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 1-3 & 12-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 101, filed July 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner maintains his position with respect to the same.
With respect to claims 1-20, claim 1’s steps are: (a) show a report that summarizes, both as a picture (a graph of how often each value occurs) and as a list (entries matching that picture), the values of one attribute across a set of search-result items; (b) when the person picks one of those list entries, show a small menu of choices tied to that pick; and (c) at least one of those choices corresponds to something that could be added to the search. At this level of generality, this is a recognizable instance of “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information”; a concept the courts has indicated as an abstract idea under the “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(f) identifies “merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, including merely presenting the results of the abstract idea on a display or screen, is insufficient, by itself, to integrate an exception into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are generic computer implementations which cause display of a report/graph/entries/options. These computer implementations do not supply significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform displaying and selecting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 103, with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection. See Office Action below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,204,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-30 of U.S. Paten No. 10,204,093 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before, for example selectable options are obvious variants.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,442,924. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,442,924 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before, for example selectable options are obvious variants.
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.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a computer readable media, a computer device, and a processor do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because displaying and selecting are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A computer-implemented method, comprising: causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable; and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view.
The limitation of causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually present summarized data with corresponding attributes and values which have been selected.
The limitation of and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “selecting” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually choose from a list of options what data to summarize and view.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform displaying and selecting steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform displaying and selecting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the graphical summary is a graphical distribution of the values over time; wherein the graphical summary includes a graphical distribution of values statistically derived from the values of the event attribute, and the statistically derived values include one or more of maximum values, minimum values, standard deviation values, and average values; wherein the summary entries include summary statistics; wherein at least one summary entry includes a portion of a key or a legend for the summary graph that identifies a section of the summary graph corresponding with the summary entry; wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that occur above an upper occurrence threshold; wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that occur below a lower occurrence threshold; wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that are beyond a threshold of similarity from others of the values; wherein the summary entries include summary statistics based on a data type of the summary entries, and wherein the summary statistics for a numeric data type include one or more of: a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, a median value, a mode value, and a standard deviation; wherein the causing display of the data summary view is in response to receiving a request to display the data summary view of the query results, the request being received while the query results are displayed in a table format within a user interface, the table format including: rows, each row representing an event of the query results; and columns forming cells with the rows, each column representing a respective event attribute associated with the events and including data items of the respective event attribute populating ones of the cells; wherein the set of selectable options are presented within an option menu positioned based on a location of the selected at least one of the summary entries; wherein each option of the selectable options corresponds to one or more commands that may be included in the query; wherein at least one option of the selectable options includes a command to include in the query using a format including a command identifier that identifies the command and one or more command elements of the command; wherein at least one option of the selectable options includes a command corresponding to a pipelined search language command compatible with processing of the query; wherein one or more selectable options of the set of selectable options is included in the set of selectable options based on a context related to the selected at least one of the summary entries; wherein one or more selectable options of the set of selectable options correlate with a data type of a respective event attribute associated with the selection of the at least one of the summary entries; wherein one or more selectable options of the set of selectable options correlate with a source of data items associated with the selection of the at least one of the summary entries; and wherein the one or more selectable options of the set of selectable options are included in the set of selectable options based on a determination that a data item associated with a selected summary entry comprises a statistical value.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent claim 1 because they further the limitations of claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recited the additional elements which is to perform displaying and selecting steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.06(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform displaying and selecting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon, the instructions to cause a computing device, in response to execution of the instructions by the computing device, to perform a method comprising: causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable; and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view.
The limitation of causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually present summarized data with corresponding attributes and values which have been selected.
The limitation of and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “selecting” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually choose from a list of options what data to summarize and view.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform displaying and selecting steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform displaying and selecting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A computing device comprising: one or more processors, and one or more computer-readable media coupled with the one or more processors, the one or more computer readable media having instructions stored thereon, the instructions to cause the computing device, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, to perform a method comprising: causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable; and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view.
The limitation of causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of values of an event attribute associated with the events, the summary report further having summary entries that correspond to the values of the event attribute and are user selectable as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually present summarized data with corresponding attributes and values which have been selected.
The limitation of and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim “selecting” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually choose from a list of options what data to summarize and view.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform displaying and selecting steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform displaying and selecting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 12, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Error (US Pub. No. 2007/0011304 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Error teaches:
a computer-implemented method, comprising: causing display of a data summary view of events that correspond to query results of a query, (Error teaches [0036] a web analytics segmentation workbench that lets a user launch various pre-packaged reports onto a single workspace, each populated by an underlying analytic query.)
the displayed data summary view including a summary report having a summary graph that presents a graphical summary of distribution of values of an event attribute associated with the events, (Error teaches [0042, 0059] report windows include graph and tables components with view types such as graphical, trended, and over time, which summarizes report data.)
the summary report further having summary entries that correspond with the graphical summary and the values of the event attribute and that are user selectable; (Error teaches [0036] users can launch various pre-packaged reports and easily click on any data item to filter the entire result set by that item, wherein the report’s displayed data items are themselves user-selectable.)
and in response to selection of at least one of the summary entries, causing display of a set of selectable options corresponding to the at least one of the summary entries of the summary report of the data summary view, (Error teaches [0044, 0059] the funnel icon is a toggle switch to add-to-filter or remove-from-filter. Right clicking on the funnel icon will show an options menu that allows the user to choose functional options such as Change to AND, Change to OR, or Remove from filter; wherein a set of selectable options are displayed in direct response to interacting with a selected or filtered data item.)
wherein at least one option of the set of selectable options corresponds to one or more commands that may be included in the query (Error teaches [0044] the options menu choices such as Change to AND, Change to OR, Remove from filter, directly build what the reference [0037] calls a virtual WHERE clause; wherein the selected option is a command folded into the underlying analytics query.)
As per Claim 2, Error teaches:
wherein the graphical summary includes the distribution of the values over time (Error teaches [0042] a report view including over time and trended as selectable graphical report formats, which supports time-based distribution views.)
As per Claim 10, Error teaches:
wherein the causing display of the data summary view is in response to receiving a request to display the data summary view of the query results, the request being received while the query results are displayed in a table format within a user interface, the table format including: rows, each row representing an event of the query results; and columns forming cells with the rows, each column representing a respective event attribute associated with the events and including data items of the respective event attribute populating ones of the cells (Error teaches [0042] report windows include a tabular and raw data view type alongside graphs and tables, consistent with a table-format precursor display from which a graphical summary view can be invoked.)
As per Claim 12, Error teaches:
wherein each option of the selectable options corresponds to the one or more commands that may be included in the query (Error teaches [0037] a full options-menu set (AND/OR/Remove from filter) each directly modifying the virtual WHERE clause, i.e., each option is itself a query affecting command.)
Claim 19 is the media claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim 20 is the device claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6-9, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Error in view of Hillier et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0011569 A1).
In respect to Claim 3, Hillier teaches:
wherein the graphical summary includes the distribution of values statistically derived from the values of the event attribute, and the statistically derived values include one or more of maximum values, minimum values, standard deviation values, and average values (Hillier teaches [0078] a cluster of statistics for a parameter’s distribution across a population, e.g. mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
As per Claim 6, Hillier teaches:
wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that occur above an upper occurrence threshold (Hillier teaches [0093, 0119-0120, 0127] a conformity index that measures the degree to which the value is consistent with the remainder of the data set computed against a set of threshold ranges for the conformity score that define varying levels of severity of non-conformity, for example, severe outlier, outlier, mild outlier, not significant, value is consistent. Furthermore, Hillier teaches [0101-0102, 0134] cells are also displayed as selectable, color coded report elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
As per Claim 7, Hillier teaches:
wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that occur below a lower occurrence threshold (Hillier teaches [0093, 0119-0120, 0127] a conformity index that measures the degree to which the value is consistent with the remainder of the data set computed against a set of threshold ranges for the conformity score that define varying levels of severity of non-conformity, for example, severe outlier, outlier, mild outlier, not significant, value is consistent. Furthermore, Hillier teaches [0101-0102, 0134] cells are also displayed as selectable, color coded report elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
As per Claim 8, Hillier teaches:
wherein the summary entries identify one or more of the values that are beyond a threshold of similarity from others of the values (Hillier teaches [0093, 0119-0120, 0127] a conformity index that measures the degree to which the value is consistent with the remainder of the data set computed against a set of threshold ranges for the conformity score that define varying levels of severity of non-conformity, for example, severe outlier, outlier, mild outlier, not significant, value is consistent. Furthermore, Hillier teaches [0101-0102, 0134] cells are also displayed as selectable, color coded report elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
As per Claim 9, Hillier teaches:
wherein the summary entries include summary statistics based on a data type of the summary entries, and wherein the summary statistics for a numeric data type include one or more of: a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, a median value, a mode value, and a standard deviation (Hillier teaches [0078] a cluster of statistics for a parameter’s distribution across a population, e.g. mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
As per Claim 18, Hillier teaches:
wherein a first option of the set of selectable options is included in the set of selectable options based on a determination that a data item associated with a selected summary entry comprises a statistical value (Hillier teaches [0078] a cluster of statistics for a parameter’s distribution across a population, e.g. mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hillier into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide empirical analysis of computer systems for determining and visualizing the distribution, variance, outliers and trends of parameters and characteristics across a set of computer systems. (Hillier [0002])
Claim(s) 4, 15, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Error in view of DEGRELL et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0300743 A1).
