Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action of the instant application 18/070,009
(hereinafter the ‘009 application), responsive to the Response / Amendment dated 5/19/2026. The ‘009 application claims foreign priority to AUSTRAILIAN patent application 2021282538 (12/10/2021) A certified copy of each has been received and placed on the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims were amended to claim subject matter, without any indication provided as to where it is supported in the specification, nor could support be found by the Examiner. Specifically, the claims are amended to state:
After “receiving” “selection by a user of a plurality of the design elements”….“determining a first subset of selected design elements, the determining comprising for each of the plurality of different subsets… including a first subset of the selected design elements that are edited by one or more first edit operations and a second subset of the selected design elements that are edited by one or more second edit operations” – where the Examiner cannot locate where the specification supports different subsets of “selected design elements” that are “edited by” defined “first” and “second edit operations”. Nor is there support for the “determining a first subset” that includes a “first” and “second subset”.
“identifying one or more of the attribute values that define how each said design element in each said subset is displayed”; “comparing the identified one or more attribute values for the plurality of subsets to a corresponding reference of one or more attribute values for the plurality of design elements” – where the Examiner cannot locate where the specification supports said limitation alone and in combination with the above limitation.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims were amended to claim subject matter, without any indication provided as to where it is supported in the specification, nor could support be found by the Examiner. Specifically, the claims are amended to state:
“determining at least one subset of borders of the selected cells, the determining based on a comparison of attribute values of the subset of borders with one or more attribute values of the table or determined from the table that define a reference for the display of borders of the table;” - where the Examiner cannot locate where the specification supports the identification of a subset of borders of selected cells based on a comparison of attribute values of the table or “determined from a table that define a reference for the display of borders”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the claims recite “determining a first subset” where that “determining” comprises evaluation of the “first subset” itself, seemingly before it is even determined. Furthermore, the evaluation is based on a “second subset” as well, which is not defined or clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what it encompasses prior to it being defined as laid out by the claim.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the claims recite “determining at least one subset of borders of the selected cells, the determining based on” … “determined from the table that define a reference for the display of borders of the table”, where it is unclear if the claim is reciting that the table itself is a reference or is used to compare against a reference, or something else entirely.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al., U.S. Publication No. 2022/0027740, hereinafter Dong and Simkhay et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,549,392, hereinafter Simkhay.
With regard to claim 1, which teaches “A computer implemented method for providing a graphical user interface for editing a design, the method including: causing display, on a display device, of a user interface for editing a design; causing display, in the user interface, of a design formed by a plurality of design elements,” Dong teaches a computer implemented method for editing a design of a table through the use of a graphical user interface, where the UI displays an interface to enabling the editing and a table formed of a plurality of cells, with each cell having a plurality of borders. (see paragraphs 2, 25, 38-40, and 92 and figure 1)
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of design elements is associated with one or more attribute values that define how the design element is displayed;” Dong teaches borders being associated with attribute values that define how a border is displayed. (see paragraphs 28, 36-40, and 92 and figure 1)
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “receiving, via a user interface, user input indicating a direct or indirect selection by a user of a plurality of the design elements;” Dong teaches receiving a selection of an area of a table (one or more cells) 170 and determining a subset of borders of the selected cells. (see paragraph 25-28).
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “determining a first subset of the selected design elements, the determining comprising a) for each of a plurality of different subsets of the selected design elements, including a first subset of the selected design elements that are edited by one or more first edit operations and a second subset of the selected design elements that are edited by one or more second edit operations, identifying one or more of the attribute values that define how each said design element in each said subset is displayed and b) comparing the identified one or more attribute values for the plurality of subsets to a corresponding reference of one or more attribute values for the plurality of design elements;”
Dong, at paragraph 26, teaches respective formats for diverse areas. Dong at paragraph 32 and figure 1, notes identifying “attributes of respective cells… to determine formats applied to respective regions”, where “values of attribute… indicate semantic meaning of the data filled in the respective cells and/or indicate a structure of the data table”. Herein, a “format for a cell” can include a “border, filling, font, font color, alignment, or the like” (see paragraph 28). Furthermore, Dong teaches receiving a selection of an area of a table (one or more cells) 170 and determining a subset of borders of the selected cells, comparing the input area to those around and to those previously evaluated to determine appropriate format. (see paragraph 25-28). Dong teaches basing comparison on elements of different design categories (borders / color / alignment / content / font / pattern / etc.) and weighing all elements together when making evaluations. (see paragraph 36-37)
Simkhay further teaches a user interface to implement different sets of defined table styles each with their own configurable set of design characteristics, so as to allow that “separate areas can be formatted apart form other areas… allows all cells in an area to be formatted together instead of having to format each cell separately” (see 2:39-49). Herein a user can go in and edit characteristic of an element that is then used for all related elements in that associated stye (see 4:25-5:12 and figure 3), while further allowing for selection of a style as a “default table style” for use as a reference style to apply to all applicable tables unless otherwise noted (by either request or lack of applicability).
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “automatically selecting one or more first edit operations for the selected design elements based on the determined subset of the selected design elements”; Dong teaches automatically selecting formatting for a data table based upon its contents (see paragraphs 24-26, 42, and 92).
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “and not automatically selecting one or more second edit operations for the selected design elements based on the determined subset of the selected design elements; and” Dong teaches further manually selecting one or more formatting options for an area of a data table by selecting amongst choices of recommended formats or entering individual characteristics manually (see paragraphs 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 1, which further teaches “in response to receiving, via the user interface, user input indicating, an edit command, editing at least one attribute value of the subset of the selected design elements in accordance with the one or more first edit operations”; Dong teaches editing attribute values based upon the edit commands (see paragraphs 24-26, 37, 42, 92, 93, and 96). Where is user is provided with recommend edits, enabling user selection of the different optional formats to choose from to implement (see paragraph 96).
Though Dong teaches allowing a user via a user interface to apply the formatting either through the automated process, a semiautomated selection, or manual input, Dong does not specifically show an interface for applying those edits. Simkhay teaches a system for establishing a series of optional packaged formatting sets (see column 1, lines 13-42), but further explicitly provides to the user an interface for selecting, previewing, and applying those sets of formatting data to spreadsheets (see column 4, line 25 through column 8, line 4 and figures 3-7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that an interface, similar to that of Simkhay, would be necessary to carryout the invention described in Dong to enable user input in viewing and carrying out the features described in Dong. The two pieces of art further exist in the same space and solve similar problems, both aiding in defining formatting characteristics for a group of cells.
With regard to claim 2, which teaches “further including displaying in the user interface indicia representing the automatically selected one or more first edit operations; Dong teaches effecting the autoformatting and / or offering up a few alternatives for the autoformatting (see paragraphs 24-26, 37, 42, 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 3, which teaches “wherein the edit command includes or consists of selection of one or more attribute values and wherein the step of editing at least one attribute value of the subset of the selected design elements includes changing the at least one attribute value to the selected one or more attribute values; Dong teaches editing attribute values based upon the edit commands where the edit can be automatic, semiautomated, or manual (see paragraphs 24-26, 37, 42, 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 5, which teaches “wherein the reference is based on or specific to the design; Dong teaches referencing prior designs with similar components when choosing a like design to format according to (see paragraphs 26, 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 6, which teaches “further including determining the reference before performing the comparing, wherein determining the reference includes determining the one or more attribute values forming the reference as matching a majority of the one or more attribute values across the plurality of design elements forming the design; Dong teaches the system pre-storing a stash of prior designs with similar components to reference when choosing a like design to format according to (see paragraphs 24-26, 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 7, which teaches “wherein determining the subset of the selected design elements based on the comparison includes determining that the subset of the selected design elements has a threshold number of design elements associated with unique attribute values relative to the reference; Dong teaches determining a subset of the input table matching comparison table to discover a threshold similarity before associating and assigning (see paragraphs 42-45, 87-88, and 106).
With regard to claim 8, which teaches “wherein the threshold number of design elements is all design elements of the subset; < the rejection for claim 7 is equally applicable here > Additionally, Dong teaches, in paragraphs 32 and 49, that all design elements are considered.
With regard to claim 9, which teaches “further including updating the reference based on the design after the editing; Dong teaches the system utilizing computer learning where the new input becomes part of the training set for future evaluations (see paragraphs 42-45, 51, 87-88, and 106).
With regard to claim 10, which teaches “wherein the reference corresponds to or is a global style for the design and the method comprises defining at least some of the plurality of design elements forming the design by the global style; Dong teaches referencing to a global style and defining design elements accordingly (see paragraphs 68 and 97-102).
With regard to claim 11, which teaches “including redefining at least one of the plurality of design elements that are defined by the global style responsive to a change to the reference; Dong teaches redefining design elements according to global style (see paragraphs 68 and 97-102).
With regard to claim 12, which teaches “further including determining a further subset of the selected design elements based on the comparison, automatically selecting one or more third edit operations for the selected design elements based on the determined further subset of the selected design elements, and in response to receiving an edit command, both editing at least one attribute value of the subset of the selected design elements in accordance with the one or more first edit operations and editing at least one attribute value of the further subset of the selected design elements in accordance with the one or more third edit operations; Dong teaches basing comparison on other elements of the design other than borders (color / alignment / content / etc.) and weighing all elements together when making evaluations. (see paragraph 36-37)
With regard to claim 14, which teaches “wherein: the design is a table formed by a plurality of cells and the plurality of design elements are borders of cells; the one or more attribute values that define how the design element is displayed define at least one of a colour, a weight and a style of the border; the selection of a plurality of the design elements is a selection of one or more of the plurality of cells; the subset of the selected design elements is defined by one or more border types; the one first edit operations are operations to change at least one attribute value of borders of the one or more border types and not operations to change other border types; < the rejection of claims 15 and 13 are equally applicable here >
With regard to claim 15, which teaches “A computer implemented method for providing a graphical user interface for editing a design including or consisting of a table, the method including: causing display, on a display device, of a user interface for editing a design; causing display, in the user interface, of a table formed by a plurality of cells, each cell having a plurality of borders,” Dong teaches a computer implemented method for editing a design of a table through the use of a graphical user interface, where the UI displays an interface to enabling the editing and a table formed of a plurality of cells, with each cell having a plurality of borders. (see paragraphs 2, 25, 38-40, and 92 and figure 1)
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “wherein each of the plurality borders is associated with one or more attribute values that define how the border is displayed;” Dong teaches borders being associated with attribute values that define how a border is displayed. (see paragraphs 28, 36-40, and 92 and figure 1)
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “receiving, via the user interface, user input indicating a selection by a user of one or more cells, less than all, of the plurality of cells;” Dong teaches receiving a selection of an area of a table (one or more cells) 170 an determining a subset of borders of the selected cells. (see paragraph 25-28).
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “determining at least one subset of borders of the selected cells, the determining based on a comparison of attribute values of the subset of borders with one or more attribute values of the table or determined from the table that define a reference for the display of borders of the table;”
Dong teaches receiving a selection of an area of a table (one or more cells) 170 and determining a subset of borders of the selected cells, comparing the input area to those around and to those previously evaluated to determine appropriate format. (see paragraph 25-28). Dong teaches basing comparison on elements of different design categories (borders / color / alignment / content / font / pattern / etc.) and weighing all elements together when making evaluations. (see paragraph 36-37)
Simkhay further teaches a user interface to implement different sets of defined table styles each with their own configurable set of design characteristics, so as to allow that “separate areas can be formatted apart form other areas… allows all cells in an area to be formatted together instead of having to format each cell separately” (see 2:39-49). Herein a user can go in and edit characteristic of an element that is then used for all related elements in that associated stye (see 4:25-5:12 and figure 3), while further allowing for selection of a style as a “default table style” for use as a reference style to apply to all applicable tables unless otherwise noted (by either request or lack of applicability).
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “automatically selecting one or more first border edit operations based on the determined subset of borders” Dong teaches automatically selecting formatting for a data table based upon its contents (see paragraphs 24-26, 42, and 92).
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “and not automatically selecting one or more second border edit operations based on the determined subset borders, the one or more first border operations designating the determined subset of borders for editing; and”; Dong teaches further manually selecting one or more formatting options for an area of a data table by selecting amongst choices of recommended formats or entering individual characteristics manually (see paragraphs 92, 93, and 96).
With regard to claim 15, which further teaches “in response to receiving, via the user interface, user input indicating an edit command, editing at least one attribute value of the subset of borders in accordance with the one or more first edit operations”; Dong teaches editing attribute values based upon the edit commands (see paragraphs 24-26, 37, 42, 92, 93, and 96).
Though Dong teaches allowing a user via a user interface to apply the formatting either through the automated process, a semiautomated selection, or manual input, Dong does not specifically show an interface for applying those edits. Simkhay teaches a system for establishing a series of optional packaged formatting sets (see column 1, lines 13-42), but further explicitly provides to the user an interface for selecting, previewing, and applying those sets of formatting data to spreadsheets (see column 4, line 25 through column 8, line 4 and figures 3-7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that an interface, similar to that of Simkhay, would be necessary to carryout the invention described in Dong to enable user input in viewing and carrying out the features described in Dong. The two pieces of art further exist in the same space and solve similar problems, both aiding in defining formatting characteristics for a group of cells.
With regard to claim 16, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is one or more, but not all, of: the top borders formed by the selected cells, the inner horizontal borders formed by the selected cells, the bottom borders formed by the selected cells, the left borders formed by the selected cells, the inner vertical borders formed by the selected cells, and the right borders formed by the selected cells; Dong teaches the considered borders including top borders, bottom borders, right borders, left borders, inner vertical border, inner horizontal borders, etc. (see paragraphs 38-40 and figures 1 and 5).
With regard to claim 17, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is the top borders formed by the selected cells and the one or more first border edit operations is an operation that edits the top borders of selected cells; < the rejection for claim 16 is equally applicable here >
With regard to claim 18, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is the bottom borders formed by the selected cells and the one or more first border edit operations is an operation that edits the bottom borders of selected cells; < the rejection for claim 16 is equally applicable here >
With regard to claim 19, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is the left or right borders formed by the selected cells and the one or more first border edit operations is an operation that edits the left or right borders of selected cells respectively; < the rejection for claim 16 is equally applicable here >
With regard to claim 20, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is some or all of the inner borders formed by the selected cells and the one or more first border edit operations is an operation that edits the some or all of the inner borders of selected cells; < the rejection for claim 16 is equally applicable here >
With regard to claim 21, which teaches “wherein the at least one subset of borders of the selected cells is the outer borders formed by the selected cells and the one or more first border edit operations is an operation that edits the outer borders of selected cells; < the rejection for claim 16 is equally applicable here >
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dong is directed to automatic inference of formatting outcojes, primarily via a learning network that maps cell attributes to formats. Dong does not disclose of suggest:
identifying different subsets of a user selection that correspond to different edit operations;
evaluating those subsets; or
determining which edit operation should apply based on comparative analysis of subset-specific attribute values.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Dong clearly identifies different area, evaluates them individually and then applies a corresponding edit. Dong, at paragraph 26, teaches respective formats for diverse areas. Dong at paragraph 32 and figure 1, notes identifying “attributes of respective cells… to determine formats applied to respective regions”, where “values of attribute… indicate semantic meaning of the data filled in the respective cells and/or indicate a structure of the data table”. Herein, a “format for a cell” can include a “border, filling, font, font color, alignment, or the like” (see paragraph 28).
Applicant argues that “Dong's system does not reason in terms of candidate edit operations applied to alternative subsets. Instead, Dong determines formatting directly, without first determining which edit operation should govern which subset of the selection. The claimed invention may therefore be viewed as concerned with choosing which edit operation is contextually appropriate, and doing so by analysing competing subsets of the same user selection. Dong in contrast is concerned with choosing a format for a table.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Dong, in paragraph 37, further breaks down values of respective cells (or groups of cells) are evaluated individually to determine a format to be applied, the cell / “plurality of cells”. Though format options are automatically evaluated and applied, there may be some level of user interaction to confirm the desired formatting (see paragraphs 92-96).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights