current state of the data on a daily basis… the visualization engine may be arranged to query the data source to determine the time range of the available versions… FIG. 9 illustrates a representation of user interface 900 for visualizing temporal information [e.g. providing time traveling visualization]… data object may be versioned using snapshot objects, visualization engine may be arranged to identify range of dates/times represented by available snapshots. [Thus, obtain a plurality of snapshots in a dataset]” See also Beers [0028] “the terms data set and data object may be used interchangeably”)
generate a first summary of a first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots; generate a second summary based on the first summary and a change between the first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots and a second snapshot of the plurality of snapshots; and (See Beers [0239] “visualization engine may be arranged to enable analysts or visualization authors to create visualizations [e.g. generate a first summary and second summary] that incorporate the changes between the first time point [e.g. first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots] and the second time point [e.g. second snapshot of the plurality of snapshots] into visualizations. The particular visualization, such as, tables, waterfall charts, Sankey diagrams, or the like, may vary depending on the requirements of the visualization author or other users. For example: visualizations may show changes in the number of records (items) between two time points; differences in field values for items that exist at both time points, or the like. [Thus, based on the first summary and a change between the first snapshot the second snapshot]” See also Beers [0162] “visualization platforms may be arranged to enable users to select waterfall visualizations, such as, shown in display panel 1000 to show the beginning [e.g. first summary of a first snapshot] and ending values of a particular metric as a bar. Between them, positive and negative changes [e.g. second summary based on the first summary and a change between the first snapshot in the plurality of snapshots and a second snapshot of the plurality of snapshots] may be shown as “delta bars” showing the differences contributed by a variety of factors.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
795
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that based on the Specification paragraph [0112] “ the first summary and the second summary comprise one or more of statistical information, data samples, graphs, charts” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “first summary” and “second summary” may be a chart.
present a visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary. (See Beers [0239] “visualization engine may be arranged to enable analysts or visualization authors to create visualizations [e.g. first summary and the second summary] that incorporate the changes between the first time point and the second time point into visualizations. The particular visualization, such as, tables, waterfall charts, Sankey diagrams, or the like, may vary depending on the requirements of the visualization author or other users. For example: visualizations may show changes in the number of records (items) between two time points; differences in field values for items that exist at both time points, or the like. [Thus, present a visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary]”)
Regarding claim 2, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to generate the first summary and the second summary based on a user-defined summarization method. (See Beers [0239] “visualization engine may be arranged to enable analysts or visualization authors to create visualizations [e.g. user-defined summarization method] that incorporate the changes between the first time point into visualizations. The particular visualization, such as, tables, waterfall charts, Sankey diagrams, or the like, may vary depending on the requirements of the visualization author or other users [Thus, user-defined]. For example: visualizations may show changes in the number of records (items) between two time points; differences in field values for items that exist at both time points, or the like. [Thus, generate the first summary and the second summary based on a user-defined summarization method]”)
Regarding claim 3, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the dataset comprises one or more of text, alphanumeric data. (See Beers [0170], Fig. 6 “a data source may be arranged to generate daily snapshots of a data object [e.g. dataset] (e.g., table) that stores sales information.”
PNG
media_image2.png
752
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the dataset comprises tables, text, and alphanumeric data.)
Regarding claim 4, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the first summary and the second summary comprise one or more of charts, metadata, a schema. (See Beers [0239] “visualization engine may be arranged to enable analysts or visualization authors to create visualizations [e.g. first summary and the second summary] that incorporate the changes between the first time point and the second time point into visualizations. The particular visualization, such as, tables, waterfall charts [i.e. charts], Sankey diagrams, or the like, may vary depending on the requirements of the visualization author or other users. For example: visualizations may show changes [e.g. metadata] in the number of records (items) between two time points; differences in field values for items that exist at both time points, or the like.” See also Beers [0031] “Two or more time point data objects, each representing a state of a data object at different points in time, may represent the same primary data object as it existed at different times. The underlying data structures or query information that may be used to generate time point data objects for a particular regular data object may vary depending on the capabilities of the underlying data source or configuration (e.g., schema) of the underlying data source.”)
Regarding claim 5, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 4, wherein the metadata comprises one more of a color associated with the data in the dataset. (See Beers Fig. 10 disclosing a waterfall chart showing positive and negative changes [e.g. metadata] in the number of records (items) between two time points, where positive and negative changes each having a color associated with the data in the dataset.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
795
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to process a plurality of summaries generated in which each respective summary is associated with a respective snapshot of the plurality of snapshots and wherein the visual comparison comprises a second visual comparison of the plurality of summaries. (See Beers [0162] “visualization platforms may be arranged to enable users to select waterfall visualizations, such as, shown in display panel 1000 to show the beginning [e.g. first summary of a first snapshot] and ending values of a particular metric as a bar. Between them, positive and negative changes [e.g. summary is associated with a respective snapshot of the plurality of snapshots] may be shown as “delta bars” [Thus, a second visual comparison of the plurality of summaries] showing the differences contributed by a variety of factors.“)
Regarding claim 7, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: receive, via the visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary, an interaction with an object that causes the object to be dragged from a presentation of the first snapshot to a presentation of the second snapshot which illustrates changes between the presentation of the first snapshot and the presentation of the second snapshot. (See Beers [0032] “Panels may be arranged to display information [e.g. visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary] to users or to host one or more interactive controls… users may be enabled to perform actions [e.g. interaction with an object] on one or more panels, such as, moving [e.g. dragged], showing, hiding, re-sizing, re-ordering, or the like” See also Beers [0156-0158] “user interface 900 includes user interface control 902 for adding time points to an analysis or visualization… users may interact [e.g. receive an interaction] with slider control 904 to set a date for the first time point… if data object may be versioned using snapshot objects, visualization engine may be arranged to identify range of dates/times represented by available snapshots. [Thus, causes the object to be dragged from a presentation of the first snapshot to a presentation of the second snapshot]… control 906 represents a user interface for selecting a second time point… 908 [i.e. presentation of the first snapshot] and user interface control 910 [e.g. presentation of the second snapshot] represent interactive displays of the selected time point data objects [Thus,], including field names… user interface controls 914 represent user interface controls that enable users to select information for including in visualizations [e.g. visual comparison between the first summary and the second summary]… visualization user interface control 916 represents a display panel for display a visualization for visualizing temporal information that may be generated based on a visualization model and one or more user interface inputs.” See also Beers [0046] “a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a display of the visualization may be generated… another first time point and another second time point may be determined based on one or more interactions with the one or more slider controls… the query based on the other first time point and the other second time point may be updated… the visualization [e.g. waterfall visualization] may be updated [e.g. illustrates changes between the presentation of the first snapshot and the presentation of the second snapshot] based on an execution of the updated query.” Thus, by interacting with the slider control, which define another first time point/another second time point and causes the visualization to be updated, it is causing the slider to be dragged from a presentation of the first snapshot [e.g. previous t1 to another t1] to a presentation of the second snapshot which illustrates changes between the presentation of the first snapshot and the presentation of the second snapshot.”)
Regarding claim 9, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the dataset comprises multiple snapshots of data related to historical user interactions with website or apps. (See Beer [0025, 0170] “the term “data source” refers to databases, applications, services, file systems, or the like, that store or provide information for an organization… a data source may be arranged to generate daily snapshots of a data object (e.g., table) that stores sales information.” See also Beer [0134-0136] “FIG. 7 illustrates a logical schematic of system 700 for visualizing temporal information… time point data object 702 and time point data object 704 [e.g. multiple snapshots of data]… having a column/field (qtr closed) for recording the quarter a sale is expected to close… for example with a qtr closed column that is filled in by an account manager [Thus, related to historical user interactions with apps]”)
Regarding claim 10, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 2 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 3 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 4 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 5 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 10, wherein the visual comparison comprises an inline comparison of the first snapshot. (See Beers [0159-0162] “FIG. 10 illustrates a representation of display panel 1000 for visualizing temporal information in accordance with one or more of the various embodiments… visualization platforms may be arranged to enable users to select waterfall visualizations, such as, shown in display panel 1000 to show the beginning and ending values of a particular metric as a bar. Between them, positive and negative changes may be shown as “delta bars” showing the differences [i.e. visual comparison comprises an inline comparison] contributed by a variety of factors.” See also Beers [0239] “visualization engine may be arranged to enable analysts or visualization authors to create visualizations that incorporate the changes between the first time point [e.g. first snapshot] and the second time point into visualizations. The particular visualization, such as, tables, waterfall charts, Sankey diagrams, or the like, may vary depending on the requirements of the visualization author or other users. For example: visualizations may show changes in the number of records (items) between two time points; differences in field values for items that exist at both time points, or the like.”)
Regarding claim 16, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 7 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 7 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 9 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 6 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Beers discloses all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 21.
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 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20230113933 A1), in view of Xia (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20210034980 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Beers teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the dataset comprises multiple snapshots of versions of a machine learning model over time and wherein the visual comparison comprises a graph illustrating an accuracy metric over time reflecting the multiple snapshots of versions of the machine learning model over time. (See Beers [0002, 0025, 0170] “organizations may generate visualizations of the some or all of their data. Employing visualizations to represent this data may enable organizations to improve their understanding of critical business operations and help them monitor key performance indicators… the term “data source” refers to databases, applications, services, file systems, or the like, that store or provide information [e.g. machine learning model] for an organization. Examples of data sources may include, RDBMS databases, graph databases, spreadsheets, file systems, document management systems, local or remote data streams, or the like… a data source may be arranged to generate daily snapshots of a data object [e.g. dataset]”
Beers does not explicitly disclose snapshots of versions of a machine learning model.
However, Xia teaches the dataset comprises multiple snapshots of versions of a machine learning model over time and wherein the visual comparison comprises a graph illustrating an accuracy metric over time reflecting the multiple snapshots of versions of the machine learning model over time. (See Xia [0037-0040, 0065-0066] “FIG. 3 illustrates examples of the kinds of data which may be collected from model training node logs by a visualization tool… model variants with respective identifiers MID1, MID2, MID3 and MID4 are being trained at nodes 322A-322D… entries containing metadata for various iterations of the model variant being trained may be stored in a respective local log 326. The logs 326 (e.g., logs 326A-326D at nodes 322A-322D respectively) may contain information about the structure of the model, values of various parameters such as initial and iteration-level weights, gradients, biases, etc., as well as the results of each iteration [e.g. plurality of snapshots in a dataset]… The visualization manager 334 may be configured to collect log entries [Thus, obtain a plurality of snapshots in a dataset] from the different training nodes 322… From the collected metadata… state of corresponding training iterations… may be extracted at the visualization tool (element 1107)… The metrics derived from the collected metadata may be displayed to clients via a dynamically updated visualization interface (element 1110), which may allow model comparisons to be made easily” See also [0049] “In the approach illustrated in FIG. 5, points along the X-axis of the graph correspond to successive training iterations (e.g., iteration K, (K+1), (K+2) etc.) [e.g. multiple snapshots of versions of a machine learning model over time], while points on the Y-axis correspond to loss function values [e.g. an accuracy metric]. The loss function curves for four different model variants, identified by the labels MID1, MID2, MID3 and MID4 respectively, are shown [i.e. visual comparison comprises a graph illustrating an accuracy metric over time reflecting the multiple snapshots of versions of the machine learning model over time].”
PNG
media_image3.png
522
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that based on the Specification paragraph [0085] “the snapshots may relate to a state or condition of a machine learning model”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “snapshot” include a state or condition of a machine learning model.)
Beers use time point data objects (e.g. obtained from databases, applications, services, file systems) that represent a state or condition of a data set at a particular point in time to generate visualizations comparing changes in data objects that may occur over the time period, helping organizations monitor key performance indicators.
Xia also use a dataset (log storing information about models, metadata and state of corresponding training iterations) to derive metrics and provide visualization which information comparisons, including iterations over a period of time of a machine learning model with corresponding to loss function values [e.g. an accuracy metric].
Therefore, a person having ordinary skills in the art would have found it obvious to substitute
or supplement Beers’ data object-based retrieval with Xia’s log-based retrieval, as both represent known and interchangeable techniques for accessing required data, yielding predictable results and improving system flexibility.
Regarding claim 17, Beers further in view of Xia discloses all of the elements of claim 8 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Beers further in view of Xia discloses all of the elements of claim 8 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights