DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 3/24/2026.
Claims 57 and 58 are new.
Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-58 are pending.
Claims 22, 54-56, and 58 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924), further in view of Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544).
Claims 22 and 37, and 53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868).
Claims 26, 27, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Cosic (US Patent Pub 2003/0065662).
Claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605).
Claims 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605), further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868).
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007 /0043605), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137).
Claim 48 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Wallace (US Patent Pub 2005/0179684).
Claims 57 and 58 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 48, 49, and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 48, 49, and 53 all have brackets that should be deleted. Applicant is reminded that proper markings should be used when making claim amendments. See MPEP 714; 37 CFR 1.121.
In claim 23, “a sort action” should be “the sort action”.
In claim 48, “load the copy of the structured data” should be “load the structured data”.
In claim 49, “load the copy of the structured data” should be “load the structured data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 54-56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “splitting a column within the copy of the structured data”. This limitation contradicts what is recited in parent claim 21, which expressly recites “… modifying the copy of the structured data to include modifications due to the set of data process actions … without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data except a header name within a header field.” In other words, claim 21 requires that none of the “data process actions” modifies any of the data in the data fields. Claim 22 recites a “split action” that splits a column within the copy of the structured data. In doing so, the “split action” must modify the “data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data.” Clarification is required.
Claim 54 recites “wherein the one or more data sources do not have column headers” and “wherein the one of the plurality of permitted load actions includes a no header load action.” As recited, parent claim 21 recites that performed data process actions result in “modifying the copy of the structured data to include modifications due to the set of data process actions without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data except a header name within a header field.” In other words, claim 21 requires a header field. Claim 54 recites that the “one or more data sources do not have column headers” and provides for a new “load action” called a “no header load action.” However, as explained, claim 21 requires a header field. Clarification is required.
Claim 58 recites “the step of using the spreadsheet compute functionality”. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 58 also recites “… to edit selected ones of the at least some of the fields of data”. However, base claim 21 states that selection of a data process action by the user or the user themselves, are not permitted to “…modify, add, or delete any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data…”. Allowing editing in the spreadsheet would contradict this requirement. Clarification is required.
Claim 58 further recites “selected ones of the at least some of the fields of data”. The limitation “at least some” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury), further in view of Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin).
In regards to claim 21, Hughes discloses a method of processing structured data based upon analyzing a copy of structured data comprised of a plurality of fields by a user or a third party to determine a set of actions taken from a plurality of fixed and non-modifiable data process actions using an open data platform that accesses one or more data sources having data structured in one of several file formats as a plurality of records therein, the method comprising:
providing a data process engine through a computer user interface associated therewith, that enables users to access the one or more data sources and perform the plurality of data process actions (Hughes at paras. 0018, 0022, 0027, 0087, 0106, 0108-109)1;
selecting by the user one of the one or more data sources through the computer user interface by specifying one of a plurality of different database and file formats of the selected data source through the computer user interface (Hughes at para. 0018)2;
selecting by the user a permitted load action, wherein permitted load actions include a no change action, a split action, and an append action (Hughes at para. 0107-109)3;
responsive to the selection of the selected data source and the selection of the load action, causing the data process engine to load the copy of the structured data comprised of the plurality of fields (Hughes at paras. 0091-95)4;
selecting by the user the set of data process actions (Hughes at para. 0109)5
responsive to the selection of the set of data process actions by the user, automatically causing the data process engine to perform each of the selected actions on the copy of the structured data to include modifications due to the set of data process actions selected by the user without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data except a header name within a header field (Hughes at paras. 0106, 0109)6;
wherein the plurality of data process actions does not permit any user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language (Hughes at para. 0106)7;
wherein none of the plurality of data process actions allow for content of the data within the selected data source to be changed (Hughes at paras. 0020-22, 0028)8;
wherein the user is not permitted to modify, add, or delete any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data except the header name within the header field to ensure data integrity (Hughes at paras. 0086, 0103, 0106, 109)9;
wherein the data process engine includes the fixed and non-modifiable plurality of data process actions that are available to the user for creating the set of data process actions and that cannot be modified, deleted, or added to by the user or the third party to whom the data process engine has been made available (Hughes at para. 0080, 0103)10.
