DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 11 recites a “A computer program product for accessing a data repository, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions”, which is construed to cover transitory propagating signals under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
Transitory signals are non-statutory subject matter per se. See MPEP 2106. It is suggested that claim 11 be amended to recite a “non-transitory a computer readable storage medium” to limit the scope of the claims to encompass only statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zarras, Dean Andrew (US 2021/0081405 A1).
As in Claim 1, Zarras teaches a computer-implemented method for accessing a data repository, comprising:
identifying target cells in an input data repository, including an input cell, an output cell, and a formula (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40, the system can identify cells in a spreadsheet, including input cell, an output cell, and formula or function) and ;
generating an interface for the input data repository that applies an input data value from a request to the input cell and that outputs a value from the output cell that is generated by the formula (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40, a spreadsheet interface can be displayed that applies values to the cell (i.e., input cell) and that provides a value from the cell (i.e., output cell) generated/calculated by the formula/function);
applying a new value from a request to the input cell using the interface (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40, the user may edit the values (i.e., input values) via the spreadsheet interrace) ; and
outputting a value generated by the formula (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40, the values (i.e., output values) can be updated by the formula).
As in Claim 2, Zarras teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Zarras further teaches that plurality of cells and at least one formula (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40).
Claims 11 and 12 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarras, Dean Andrew (US 2021/0081405 A1) in view of Chavoustie et al. (US 9047266 B2).
As in Claim 3, Zarras teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Zarras further teaches that identifying target cells includes:
identifying a plurality of formulas in the input data repository (FIGS. 4A-4F, at least pars. 14, 19-21, 26-40, a plurality of formulas in the spreadsheet can be identified).
Zarras does not appear to explicitly teach filtering out intermediate formulas from the plurality of formulas.
However, in the same field of the invention, Chavoustie teaches filtering out intermediate formulas from the plurality of formulas (col. 6, line 65 – col. 8, line 2, col. 8, line 21-col. 9, line 3, lines 15-52, the system can determine intermediate/precedent cells, and consolidating those formulas into a final/output cell. The intermediate formulas can be incorporated into the consolidated formula and cleared/removed from their original cells).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the interface with the identified cells, as taught by Zarras, and to provide the way to clear or remove the intermediate cells, as taught by Chavoustie. The motivation is to identify and consolidate intermediate formulas into a final output formula while preserving necessary input references and simplifying the spreadsheet structure.
As in Claim 4, Zarras-Chavoustie teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Zarras-Chavoustie further teaches that intermediate formulas are formulas that have an output value used as an input value by another formula (Chavoustie, col. 6, line 65 – col. 8, line 2, col. 8, line 21-col. 9, line 3, lines 15-52, the intermediate cell can serve as an input/reference for another cell, such as D2 referencing B4, and provides an option to retain the intermediate cell as an input when needed)
As in Claim 5, Zarras-Chavoustie teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Zarras-Chavoustie further teaches selecting a final formula from the plurality of formulas that has an output value that is not used as an input value by another formula, wherein the final formula is the identified formula (Chavoustie, col. 6, line 65 – col. 8, line 2, col. 8, line 21-col. 9, line 3, lines 15-52, see rejection of claim 3).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarras, Dean Andrew (US 2021/0081405 A1) in view of Campbell et al. (US 2017/0126772 A1).
As in Claim 6, Zarras teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Zarras does not teach identifying a repository token within the input data repository associated with the target cells.
However, in the same field of the invention, Campbell teaches identifying a repository token within the input data repository associated with the target cells ( at least pars. 199, 220, 253, 271, 275, 288, 311, the system can identify an identifier for input data associated with a selected spreadsheet cell)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the interface with the identified cells, as taught by Zarras, and to provide the way to identify the identifier for input data associated with the selected cell, as taught by Campbell. The motivation is to uniquely identify the selected cell and establish a clear association between the cell and its corresponding input data, function, for file locator displayed in the spreadsheet application.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarras, Dean Andrew (US 2021/0081405 A1) in view of Williamson, Eric (US 9292592 B2).
As in Claim 10, Zarras teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Zarras does not teach that the interface is an application programming interface (API) that is accessible to automate access to the data repository.
However, in the same field of the invention, Williamson teaches the interface is an application programming interface (API) that is accessible to automate access to the data repository (col. 7, lines 5-57 and col. 8, lines 24-51, the system can identify spreadsheet cells/data and generate or uses an API).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the interface with the identified cells, as taught by Zarras, and to provide the way to generate API for identified spreadsheet cells/data, as taught by Williamson. The motivation is to identify and extract spreadsheet data into model objects and enable their secure transfer, conversion, and integration through an API.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are dependent of claims 7 and 18, respectively, and the references are not provided for claims 8-9 and 19-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights