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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 10/10/2025, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 previously set forth are withdrawn.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
The Application was filed on 9/20/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 9, 17 is/are independent claim(s).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The recited “requires” and “require” of Claims 8, 16.
The Specification does not mention the recited term. Thus, there is no support or antecedent basis for the recited term that allows the meaning of the term to be ascertained, as required in 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The applicant may amend the specification to include the terms and provide antecedent basis without introducing new matter into the specification, or the terms may be removed from the claims.
NOTE: Because the original claims are part of the original specification and the term was in the original claims, the specification may be amended to include the term without introducing new matter into the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorak; Robert E. US Pub. No. 2022/0012417 (Dvorak) in view of Dvorak; Robert E. et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0075557 (Dvorak 2).
Claim 1:
Dvorak teaches:
A computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media [¶ 0143, 174] (computer readable media);
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media [¶ 0139] (processor); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that [¶ 0143] (instructions), when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least:
identify a formula in a cell of a spreadsheet, wherein the formula includes a first function having a parameter comprising a name of a second function, wherein the formula further includes a parameter comprising one or more values, and wherein the second function comprises a non-anonymous function [¶ 0072-80] (REPEAT_V is a “first function” that takes as a parameter other functions, such as formula containing a RANGE FUNCTION (i.e., function that evaluates a range or array of inputs like SUM, MIN, STDEV or PERCENTILE)),
pass the name of the second function as an argument to the first function [¶ 0072] (SUM is passed as an argument to the REPEATE_V function) [¶ 0069] (ORDER_V(cancer{},country{}|SUM(cases{})|date{>=‘1/1/19’})) [¶ 0097] (formula passes SUM function as a parameter, SUM(L2:L36{!LOOP})/SUM(K2:K36{!LOOP})) [¶ 105-110] (formula passes SUM function as a parameter) [¶ 0162] (SUM() as a parameter);
identify a common characteristic based on the first function [¶ 0069] (SUM(cases{})|date{>=‘1/1/19’}), cases is a “common characteristic”, data > is also a “common characteristic”) [¶ 0097] (L2:L36 is a “common characteristic”) [¶ 105-110] (case and remit are a “common characteristic”) [¶ 0162] (SUM(cases), cases is a “common characteristic”);
…
execute the first function, wherein the first function calls the second function and passes a value as an argument to the second function [¶ 0073] (summing the ‘cases’ values for each value of cancer); and
populate the spreadsheet based on one or more results of the first function [¶ 0073] (returns those calculated values vertically starting in cell A2 and going down to cell B4 758).
Dvorak also teaches: [¶ 0123-124, 153] (subtotals, which could be considered a “subarray”).
Dvorak teaches, but Dvorak 2 also teaches:
identify a common characteristic based on the first function [¶ 0109-110, 127-128, 142-143, 164] (the column passed as parameters, type and test, and the filtering of values using the < and > symbols proved a “common characteristic”);
Dvorak does not appear to explicitly disclose “subarrays”.
However, the disclosure of Dvorak 2 teaches:
aggregate the one or more values into one or more subarrays according to the common characteristic [¶ 0125, 159-160, 171, 175-177, 193-195] (calculated for each set of nested loops, compound loops, nested repetition, nested loops or nested repetition could be “subarrays” with the “common characteristic” being a table heading or column or row);
execute the first function, wherein the first function iteratively calls the second function and passes each of the one or more subarrays as an argument to the second function [¶ 0109] (checks all the values for the calc_2D formula ‘(wt_end−wt_beg)/wt_end’ for a ‘type’ value of ‘{“Test”}’ and eliminates them if they are −0.3 or larger, nested loops could be “iteratively”) [¶ 0127-128, 142-143, 163-164] (< and >, would create “subarrays” that are passed to the function “iteratively”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spreadsheet formulas in Dvorak and the method of spreadsheet formulas in Dvorak 2, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of executing formulas in Dvorak 2 could be applied to the formulas in Dvorak. Dvorak 2 and Dvorak are similar devices because each execute spreadsheet formulas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improved presentation or ease of further analysis” [Dvorak 2: ¶ 0098, 118].