In respect to Claim 4, DEGRELL teaches:
wherein the summary entries include summary statistics (DEGRELL teaches [0017] selectable data points are in a BI drilldown context and usage of a statistical function to provide statistical data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of DEGRELL into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a data analysis framework that is able to support complex data analysis while enabling a user to quickly modify their analysis without having to manually retrace the analytical steps or propagate their modifications. (DEGRELL [0002])
As per Claim 15, DEGRELL teaches:
wherein a first option is included in the set of selectable options based on a context related to the selected at least one of the summary entries (DEGRELL teaches [0016, 0032] selecting a data point causes the functions associated with subsequently displayed chips to be modified or limited to the selected data points; wherein the set of subsequently offered options are context dependent on the selection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of DEGRELL into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a data analysis framework that is able to support complex data analysis while enabling a user to quickly modify their analysis without having to manually retrace the analytical steps or propagate their modifications. (DEGRELL [0002])
As per Claim 17, DEGRELL teaches:
wherein a first option of the set of selectable options correlate with a source of data items associated with the selection of the at least one of the summary entries (DEGRELL [0016-0017, 0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of DEGRELL into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a data analysis framework that is able to support complex data analysis while enabling a user to quickly modify their analysis without having to manually retrace the analytical steps or propagate their modifications. (DEGRELL [0002])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Error in view of Yoshimoto et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0187923 A1).
As per Claim 5, Yoshimoto teaches:
wherein at least one summary entry includes a portion of a key or a legend for the summary graph that identifies a section of the summary graph corresponding with the summary entry (Yoshimoto teaches [0003] the graph illustrates a plurality of datasets and a legend that identifies each of the plurality of datasets, wherein a selection may be received via the legend of the graph; each entry in the legend may correspond to a dataset presented by the graph and the user may touch the display of the legend to select a dataset, wherein the legend entries are themselves user-selectable graph identifying elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoshimoto into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system capable of allowing a user to select a particular dataset and data point of the dataset based on the user’s input. (Yoshimoto [0002])
Claim(s) 11 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Error in view of Gourdol et al. (US Patent No. 6,493,006 B1).
As per Claim 11, Gourdol teaches:
wherein the set of selectable options are presented within an option menu positioned based on a location of the selected at least one of the summary entries (Gourdal teaches [Abstract, column 3, lines 27-37] the contextual menu appears on the desktop at the location of the cursor, rather than as a pull-down menu at the periphery of the desktop, so that the displayed commands are spatially very close to the item on which the action is to be performed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gourdol into the system Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a menu of commands that are specifically related to the context of an item selected by a user. (Gourdol [column 1, lines 6-12])
As per Claim 16, Gourdol teaches:
wherein a first option of the set of selectable options correlate with a data type of a respective event attribute associated with the selection of the at least one of the summary entries (Gourdol teaches [Abstract, Claim 1] determining a data type for the selected object; selecting, a set of commands based on data type; and displaying a set of commands as the contextual menu. Gourdal teaches [column 7, lines 24-32] the operating system maintains a registry of file types and the commands appropriate for a particular file may be determined by consulting this registry; wherein the option set is looked up specifically by the data type of the selected item.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gourdol into the system Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a menu of commands that are specifically related to the context of an item selected by a user. (Gourdol [column 1, lines 6-12])
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Error in view of Pintos et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0021842 A1).
As per Claim 13, Pintos teaches:
wherein the one or more commands comprise a format including a command identifier that identifies the at least one command and one or more command elements of the at least one command (Pintos teaches [0027, 0034] cmdlet commands have a verb-noun naming convention [0013] that specifies the particular task, e.g., get-member, and are invoked with associated parameter. Pintos further teaches [0024] that the cmdlets may be combined to return something meaningful through the Monad-like cmdlet management engine; [TABLE, 0031] wherein a command identifier plus parameters format for commands are pipelined.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pintos into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a GUI such that the visual features are abstracted away from all business logic. (Pintos [0004])
As per Claim 14, Pintos teaches:
wherein at least one command of the one or more commands corresponds to a pipelined search language command compatible with processing of the query (Pintos teaches [0013, TABLE, 0031] a pipe-combinable command language where cmdlets have a command identifier and one or more cmdlets may be combined to return something meaningful.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pintos into the system of Error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a GUI such that the visual features are abstracted away from all business logic. (Pintos [0004])
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights