DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/10/2025.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-2 and 6-16 are pending.
Claims 1, 12 and 14-16 are independent.
Claims 1-2, 6-11 and 16 are currently being examined.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn for being directed to nonelection subject matter.
Claims 3-5 are newly canceled.
Claim 16 is newly added.
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 16 is 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 term “directly visible” in claim 16 is a relative term, but the specification fails to provide enough information for a skilled person in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventor or a joint inventor understands the metes and bounds of term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
The term “directly visible” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “directly visible” (in the limitation “wherein the first and second values are inserted next to each other into the cell and are directly visible”) 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. Here, the meaning of values being "directly visible" can range from the values simply being rendered on screen, to being instantly reachable without navigation, to representing a tangible objects that immediately reflect state changes, among others. This term of degree can mean different things dependent on a user's focus, the context of the task, and the design of the interface. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to a simultaneous displaying of both first and second values. Correction is required.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell; John et al. (hereinafter Campbell – US 20170124050 A1) in view of Maksimenko; Anton Aleksandrovich et al. (hereinafter Maksimenko – US 20090166029 A1) and Huntley; Brian P. et al. (hereinafter Huntley – US 20110243124 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Campbell teaches:
A method for creating a table for processing attributes of components […], wherein the table consists of a plurality of cells, which form a matrix of columns and rows; (Abstract and fig. 2A. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that a spreadsheet is considered a “table” because both tables and spreadsheets are designed to organize data in a grid of rows and columns. Furthermore, the creating of the table is herein broadly interpreted including the creation of the compound object(s) within the spreadsheet, as discussed below)
wherein each row is in each case assigned to one component and contains information relating to the respective component; (each row represents one component and contains information relating to the respective component, e.g., a person and related information, ¶ 210 and fig. 9A, or a company, car, or a trading day, ¶ 48, and their respective related information)
wherein each column is assigned to an attribute and contains information relating to the attribute; (e.g., columns assigned attributes First Name, Last Name, Birthdate, City, and Student ID, and containing the attribute values [information relating to the attribute], fig. 9A and ¶ 215)
wherein a first attribute is assigned to a first column; (e.g., First Name in first column, fig. 9A, as represented by a descriptive column header of “First Name”, see ¶¶ 44 and 70 and fig. 9A)
wherein the first attribute comprises a set of values, (the different people represented by the records each have a specific first name [a set of values], fig. 9A)
wherein the set includes all values of the first attribute for all components; (the all of the first names appear the first name column, fig. 9A)
wherein the method has at least the following steps:
inserting a first value from the set of the first attribute into a first cell of a first row and the first column, wherein the first value relates to the component assigned to the first row; (a component object, e.g., 912, is generated by combining different values for that component, e.g., for that person, into a single cell, e.g., cell A2, ¶ 99 and fig. 9B, or for another type of component, e.g., a company, ¶ 48)
and inserting at least a second value from the set of the first attribute into the first cell; (a component object is generated by combining different values for that component, e.g., for that person, into a single cell, e.g., cell A2, ¶ 99 and fig. 9B. Not reflected in the figures, in another example, the component type could be a company, and the compound object may include additional information related to the company, such as a list of board members, e.g., including their names [second value…of the first attribute])
wherein the second value relates to the component assigned to the first row; (a component object is generated by combining different values “related” to that component, e.g., related to that person or company, into a single cell, e.g., cell A2, ¶¶ 48 and 99 and fig. 9B)
wherein the at least first value and the at least second value are presented in the form of tiles; (the values within a compound object are displayed in the form of tiles [card view 308], ¶ 77 and fig. 3A, e.g., in tabular format, ¶ 48)
Campbell further suggest:
wherein a header and/or footer, which are arranged within the cell above or below the respective value and into which additional information relating to the respective value is inserted, is assigned to the tiles. (For compound objects stored in a single cell, headers are displayed or arranged within the cell above or below the respective value, e.g., when there are a few values and/or the cells are large enough to display the values, ¶ 79 and fig. 8B. Header rows [into which additional information relating to the respective value is inserted], for the spreadsheet/table are displayed above the values, ¶¶ 70 and 79 and figs. 2A 8B. e.g., an array of attributes within the compound objects themselves can also be represented in a table with the attribute names as column headers and the values in the row representing values within a specific day, ¶ 48.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method to include wherein a header and/or footer, which are arranged within the cell above or below the respective value and into which additional information relating to the respective value is inserted, is assigned to the tiles, as suggested by Campbell.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by keeping the display of column headers in the compound object consistent with the display of column headers of the spreadsheet, Campbell ¶¶ 48 and 70.
Campbell further teaches that data can be other types, e.g., restaurant, school, etc., ¶ 137.
Campbell does not appear to expressly teach, but Maksimenko teaches:
that the components are “from a laboratory and/or process area” (spreadsheet data may include results of modeling and laboratory measurements of samples, ¶ 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Campbell to include that the components are “from a laboratory and/or process area”, as taught by Maksimenko.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility of the method to apply to any type of data, including samples collected from labs or other process areas, Maksimenko ¶ 30 and Campbell ¶ 137.
Campbell-Maksimenko does not appear to expressly teach, but Huntley teaches:
wherein the tiles are represented, highlighted, or framed by different colors (a table in which various cells may be highlighting in different colors to quickly alert potential problems, ¶¶ 37 and 43 and fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Campbell to include wherein the tiles are represented, highlighted, or framed by different colors, as taught by Huntley.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to differentiate the information presented in the tiles/cells, e.g., to alert the user of potential problems indicated by the data, Huntley ¶¶ 42-43.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Campbell-Maksimenko further teaches:
wherein samples, laboratory devices, and/or measuring devices are used as components. (laboratory measurements of samples, Maksimenko ¶ 30)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Campbell, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the first attribute comprises a set of parameters, wherein the respective parameter and, as a value, a value of the respective parameter are indicated in the header and/or footer. (the columns have a descriptive header [first attribute], ¶ 70 and the compound objects are in the form of tables that have column headers as well, and these column headers have values, e.g., a list of company board members, e.g., displayed as a table, would have the additional parameters, as headers, e.g., name, phone number, email address, division, product responsibility, etc., associated with the board members, ¶ 48. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that this limitation includes to displaying a set of parameters related to a first spreadsheet column, and that themselves have headers/footers denoting the parameters.)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Campbell further teaches:
wherein laboratory and/or process methods, parameters, device statuses, process orders, workflows, measurement results, calibration information, statistical evaluations, quality control information, occupancy information of devices, and/or maintenance information are used as the first attribute. (the columns have a descriptive header [first attribute], ¶ 70 and the compound objects are in the form of tables that have column headers as well, and these column headers have values, e.g., a list of company board members, e.g., displayed as a table, would have the additional parameters, as headers, e.g., name, phone number, email address, division, product responsibility, etc., associated with the board members, ¶ 48.)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Campbell further teaches:
wherein at least one of the at least first and second value is hidden, and a symbol is displayed instead, (a cell that comprises a compound object may display one or two values only, and instead display a symbol, such as an ellipsis indicating that further information is stored in that cell, ¶ 79 and fig. 3A)
wherein the previously hidden value is displayed by selecting the symbol. (the display of the card view of the compound object reveals the hidden information and is displayed in response to a user selection of the symbol, ¶ 87 and figs. 3A-3B)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Campbell further teaches:
A computer program product for creating a table for processing attributes of components from a laboratory and/or process area, with computer-readable program code elements, which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method according to claim 1. (¶¶ 6, 56 and 227-228 and figs. 1 and 11)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Campbell further teaches:
wherein the computer program is stored on the computer-readable medium. (computer readable media, ¶ 231)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20170124050 A1) in view of Maksimenko (US 20090166029 A1) and Huntley (US 20110243124 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Moriura; Kazuma et al. (hereinafter Moriura – US 20200103429 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Campbell-Maksimenko further teaches:
wherein the first attribute comprises a set of laboratory and/or process methods, (Campbell teaches that a column may contain a composite object with multiple attributes, as explained above. Maksimenko teaches that the spreadsheet data may include results of modeling and laboratory measurements of samples, ¶ 30.)