Claim 2:
Dvorak teaches: [¶ 0069, 94, 137, 173] (<,>, for dates and values) [¶ 0083] (total for row and subtotal for row) [¶ 0150-151] (column sum)
Dvorak 2 teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the common characteristic comprises one of: cell column, cell row, cell format, and cell value [¶ 0090, 108, 137-139] (apply to column) [¶ 0088, 90, 95, 110] (row calculation) [¶ 0109-110, 127-128, 142-143, 163] (the greater than and less than <, >, symbols in the function allow for a “cell value” to be “common characteristic”, that is less than or greater than a specified cell value).
Claim 3:
Dvorak teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the formula follows a syntax comprising:
a name of a function followed by a list of parameters captured parenthetically after the name of the function, and wherein one parameter in the list of parameters identifies another function to be passed as an argument to the function along with at least one other of the list of parameters [¶ 0072-80] (REPEAT_V followed by the parameters inside the parenthesis, (), that takes as a parameter other functions, such as formula containing a RANGE FUNCTION (i.e., function that evaluates a range or array of inputs like SUM, MIN, STDEV or PERCENTILE) a range can also be included in the parameter list, see Fig. 13).
Claim 4:
Dvorak teaches: [¶ 0014, 159] (single and multivariable compound or nested loops) [¶ 0082] (ITERATE_V) [¶ 0120] (ITERATExx).
Dvorak 2 teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to generate a subroutine for iteratively calling the second function to process each of the one or more subarrays [¶ 0125] (FIG. 45 through FIG. 48 show two-dimensional group (loop) calculations with compound headings, constraints (filters) and TITLES using NSC formulaic data, weight change formula: (SUM(wt_end)−SUM(wt_beg))/SUM(wt_beg) that is calculated for each set of nested loops) [¶ 0130] ( FIG. 51 through FIG. 53 show two-dimensional group (loop) calculations with compound headings having totals and subtotal) [¶ 0158-160, 175-177, 193-195] (create nested (compound) loops equivalents for both the vertical and horizontal table headings, create nested repetitions within the repetitions for either of the first (e.g., vertical) or second (e.g., horizontal) user specified fields that create the table headings) [¶ 0109] (checks all the values for the calc_2D formula ‘(wt_end−wt_beg)/wt_end’ for a ‘type’ value of ‘{“Test”}’ and eliminates them if they are −0.3 or larger, nested loops could be “iteratively”) [¶ 0127-128, 142-143, 163-164] (< and >, would create “subarrays” that are passed to the function “iteratively”) [¶ 0125, 159-160, 171, 175-177, 193-195] (calculated for each set of nested loops, compound loops, nested repetition, nested loops or nested repetition could be “subarrays” with the “common characteristic” being a table heading or column or row).
Claim 5:
Dvorak teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the list of parameters comprises a conditional expression, and wherein the first function, when calling the second function, passes a value from the one or more values to the second function if the value satisfies the conditional expression (sum of cases withing a date range could be conditional expression”) [¶ 0082] (ITERATE_V) [¶ 0120] (ITERATExx).
Claim 6:
Dvorak teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the parameters do not include a LAMBDA function and wherein the one or more values comprise a group of cells in the spreadsheet [¶ 0072-80] (REPEAT_V is a not a lambda function).
Claim 7:
Dvorak teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the first function comprises a BYCOL function and wherein the second function comprises one of a native function and a user-defined function of a spreadsheet application [¶ 0072-80] (REPEAT_V where the “V” stands for vertical or column, such as formula containing a RANGE FUNCTION (i.e., function that evaluates a range or array of inputs like SUM, MIN, STDEV or PERCENTILE)) [¶ 0150-151, 167-171] (loop followed by their order of formula input into the function while the list default or user selection (e.g., ascending, or descending value order) determines the order of column-by-column content).