Hughes does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of data process actions include a sort action and a filter action. It is noted that Hughes does disclose allowing a user to determine the order of loaded data. Hughes at para. 0107-109.
Ainsbury discloses a system and method to allow a user to retrieve data from selected data sources in a variety of types (i.e., formats), have the data parsed and analyzed, and stored in a data store for user review and analysis. Ainsbury at col. 2, lines 47-67. Ainsbury discloses the client interface provides sorting and filtering functionality (i.e., data process actions that include a sort action and a filter action) that allow the user to sort items based on a selected property or filter based on a list of property criteria. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.
Hughes and Ainsbury are analogous art because they are both directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management and integration.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of data process actions include a sort action and a filter action, as disclosed by Ainsbury.
The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly organize information in a manner desired by the user for analysis. Ainsbury at col. 22, lines 18-29.
Hughes in view of Ainsbury does not expressly disclose subsequent to performing the set of data process actions, saving the copy of the structured data as a unique named database table.
Griffin discloses a system and method for data integration, migration, and conversion. Griffin discloses a versioning feature where documents (wherein a document can be a spreadsheet (i.e., a table)) into which data is imported (i.e., saved), create a draft version (i.e., copy) when modifications are made. When the modifications are saved, a new version of the document is created and marked as "active" (i.e., unique named database table) while the old version is marked as obsolete. Thus, the old version data is maintained without modification while a new version is saved with the modifications from the draft version. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.
Hughes, Ainsbury, and Griffin are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data integration.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury by adding the features of disclose subsequent to performing the set of data process actions, saving the copy of the structured data as a unique named database table, as disclosed by Griffin.
The motivation for doing so would have been because versioning prevents unintended changes to data and allows for reviewing of how data is changed over time through consistency control. Griffin at para. 0056.
In regards to claim 23, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21 wherein the set of data process actions includes the sort action, and wherein the sort action causes sorting of rows based on a column or a subset of columns within the copy of the structured data, and where the resultant of the sort action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Hughes at para. 0107. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.11
In regards to claim 24, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions includes the filter action, and wherein the filter action causes filtering of rows based on a selected column within the copy of structured data, and wherein the resultant of the filter action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.12
In regards to claim 25, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions include multiple filter actions that cause filtering of rows based on selected columns within the copy of the structured data, and wherein the resultant of the multiple filter actions is included within the unique name database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.13
In regards to claim 28, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein any program data process executed by the data process engine is one of the fixed and non-modifiable plurality of data process actions. Hughes at paras. 0030-0036, 0103.14
In regards to claim 31, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more data sources includes personal computer platforms, server platforms and storage sources. Hughes at para. 0018.15
In regards to claim 32, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein causing the data to load includes repositioning data from one of a plurality of formats, the plurality of formats being one of a flat file, a spreadsheet, and a database table. Hughes at paras. 0034, 0061.16
In regards to claim 33, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the data process actions are the same regardless of which of the different database and file formats are loaded. Hughes at paras. 0061, 0109.17
In regards to claim 34, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the set of data process actions provide for rapid data prototyping and table data analysis and evaluation capability, thereby allowing for users to directly access the copy of the structured data without knowledge of data structures within the file from which the structured data was obtained. Hughes at paras. 0106-109.18
In regards to claim 49, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of different database and file formats include respective database formats of a plurality of different database vendors, such that the data process engine is able to load the copy of the structured data from any of these different database formats of the plurality of different database vendors into the copy of the structured data. Hughes at para. 0018.19
In regards to claim 51, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein a point and click selection process is implemented to select each of the plurality of data process actions and each of the one or more data sources. Hughes at Figs. 4, 5; para. 005520
In regards to claim 54, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the one or more data sources do not have column headers and wherein one of the plurality of permitted load actions includes a no header load action. Hughes at Fig. 5; paras. 0073, 0086.21
In regards to claim 55, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 54, wherein the no header load action creates a column header and a column name for each column which did not have a column header. Hughes at Fig. 5; paras. 0073, 0086.22
Claims 22, 37, and 53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868) (Dingman) of record.
In regards to claim 22, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the set of data process actions includes a split action, and wherein the split action causes splitting a column within the copy of the structured data, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data.
Dingman discloses an event driven data transformation system. Dingman at abstract. Dingman further a function that parses a street address field and returns its parts (i.e., split column) during transformation. Dingman col. 13, lines 28-31, 56-65; col. 18, lines 54-7. Dingman further discloses the user can map source fields to target fields in any manner and in a desired format using the provided functions. For example, a namePart function can parse and rearrange a name field (i.e., original column) and split its value into individual specified parts (i.e., specifying additional split columns). Dingman at col. 12, lines 65-67; col. 13, lines 1-7, 56-67. The original source field and the split fields can all be defined in the target layout as desired by the user.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the set of data process actions includes a split action, and wherein the split action causes splitting a column within the copy of the structured data, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier mapping, which allows for on the fly mapping and transformation without using an intermediate file. Dingman at col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 1, lines 1-5.
In regards to claim 37, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the step of causing the data process engine to load further comprises providing a rejects support system that automatically captures all rejected records that could not be transformed by the data process engine from a delimited flat file selected data source into a single reject table that is separate from and saved separately from the unique named database table, wherein accepted records are input as the copy of the structured data during the step of loading and those accepted records that are subsequently saved as the unique named database table when the copy of the structured data is saved, such that the source records from the one or more data sources are not altered. As noted in the rejections above, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin disclose not altering the source data and further, saving a working copy of the data to a unique named database table. What is not expressly disclosed is the reject and approval methodology of this claim.
Dingman discloses a reject function that takes records from a source adds them to a separate rejected file if they cannot be transformed. Otherwise, the record is transformed and placed in the target data file. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8. In other words, rejected records are added to a separate table that is separate from the target table (i.e., separate from and saved separately from), where the target table stores the approved records that could be transformed.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin by adding the feature wherein the step of causing the data process engine to load further comprises providing a rejects support system that automatically captures all rejected records that could not be transformed by the data process engine from a delimited flat file selected data source into a single reject table that is separate from and saved separately from the unique named database table, wherein accepted records are input as the copy of the structured data during the step of loading and those accepted records that are subsequently saved as the unique named database table when the copy of the structured data is saved, such that the source records from the one or more data sources are not altered, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to detect and remove source records that could not be translated. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8.
In regards to claim 53, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose further comprising allowing for removal of appended data that was appended to the unique named database table.
Dingman discloses the ability to delete, which allows a user to delete any appended data. Dingman at col. 13, lines 43-46.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, and Griffin by adding the feature of allowing for removal of appended data that was appended to the unique named database table, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow removal of source records that could not be translated. Dingman at col. 22, lines 50-8.
Claims 26, 27, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Cosic (US Patent Pub 2003/0065662) of record.
In regards to claim 26, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21, further including the steps of retrieving into memory the saved unique named database table and subsequently performing another action that is one of the plurality of data process actions, and wherein saving a new copy of the unique named database table requires a new unique named database table different from the unique named database table. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.23
Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of data process actions further includes a name or rename column header action, and wherein the name or rename column header action allows replacing an existing column header name with a new column header name within a new copy of the unique named database table.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of data process actions further includes a name or rename column header action, and wherein the name or rename column header action allows replacing an existing column header name with a new column header name within a new copy of the unique named database table, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process. As noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, Griffin discloses creating a new version after modifications are performed (i.e., new unique named database table different from the unique named database table).
In regards to claim 27, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein a name or rename column header action that is one of the plurality of data process actions includes the step of renaming a column heading from the copy of the structured data.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein a name or rename column header action that is one of the plurality of data process actions includes the step of renaming a column heading from the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process.
In regards to claim 56, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 55, but does not expressly disclose wherein the data process engine executes a header rename action that allows for the renaming of a selected one of the column headers.
Cosic discloses a universal data management interface. A user is permitted to rename columns of a database table through a graphical user interface. Cosic at Fig. 11; paras. 0251-7.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Cosic are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the data process engine executes a header rename action that allows for the renaming of a selected one of the column headers, as disclosed by Cosic.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users more flexibility and to correct potential errors that may occur during the transformation or import process.
Claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher) of record.
In regards to claim 35, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21,
for each of the plurality of data process actions, creating another special record in the statistics database table (Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286);
thereby tracking each of the plurality of data process actions, and identification of the unique named database table associated with those plurality of data process actions. Griffin at paras. 0056, 0286.
but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
wherein, while performing the set of data process actions, statistics and metrics support system tracks each of the actions that occur in the set of data process actions, wherein the statistics and metrics support system tracks database and file transactions, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including:
providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special record format entry of each instance of the plurality of data process actions performed on the copy of the structured data;
Fisher discloses a method for tracking a user's activity by monitoring the user's actions for opening, creating or modifying a file. Fisher at abstract. In this way, statistics and metrics of a user’s performance of actions is tracked and stored in a statistics database, which can be queried to run reports. Fisher further discloses creating reports on the tasks to review employee efficiency and time for completion of tasks. Fisher at paras. 0028, 0043-59.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the features of wherein, while performing the set of data process actions, statistics and metrics support system tracks each of the actions that occur in the set of data process actions, wherein the statistics and metrics support system tracks database and file transactions, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including providing user statistics in a statistics and metrics database table having a special record format entry of each instance of the plurality of data process actions performed on the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Fisher.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means to monitor user activity to determine system usage and efficiency.
In regards to claim 36, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the user statistics are kept in the statistics database table and will display as designated by the user. Fisher at para. 0029.24
In regards to claim 39, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the sort action causes sorting of rows based on a column or a subset of columns within the copy of the structured data, and where the resultant of the sort action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.25
In regards to claim 41, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein the filter action causes filtering of rows based on a selected column within the copy of structured data, and wherein the resultant of the filter action is included within the unique named database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.26
In regards to claim 42, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, wherein one of the plurality of actions further include multiple filter actions that causes filtering of rows based on selected columns within the copy of the structured data, and wherein the resultant of the multiple filter actions is included within the unique name database table that is created when the copy of the structured data is saved. Ainsbury at col. 33, lines 28-34; cols. 39, lines 40-67; col. 40, lines 1-10.27
In regards to claim 45, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
tracking database and file transactions for tracking database records and each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including:
providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special records format of each of the plurality of data process actions performed, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions of sorting, and filtering.
Fisher discloses a method for tracking a user's activity by monitoring the user's actions for opening, creating or modifying a file. Fisher at abstract. In this way, statistics and metrics of a user’s performance of actions is tracked and stored in a statistics database, which can be queried to run reports. Fisher further discloses creating reports on the tasks to review employee efficiency and time for completion of tasks. Fisher at paras. 0028, 0043-59.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management using spreadsheets and tables.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the features of tracking database and file transactions for tracking database records and each instance of the plurality of data process actions, the tracking step including providing user statistics and metrics in a statistics database table having a special records format of each of the plurality of data process actions performed, including each instance of the plurality of data process actions of sorting, and filtering, as disclosed by Fisher.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means to monitor user activity to determine system usage and efficiency.
In regards to claim 46, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 45, wherein the user statistics are kept in the statistics database table and will display as designated by the user. Fisher at para. 0029.28
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher) of record, further in view of Dingman et al. (US Patent 6,795,868) (Dingman) of record.
In regards to claim 38, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, but does not expressly disclose wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data.
Dingman discloses an event driven data transformation system. Dingman at abstract. Dingman further a function that parses a street address field and returns its parts (i.e., split column into additional columns) during transformation. Dingman col. 13, lines 28-31, 56-65; col. 18, lines 54-7. Dingman further discloses the user can map source fields to target fields in any manner and in a desired format using the provided functions. For example, a namePart function can parse and rearrange a name field (i.e., original column) and split its value into individual specified parts (i.e., specifying additional split columns). Dingman at col. 12, lines 65-67; col. 13, lines 1-7, 56-67. The original source field and the split fields can all be defined in the target layout as desired by the user.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, Fisher, and Dingman are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data transformation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher by adding the feature of wherein the split action causes splitting an original column of the selected data source, wherein execution of the split action causes corresponding split columns to be included in the copy of the structured data, as disclosed by Dingman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier mapping, which allows for on the fly mapping and transformation without using an intermediate file. Dingman at col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 1, lines 1-5.
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin), and Fisher et al. (US Patent Pub 2007/0043605) (Fisher), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137) (Sattler).
In regards to claim 40, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher discloses a method according to claim 35, but does not expressly disclose wherein the copy action allows the user to copy and paste data from one or more specified rows or one or more specified columns of the copy of the structured data to an external file, thereby allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external file.
Sattler discloses a data selection program that allows a user to select data from a data set. The data set comprises data from a plurality of different types of systems. After selecting data, the data is presented in a data selection program window that permits a user to further interact with the returned records. A user can select desired rows and export them to an external spreadsheet file (i.e., allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external file). Sattler at Fig. 2; paras. 0014, 0022.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, Fisher, and Sattler are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data integration and management.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher by adding the feature of wherein the copy action allows the user to copy and paste data from one or more specified rows or one or more specified columns of the copy of the structured data to an external file, thereby allowing performance of an additional non-fixed and non-predetermined action in the external file, as disclosed by Sattler.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to work on selected data in a spreadsheet with the ability to refresh data and to upload the data to the database after work has been completed. Sattler at para. 0002.
Claim 48 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes) of record, in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin) of record, further in view of Wallace (US Patent Pub 2005/0179684) of record.
In regards to claim 48, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses a method according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of different database and file formats include databases and custom delimited flat file, such that the data progress engine is able to load the copy of the structured data from any of these different formats into the copy of the structured data (Hughes at para. 0018) but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of different database and file formats also includes comma separated value (CSV) and tab separated value (TSV).
Wallace discloses file formats for saving spreadsheet data in tab delimited or comma delimited files. Wallace at paras. 0271, 0286.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, and Wallace are analogous art because they are all directed toward the same field of endeavor of data management through a spreadsheet interface.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin by adding the feature of wherein the plurality of different database and file formats also includes comma separated value (CSV) and tab separated value (TSV), as disclosed by Wallace.
The motivation for doing so would have been because csv and tsv formatted files are easily saved from spreadsheet interfaces. Wallace at para. 0286.
Claims 57 and 58 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Patent Pub 2003/0030672) (Hughes), in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent 6,078,924) (Ainsbury) and Griffin et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0319544) (Griffin), further in view of Sattler et al. (US Patent Pub 2006/0026137) (Sattler).
In regards to claim 57, Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses the method according to claim 21 but does not expressly disclose further comprising the step of: responsive to the selection of a data process action, copying one or more entire rows or entire columns of the fields of data within the copy of the structured data to a spreadsheet. Hughes does disclose storing loaded data in a spreadsheet. Hughes at para. 0109.
Sattler discloses a data selection program that allows a user to select data from a data set. The data set comprises data from a plurality of different types of systems. After selecting data, the data is presented in a data selection program window that permits a user to further interact with the returned records. A user can select desired rows and export them to an external spreadsheet file (i.e., copying an entire row of data to a spreadsheet). Sattler at Fig. 2; paras. 0014, 0022.
Hughes, Ainsbury, Griffin, Fisher, and Sattler are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data integration and management.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher by adding the feature of responsive to the selection of a data process action, copying one or more entire rows or entire columns of the fields of data within the copy of the structured data to a spreadsheet, as disclosed by Sattler.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to work on selected data in a spreadsheet with the ability to refresh data and to upload the data to the database after work has been completed. Sattler at para. 0002.
In regards to claim 58, Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Sattler discloses the method according to claim 57 further comprising the step of using the spreadsheet compute functionality to edit selected ones of the at least some of the fields of data within the copy of the structured data that were copied to the spreadsheet. Hughes at para. 0098.29
Response to Amendment
Objection to claims 21, 24, and 42 for Minor Informalities
Applicant’s amendment to claims 21, 24, and 42 to address the minor informalities is acknowledged. However, new informalities were created in claims 21 and 24. Consequently, the objection to claims 21 and 24 is maintained and the objection of claim 42 is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 under 35 U.S.C 112, First Paragraph
Applicant’s amendment to claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 is acknowledged. The rejection to claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 under 35 U.S.C 112, Second Paragraph
Applicant’s amendment to claims 21-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53-56 is acknowledged. However, some amendments created new issues as set forth in the rejections above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 22 and 54-56 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is maintained and the rejection of claims 21, 23-28, 31-42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 21, Applicant alleges Hughes fails to disclose (1) “responsive to the selection of the set of data process actions by the user … thereby modifying the copy of the structured data to include modifications duet to the set of data process actions selected by the user without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields in the copy of the structured data except a header name within a header field” and (2) “wherein the plurality of data process actions does not permit any user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language”. Remarks at 13-14.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to limitation (1), Applicant contends and argues Hughes changes the data in contradiction to the claimed limitation of “… without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields…”. Remarks at 13. Applicant points to tables 1 and 2 and paras. 0096 and 0102 as evidence that Hughes discloses modifying data within data fields. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitation (1) specifically states the “set of data process actions” modify the “copy of the structured data to include modifications due to the set of data process actions selected by the user without modifying, adding, or deleting any of the data within the plurality of fields …”. A subsequent limitation states “wherein the user is not permitted to modify, add, or delete any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data …”. In both cases, modification, adding, or deleting any of the data “within the plurality of fields of the copy of structured data” is not permitted. Contrary to Applicant’s allegations, Hughes does not perform any modifying, adding, or deleting of any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of structured data. The paragraphs and tables pointed to by Applicant describe actions that modify the spreadsheet or document into which the copy of the structured data is loaded into. As further described at para. 0099 of Hughes, the system is able to load data from the data source while avoiding overwriting of the user’s input. Here, the user and the system do not “modify, add, or delete any of the data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data”. Instead, the data of the copy of the structured data is simply formatted and structured as designated by the user. Similarly, para. 0102 describes additional formatting of the data, but does not “modify, add, or delete” the data that is retrieved from the data source. As discussed in the interview conducted 3/23/2026, Applicant stated actions such as sorting and filtering do not “change” the data and accordingly made the amendments to claim 21 to clarify the intended meaning. As explained, Hughes does not “modify, add, or delete” the data within the fields of the data retrieved from the data source and merely allows a user to structure and format the data to be presented. For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin discloses limitation (1).
In regards to limitation (2), Applicant argues simply because a user does not need knowledge of programming does not mean that programming is not available. Remarks at 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitation (2) specifically states that the “plurality of data process actions does not permit any user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language”. As disclosed by Hughes, the actions provided to the user allow a user to make requests without understanding programming. Hughes at para. 0106, 0109. The actions provided by the system in Hughes, therefore do not permit any “user created programming actions or programming commands via any programming language.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments that references to “spreadsheet” in the specification are not relating to the claimed invention, but to something else, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification at para. 0085 states for “purposes of a framework for the invention … the end user portrayed relies upon spreadsheet software for their primary data record form and data processing methods … Accordingly, embodiments of the invention provide the working version 316 in a spreadsheet format.” Para. 0085 of the specification, in combination with previously cited paragraphs of the specification (as noted by Applicant) show that spreadsheet software is utilized by the end user to work with the data retrieved from a data source. Applicant further points to claims 57 and 58 as clarification that spreadsheet software is not the same as the “data process engine” of claim 21. Applicant also admits Hughes would read on the spreadsheet referenced in claims 57 and 58 but argues Hughes does not read on the data process engine of claim 21. Remarks at 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Hughes does not read on the data process engine of claim 21. As discussed in the rejections above, Hughes discloses using spreadsheet software, however, the “data process actions” that are used to select the data source, load the data from the data source, and perform actions (such as formatting and structuring of the data), are part of the “software object” that contains various modules that enhance the spreadsheet software. The “software object” provides features that read on the “data process engine” of the claim. Hughes at Figs. 4, 5; para. 0051, 0064. Once loaded, the data can be interacted with as “working data” disclosed by Hughes in the rejections of claims 57 and 58 above. Such discussion was also set forth in the Office action mailed 11/21/2024 at pages 26-27.
Applicant further argues that “configuring” such as selecting options on a user interface (e.g., Fig. 5 of Hughes) constitutes “programming”. Remarks at 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s drawings show many graphical user interfaces that allow a user to configure how data is retrieved and loaded, such as figures 6 and 7. Examiner asserts performing selections of predefined interface elements does not constitute “programming.” If Applicant disagrees, Examiner suggests amending the claim limitations to clarify the meaning of “programming”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments with regards to Savin argument 3, as discussed above, modifications or additions made by the user are to the target document into which data retrieved from the data source is loaded. The modifications or additions do not “modify, add, or delete” the “data within the plurality of fields of the copy of the structured data” as claimed.
Applicant does not present arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts the cited combination discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Applicant also does not present arguments with regards to the remaining claims. Therefore, they remain rejected for at least the same reasons. Consequently, the rejection to claims 21, 23-25, 28, 31-34, 49, 51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is maintained.
Rejection of claims 22, 26, 27, 37, 53, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Applicant does not present arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 22, 26, 27, 37, 53, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Consequently, the rejection to claims 22, 26, 27, 37, 53, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is maintained for at least the same reasons explained above.
Rejection of claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 35, Applicant alleges (1) it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fisher with Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin and (2) the cited portions do not disclose “for each of the plurality of actions, creating another special record in the statistics database table”. Remarks at 17-18.
In regards to allegation (1), Applicant argues the actions tracked by Fisher are not comparable to the “plurality of data process actions” and storing “each of them” Remarks at 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against Fisher individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection is based on the combination of cited references. Here, Fisher is relied upon not for the data process actions themselves, which are disclosed by Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin, but for the ability to track user activities within a particular application or session and storing the tracked user activities in a database, which can be queried to create a report. Fisher at para. 0028. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fisher with Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin to efficiently track time across various entities, such as clients and activities. Fisher at para. 0024.
In regards to allegation (2), the limitation recites “creating another special record in the statistics database table”. The cited portions of Griffin discuss actions being performed on a document, which create a new active version of a document. Griffin discloses statistics are collected for documents and actions that are performed on them, such as those that create new active versions through completion and approval. Griffin at paras. 0286, 0296-7. In this way, a statistics record (i.e., another special record) is created in the statistics database. As discussed above, the combination of cited references discloses performing claimed “set of data process actions.” Griffin discloses collecting statistics on documents with actions performed on them and Fisher is relied upon for additional tracking of user activities which include file and database transactions. In response to Applicant’s argument that Fisher is directed to ensuring that time spent on an activity is billed correctly and was not intended for tracking statistics as claimed (Remarks at 18), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations do not specify what a “special record” or “special record format entry” require. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations merely require that some record that corresponds to a performed action is stored. Hughes in view of Ainsbury and Griffin disclose performing the “set of data process actions” (including sorting and filtering with reference to claim 45) and the combination of Hughes in view of Ainsbury, Griffin, and Fisher results in a system that tracks user activities (i.e., actions) on documents (i.e., copy of the structured data), which are stored in a database and can be used to create a report. For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts the cited art discloses claims 35 and 45.
Consequently, the rejection to claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is maintained.
Rejection of claims 38, 40, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 38, 40, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) refer to the arguments presented in regards to the base claims, which are addressed above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 38, 40, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is maintained for at least the same reasons.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Rosner (US Patent Pub 2009/0276692) discloses a system and method for data analysis after combining separate data together and using a copy table.
Collet et al. (US Patent Pub 2005/0022111) discloses a system and method for formatting source text files to be imported into a spreadsheet file.
Castellanos et al. (US Patent 8,719,769) discloses a system and method for quality driven ETL design optimization with features for filtering and sorting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 The system (i.e., data process engine) provides a user interface for a user to select a data source and perform data process actions on data retrieved from the selected data source (i.e., copy of the structured data).
2 The user has the ability to select a data source, which can be one of a plurality of database and file formats.
3 Examiner interprets the load action as including a no change action (i.e., do nothing to the data), a split action (i.e., split up the data as desired), and an append action (i.e., simply add the data to the target). Here, no change action and appending are interpreted as being the same thing. Given these interpretations, Hughes discloses allowing a user to select from a variety of data sources (Hughes at para. 0018) and loading the data into a target document or spreadsheet while permitting the user to determine order, sequence, formatting (i.e., splitting), or simply loading the data (i.e., no change action or appending).
4 After the user has selected the data source and how they want it loaded, the system queries the data source for the data, parses it and writes it to a file or spreadsheet (i.e., copy of the structured data) for the user to view.
5 User can choose the order and sequence of the retrieved data and their formatting and placement. User can also choose to update data or undo changes (i.e., set of data process actions).
6 The system automatically performs the selected actions (i.e., set of data process actions) on the parsed and formatted data (i.e., copy of the structured data) and refreshes the display to show the modifications/changes, such as formatting and changing the order/sequence of the retrieved data (i.e., include modifications due to the set of data process actions…). None of these actions change the actual data that is retrieved from the data source (i.e., without modifying, adding, or deleting …).
7 The user does not need knowledge of programs, codes, formulas. Therefore, it is interpreted that user programming is not necessary or permitted.
8 The system allows the user to update their created document (i.e., copy) but does not send the modifications back to the source.
9 The chosen data process actions change the data through formatting or altering its sequence but does not modify, add, or delete the data values within the fields of the retrieved data. The functions do allow for generation of new headings (i.e., except the header name).
10 Users access the data through a user interface of a spreadsheet application. Therefore, it is interpreted that the selected actions are not modified, deleted, or added by the user because the functionality of the application is already provided.
11 The sort functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to sort by a selected property (i.e., based on a column or subset of columns). The result of the sort is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
12 The filter functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to filter records by selected properties (i.e., a selected column). The result of the filter is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
13 The filter functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to filter records by selected properties (i.e., multiple selected columns). The result of the filter is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
14 These paragraphs disclose program data processes executed by the system. The user views the data through a spreadsheet interface. Therefore, the actions are fixed and non-modifiable by the user.
15 Data sources include internet, databases, and any other data source.
16 Hughes discloses the source can be any type of data source in any format and can transformed to match the structure of the data required by the end user (i.e., repositioning data). Here a web page example is given (i.e., a flat file).
17 The user can retrieve data from any source of any format (i.e., different database and file formats) and the integrated data is acted upon by the user by the same functions, regardless of their source format.
18 A user need not know the structure of the data source before accessing it. The system performs all the parsing and formatting for the user.
19 Data source can be anything from an internet resource, to a database, to a text file (i.e., a flat file), thus any vendor would be supported.
20 As can be seen in the figure, the user interface is a graphical user interface designed to be used by the user with a point and click selection process.
21 Hughes provides a feature to automatically generate column headings for data from the data source does not have a column header. Headers are generated in the process of loading and transforming the data (i.e., load action).
22 Hughes discloses the generated heading feature, which creates a header and a name for each column without a header.
23 A new version after modifications (i.e., new copy) to a previous draft (i.e., unique named database table retrieved into active memory) is saved to a new file and this new file is interpreted as a “new unique named database table.”
24 Reports can be created and displayed for the user to view (i.e., as designated by the user).
25 The sort functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to sort by a selected property (i.e., based on a column or subset of columns). The result of the sort is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
26 The filter functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to filter records by selected properties (i.e., a selected column). The result of the filter is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
27 The filter functionality in Ainsbury allows a user to filter records by selected properties (i.e., multiple selected columns). The result of the filter is within the working area (i.e., copy) that would be saved in accordance with the combination of art and disclosed by Griffin.
28 Reports can be created and displayed for the user to view (i.e., as designated by the user).
29 The user can use spreadsheet functionality, such as formulas (i.e., spreadsheet compute functionality) to edit the fields.
Prosecution Insights