Campbell also teaches the compound objects are in the form of tables that have column headers as well, and these column headers have values, e.g., a list of company board members, e.g., displayed as a table, would have the additional parameters, as headers, e.g., name, phone number, email address, division, product responsibility, etc., associated with the board members, ¶ 48
Campbell-Maksimenko does not appear to expressly teach, but Moriura teaches:
wherein the respective laboratory and/or process method and, as a value, a result of the respective laboratory and/or process method are indicated the header and/or footer. (a table displaying clinical [lab] blood analysis results, which includes a column headers for kinds of parameters measured [column named “Information”, which is “the respective laboratory and/or process method”] and the value of the measurement for that parameter [column named “Value”], ¶¶ 35 and 107 and fig. 8A)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Campbell-Maksimenko to include wherein the respective laboratory and/or process method and, as a value, a result of the respective laboratory and/or process method are indicated the header and/or footer, as taught by Moriura.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow implementation of the lab results taught Campbell-Maksimenko in a known and informative way, including the description of lab readings and readings values, including column headings, Moriura ¶¶ 35 and 107 and Campbell ¶ 48.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20170124050 A1) in view of Maksimenko (US 20090166029 A1).
Independent Claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed to a method similar to claim 1 and is obvious for similar reasons as explained above for claim 1 concerning Campbell and Maksimenko.
Claim 16 also includes “wherein the first and second values are inserted next to each other into the cell and are directly visible”.
However, Campbell further teaches:
wherein the first and second values are inserted […] into the cell and are directly visible (the first and second values are inserted […] into the cell and are simultaneously visible [directly visible] within the cell when cell is big enough to display the values or simultaneously near the cell, e.g., see ¶ 79 and figs. 3A and fig. 8B)
Campbell further suggests:
that the first and second values are next to each other (in other tabular displays, values are displayed side by side [next to each other] in the same row 214 and having a header row 216, see ¶ 70 and Fig. 2A)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Campbell to include that the first and second values are next to each other, as suggested by Campbell.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to increase the flexibility of displaying tabulated composite cell information in any format known to effectively display tabulated information, e.g., side by side in the same row, see Campbell ¶ 79 and Campbell figs. 3A and fig. 8B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
First, the applicant alleges that in claim 1, “the footer and/or header are arranged within the cell, either below or above the first value” and that “this is not shown by Maksimenko”, Remarks Page 7.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, this is taught by the display of composite cell in Maksimenko, and the applicant has not specifically explained why the mapping is incorrect concerning the composite cell/object. E.g., see Maksimenko ¶¶ 48, 70 and 79 and figs. 2A and 8B.
Second, the applicant alleges that the ‘new independent claim 16 includes the following: "wherein the first and second values are inserted next to each other into the cell and are directly visible." This second independent claim specifies that the first and second values are inserted next to each other into the cell and are directly visible. Campbell only shows that a cell can contain information provided in a second table. In our case, there is no second table, but the information is simply inserted as text.’ Remarks Page 7.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Concerning “inserted next to each other into the cell and are directly visible”, this is moot based on new grounds of rejected for the new claim 16.
Concerning applicant’s allegation that “Campbell only shows that a cell can contain information provided in a second table. In our case, there is no second table, but the information is simply inserted as text”, this is simply not correct. Although, when the cell is small, the composite information can be displayed in a small window next to the cell, the first and second values are inserted […] into the cell and are simultaneously visible [directly visible] within the cell, when cell is big enough to display the values or simultaneously near the cell, e.g., see ¶ 79 and figs. 3A and fig. 8B.
Third, the applicant relies on the arguments above to allege patentability of the remaining claims. Remarks Pages 7-8.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Boucher; Melissa Ming-Sak et al. US 20170315979 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a column can readily include richer embedded information than single data values within a cell of a table, ¶ 1383 and fig. 52.
Bloesch; Anthony C. et al. US 20080201355 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing that post-relational structures permit complex data values to be stored in a single table cell, ¶ 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171