CTNF 19/272,987 CTNF 86914 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response for Continuation Application # 19/272,987 filed on July 17, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of claims Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and also claims 1-20 are rejected under Double Patenting. Obviousness Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,373,467 B2 (‘467). With respect to the above, the instant Application are performing an obvious variant of the features claimed in the ‘467 application. 19/272,987 U.S. 12,373,467 B2 Claim 1: Claim 1: A method for generating data visualizations using multi-fact object models, comprising: at computing device having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors : receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization ; determining that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are associated with different objects in an object model ; constructing a dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, and their respective objects in the object model ; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field ; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model, wherein the one or more measure data fields include at least a shared measure data field that is associated with two or more objects in the object model ; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples, wherein the second tuples include data values corresponding to the shared measure data field ; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples ; and generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples . A method for generating data visualizations using multi-fact object models, comprising: at computing device having a display, one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization ; determining that the first dimension data field belongs to a first object of an object model and the second dimension data field belongs to a second object of the object model, distinct from the first object ; constructing a dimension subquery according to characteristics of the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, the first object, and the second object , including: determining a join type for combining (i) first data rows that include data values of the first dimension data field and (ii) second data rows that include data values of the second dimension data field; and constructing the dimension subquery according to the determined join type, the dimension subquery referencing the first object and the second object; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources corresponding to the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field ; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples ; and generating and displaying the first data visualization according to the extended tuples . Claim 12 Claim 9 A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising instructions for: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization; determining that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are associated with different objects in an object model; constructing a dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, and their respective objects in the object model; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model, wherein the one or more measure data fields include at least a shared measure data field that is associated with two or more objects in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples, wherein the second tuples include data values corresponding to the shared measure data field; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples. A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; memory; a display; and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising instructions for: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization; determining that the first dimension data field belongs to a first object of an object model and the second dimension data field belongs to a second object of the object model, distinct from the first object; constructing a dimension subquery according to characteristics of the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, the first object, and the second object, including: determining a join type for combining (i) first data rows that include data values of the first dimension data field and (ii) second data rows that include data values of the second dimension data field; and constructing the dimension subquery according to the determined join type, the dimension subquery referencing the first object and the second object; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources corresponding to the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and displaying the first data visualization according to the extended tuples. Claim 18 Claim 15 A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution by a computing device having one or more processors and memory, the one or more programs comprising instructions for: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization; determining that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are associated with different objects in an object model; constructing a dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, and their respective objects in the object model; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model, wherein the one or more measure data fields include at least a shared measure data field that is associated with two or more objects in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples, wherein the second tuples include data values corresponding to the shared measure data field; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution by a computing device having one or more processors, memory, and a display, the one or more programs comprising instructions for: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization; determining that the first dimension data field belongs to a first object of an object model and the second dimension data field belongs to a second object of the object model, distinct from the first object; constructing a dimension subquery according to characteristics of the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, the first object, and the second object, including: determining a join type for combining (i) first data rows that include data values of the first dimension data field and (ii) second data rows that include data values of the second dimension data field; and constructing the dimension subquery according to the determined join type, the dimension subquery referencing the first object and the second object; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources corresponding to the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field; constructing one or more measure subqueries, each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and displaying the first data visualization according to the extended tuples. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if theremaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to implement the method on an apparatus consists of memory of having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter. Doing so would have enhanced the ‘467 patent. With respect to claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 they are also rejected since this claims are similar to 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 of the ‘467 patent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.) Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claims 1-20 recite a method, device and readable medium respectively. The analysis of claims 1, 12 and 18 is as follows: Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 1, 12 and 18 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “ generating data visualizations using multi-fact object models , comprising: at computing device having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization ; determining that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are associated with different objects in an object model; constructing a dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field , the second dimension data field , and their respective objects in the object model; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field ; constructing one or more measure subqueries , each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model, wherein the one or more measure data fields include at least a shared measure data field that is associated with two or more objects in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples, wherein the second tuples include data values corresponding to the shared measure data field ; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of data visualization for building objects and validating relationships between objects in objects model of a data source (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper. Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computing device” and “storage medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “ generating data visualizations using multi-fact object models , comprising: at computing device having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors: receiving a first user input specifying a first dimension data field and a second dimension data field for generating a first data visualization ; determining that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are associated with different objects in an object model; constructing a dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field , the second dimension data field , and their respective objects in the object model; executing the dimension subquery against one or more data sources to retrieve first tuples that comprise unique ordered combinations of data values for the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field ; constructing one or more measure subqueries , each of the measure subqueries referencing one or more measure data fields in the object model, wherein the one or more measure data fields include at least a shared measure data field that is associated with two or more objects in the object model; executing the one or more measure subqueries to retrieve second tuples, wherein the second tuples include data values corresponding to the shared measure data field ; forming extended tuples by combining the retrieved first tuples and the retrieved second tuples; and generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., identifying the mismatched indicia between two tables); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “ generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples“, the gathering and visualization are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., generate display) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on display of the visualization to the extended tuples is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and generating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. For the reasons above, claims 1, 12 and 18 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101. The analysis of claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are as follows: Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “claims 2 and 13 recites wherein the shared measure data field is a numeric field representing aggregated data values across multiple objects in the object model. Claims 3 and 14 recites wherein constructing the dimension subquery includes: applying one or more filtering criteria based on user-specified constraints for the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field. Claims 4 and 15 recites wherein constructing the dimension subquery includes: determining a join type for combining (i) first data rows that include data values of the first dimension data field and (ii) second data rows that include data values of the second dimension data field; and constructing the dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, their respective objects in the object model, and the determined join type. Claims 5 and 16 recites determining that the join type is an inner join when the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field can be traced to the same root object of the object model. Claims 6 and 17 recites determining that the join type is a cross join when the first dimension data field can be traced to a first root object of the object model and the second dimension data field can be traced to a second root object of the object model, different from the first root object. Claim 7 recites wherein at least one of the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field is a geographic data field. Claim 8 recites wherein at least one of the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field is a date/time data field. Claim 9 recites wherein the first tuples are retrieved from a plurality of data sources, each data source corresponding to one or more objects in the object model. Claims 10 and 19 recites wherein the first data visualization includes a graphical representation of the shared measure data field and an unshared measure data field, the unshared measure data field being a numeric data field associated with a single object in the object model. Claims 11 and 20 recites in accordance with a determination that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are unrelated in the object model: generating a warning indicator; and causing display of the warning indicator” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of data visualization for building objects and validating relationships between objects in objects model of a data source (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper. Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “computing device” and “storage medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “claims 2 and 13 recites wherein the shared measure data field is a numeric field representing aggregated data values across multiple objects in the object model. Claims 3 and 14 recites wherein constructing the dimension subquery includes: applying one or more filtering criteria based on user-specified constraints for the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field. Claims 4 and 15 recites wherein constructing the dimension subquery includes: determining a join type for combining (i) first data rows that include data values of the first dimension data field and (ii) second data rows that include data values of the second dimension data field; and constructing the dimension subquery based on the first dimension data field, the second dimension data field, their respective objects in the object model, and the determined join type. Claims 5 and 16 recites determining that the join type is an inner join when the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field can be traced to the same root object of the object model. Claims 6 and 17 recites determining that the join type is a cross join when the first dimension data field can be traced to a first root object of the object model and the second dimension data field can be traced to a second root object of the object model, different from the first root object. Claim 7 recites wherein at least one of the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field is a geographic data field. Claim 8 recites wherein at least one of the first dimension data field or the second dimension data field is a date/time data field. Claim 9 recites wherein the first tuples are retrieved from a plurality of data sources, each data source corresponding to one or more objects in the object model. Claims 10 and 19 recites wherein the first data visualization includes a graphical representation of the shared measure data field and an unshared measure data field, the unshared measure data field being a numeric data field associated with a single object in the object model. Claims 11 and 20 recites in accordance with a determination that the first dimension data field and the second dimension data field are unrelated in the object model: generating a warning indicator; and causing display of the warning indicator” are mere gathering data and applying process steps (i.e., identifying the mismatched indicia between two tables); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “ generating and causing display of the first data visualization according to the extended tuples“, the gathering and visualization are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g., generate display) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on display of the visualization to the extended tuples is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and generating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. For the reasons above, claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior-art. Applicant need to resolve 35 U.S.C. 101 and Obviousness double patenting rejection for allowability. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 3 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 4 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 5 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 6 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 7 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 8 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 9 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 10 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 11 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 12 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 13 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 14 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 15 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 16 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 17 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 18 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 19 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 20 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 21 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 22 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 23 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 24 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 25 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 26 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 19/272,987 Page 27 Art Unit: 2159
Prosecution Insights