Claim 8:
Dvorak teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a syntax of the parameters requires the one or more values and a name but does not require any parameters to be explicitly included for the second function [¶ 0072, 75] (other parameters are optional, optional inputs).
Claims 9-20:
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim 9 is a “method” claim, claim 1 is a “apparatus” claim and claim 17 is a “media” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 10 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11, 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Stachura; Thomas US 20180157468 teaches: specifics of these procedural actions may be declared with a syntax similar to a traditional declarative spreadsheet formula as in “=SetValues(source, destination, params)”, nested within other traditional formula functions as in “=IF(A1=100, SetValues(A1:A2, B1:B2, false)”, and/or syntax common to procedural programming as in “dest=source”.
Dayal; Sandeep US 20240070382 teaches: Multiple names within the same formula are possible and the named expressions can be nested within other named expressions.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification Objection:
The applicant removed the term “differ” from the claims, so this objection is withdrawn.
As to the term “require”, the applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully submits that the objection is improper because both terms represent common English words with well-understood meanings in the art, and the specification provides adequate implicit support for these concepts.
…
Similarly, regarding the term "require," the specification describes how "the syntax by which a non-anonymous function is passed to an outer function includes a list of arguments or parameters including the non-anonymous function and at least one cell range" and explains various parameter configurations, including mandatory syntax elements. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0025]; As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0040]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand these common English terms within the context of computer programming and spreadsheet applications. (Response page 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) states:
(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
Applicant cites to paragraphs [0025] and [0040] of Applicant’s Specification which discloses:
[0025] In various implementations, for the application or computational engine to recognize a spreadsheet function as a non-anonymous function, the syntax by which a non-anonymous function is passed to an outer function includes a list of arguments or parameters including the non-anonymous function and at least one cell range the values of which are inputs to the non-anonymous function. When an outer function is evaluated, the application or computational engine may identify the non-anonymous function by its position in an argument list, by a particular format in which the non-anonymous function is named, by the function being defined natively or by a user in the application, or by some combination of factors. For example, the outer function may be defined such that the name of the non-anonymous function is the final argument in the list of arguments. In some applications, the definition for the outer function may specify that the final argument is the non-anonymous function name without argument or function notation (e.g., without arguments enclosed in parentheses), which, if present, may cause an error to be thrown. In still other implementations, the syntax for passing a non-anonymous function may be an explicit indication, such as enclosing the name of the non-anonymous function within quotation marks or other syntactical characters or prepending an identifier (e.g., eta:SUM).
…
[0040] The syntax may also define the final position in the parameter list as indicating the name of the second, non-anonymous function which is to process the cell range. The non-anonymous function is a function which is native to or defined in the application hosting the spreadsheet and which has a unique name by which the function or its particular operation is called. According to the syntax, the parameter for the non-anonymous function is provided in a specific format which the first function is defined to accept. For example, the name parameter for the non-anonymous function may take the form of the function's unique name absent any arguments or input values and lacking function notation, i.e., without any parentheses appended to the end of the name.
The examiner does not dispute that the specification provides support for the concepts recited in the claims. The applicant’s argument that the terms have “adequate implicit support for these concepts” is true, but that is not the requirement of the rule. 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) requires that the “terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description”. There must be antecedent basis support for the claim terms not “adequate implicit support” as argues by the applicant.
As noted above, because the original claims are part of the original specification and the terms were used in the original claims, the specification may be amended to include the terms and such an amendment would not introduce new matter into the specification.
35 USC 103 Rejection:
The applicant argues that “Dvorak does not disclose specific common characteristics” (response page 11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dvorak teaches [¶ 0069] (SUM(cases{})|date{>=‘1/1/19’}), cases is a “common characteristic”, data > is also a “common characteristic”) [¶ 0097] (L2:L36 is a “common characteristic”) [¶ 105-110] (case and remit are a “common characteristic”) [¶ 0162] (SUM(cases), cases is a “common characteristic”).
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 BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM QUELER can be reached on (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov