DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 January 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (“Berger”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0218051, in view of Dougherty et al. (“Dougherty”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0157753, in further view of Gunawardena et al. (“Gunawardena”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0180030.
As per claim 1, Berger discloses a method for generating period-over-period
generating, by the workbook manager, a database statement to create the comparison value column, including organizing the comparison value column using values corresponding to the second set of dates in the date column ([0051] and [0055] wherein the values collected from the request screen presented to the user are collected by a generated SQL request and [Fig. 16] wherein comparison values are determined);
retrieving, by the workbook manager, the comparison value column from using the database statement ([0051] and [0077] wherein the comparison value data is retrieved); and presenting, by the workbook manager on the client computing system, the table comprising the comparison value column ([Fig. 16], [0052] and [0077] wherein the comparison value column is presented in the table), but does not disclose receiving, by a workbook manager from a client computing system via a graphical user interface, a selection of a date column and a prior period to create a comparison value column for a table, wherein the selection comprises an identifier of the date column and an identifier of the prior period; matching, by the workbook manager, a first set of dates in the date column to a second set of dates in the date column using the identifier of the date column and the identifier of the prior period, wherein each entry in the first set of dates is matched to a corresponding entry in the second set of dates; and wherein the comparison values are retrieved from a cloud- based data warehouse, wherein the table includes multiple entries for the prior period that correspond to a time unit smaller than the prior period. However, Dougherty teaches receiving, by a workbook manager from a client computing system via a graphical user interface, a selection of a date column ([0137] wherein a selection of data column is done by a client selecting the “data range comparison selector” while viewing a data column for a certain date range and a certain metric and [0160] wherein the columns shown can be selected by the client) and a prior period ([0137] wherein a prior period is selected by the client by selecting one of the “Compare Dates” such as “current period or “same time last year” using the “date range comparison selector”) to create a comparison value column for a table ([0149] wherein a change column is described), wherein the selection comprises an identifier of the date column and an identifier of the prior period ([0137] wherein identifiers are determined for the date column (metric in the prior art) and the date range (prior period in the prior art)); matching, by the workbook manager, a first set of dates in the date column to a second set of dates in the date column using the identifier of the date column and the identifier of the prior period ([0137] wherein the date range selector matches the day of the period displayed (previous period Oct 1-20, 2016 in the prior art) with Nov 1-20, 2016), wherein each entry in the first set of dates is matched to a corresponding entry in the second set of dates ([Fig. 9a] and [0137] wherein the dates from one set of dates );
and wherein the comparison values are retrieved from a cloud- based data warehouse ([0064] and [0069] wherein a cloud-based cluster database is described that takes SQL database requests), but does not teach wherein the table includes multiple entries for the prior period that correspond to a time unit smaller than the prior period. However, Gunawardena teaches wherein the table includes multiple entries for the prior period that correspond to a time unit smaller than the prior period ([0234] and [Fig. 10D] wherein the comparison column is for a year-over-year comparison but includes multiple entries for prior periods that are smaller, months being smaller than years).
Both Berger and Dougherty provide comparison columns for data using SQL to query a database. One could combine the query generating of Berger with the GUI selection and cloud data storage of Dougherty to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of generating queries to add comparison columns to tables in Berger with the GUI selection interface and cloud data storage in Dougherty in order to easily provide specialized reports to users using data from remote sources.
Gunawardena also provides for a comparison column for a previous period. One can include smaller increments of time during the comparison period as in Gunawardena with the interface and data gathering of both Berger and Dougherty to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of generating SQL queries for adding a comparison column to a table in a report using cloud date in the combination of Berger and Dougherty with the table including multiple smaller period for the comparison period as in Gunawardena in order to investigate in greater detail the period by evaluating the deviations within it.
As per claim 2, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein the selection further comprises a base value column and wherein creating the comparison value column further comprises joining the comparison value column to the base value column in the table within a database in the data warehouse. ([Fig. 16] wherein the original base value is joined with a comparison column to form the table), but does not disclose that the warehouse is a cloud-based data warehouse. However, Dougherty teaches that the warehouse is a cloud-based data warehouse ([0064] and [0069] wherein a cloud-based cluster database is described that takes SQL database requests).
Both Berger and Dougherty provide comparison columns for data using SQL to query a database. One could combine the query generating of Berger with the cloud data storage of Dougherty to teach the claimed invention. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. One such rationale is (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One could substitute the data warehouse in Berger with the cloud-based data warehouse in Dougherty and the results would be predictable since both use SQL to run queries and the destination of the query request would not affect the system.
.
As per claim 3, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Dougherty further teaches wherein matching the first set of dates in the date column to the second set of dates in the date column using the identifier of the prior period comprises determining a time period for rows in the date column ([0137] wherein the date range selector matches the day of the period displayed (previous period Oct 1-20, 2016 in the prior art) with Nov 1-20, 2016).
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Dougherty further teaches wherein organizing the comparison value column using values corresponding to the second set of dates in the date column comprises aggregating values in the comparison value column based on a time period for rows in the date column ([0143]-[0145] wherein a request can contain selections to truncate dates into a single value, such as a week or a month, thus aggregating values in the comparison column).
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein the generated database statement further creates a percent change column indicating a difference between entries in a base value column and entries in the comparison value column ([Fig. 16] and [0077] wherein a percent change is shown).
As per claim 6, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Dougherty further teaches wherein the request further selection comprises an instruction to truncate dates in the date column ([0143]-[0145] wherein a request can contain selections to truncate dates into a single value, such as a week or a month).
As per claim 8, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein retrieving the comparison value column from the warehouse using the database statement comprises issuing the database statement to the data warehouse ([0051] and [0055] wherein the values collected from the request screen presented to the user are collected by a generated SQL request and [Fig. 16] wherein comparison values are determined); and receiving query results comprising the comparison value column from the cloud- based data warehouse([0051] and [0077] wherein the comparison value data is retrieved), but does not disclose that the warehouse is a cloud-based data warehouse. However, Dougherty teaches that the warehouse is a cloud-based data warehouse ([0064] and [0069] wherein a cloud-based cluster database is described that takes SQL database requests).
Both Berger and Dougherty provide comparison columns for data using SQL to query a database. One could combine the query generating of Berger with the cloud data storage of Dougherty to teach the claimed invention. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. One such rationale is (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One could substitute the data warehouse in Berger with the cloud-based data warehouse in Dougherty and the results would be predictable since both use SQL to run queries and the destination of the query request would not affect the system.
As per claim 9, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein the database statement is a structured query language statement ([0050] wherein SQL is used to query the database).
As per claim 10, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1. Dougherty further teaches wherein the workbook manager is on an intermediary computing system between the client computing system and the cloud-based data warehouse ([0053] and [0070] wherein the client connects to a server that is the intermediary between the client and the cloud-based cluster server).
As per claim 11, Berger discloses an apparatus for generating period-over-period calculations using a cloud-based data warehouse, the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor ([0041]), the computer memory having disposed within its computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by the combination of the Berger in view of the Dougherty, in view of the Gunawardena reference, just as claim 1.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 3 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 14, claim 14 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 4 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 15, claim 15 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 5 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 16, claim 16 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 6 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 18, claim 18 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 8 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 9 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is a computer program product that performs the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Dougherty in further view of Gunawardena in further view of Radakovitz et al. (“Radakovitz”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0282325.
As per claim 7, note the rejection of claim 1 where Berger, Dougherty and Gunawardena are combined. The combination teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the table comprises null entries. However, Radakovitz teaches wherein the table comprises null entries ([0047] wherein the data source and table have a null value).
Berger, Dougherty and Radakovitz describe displaying data from a data source. One could include the null values from Radakovitz with the adding of a comparison column in Dougherty to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of adding a column for comparison time period data in Berger and Dougherty with the table including null values in Radakovitz in order to be able to handle instances where the data is missing or does not exist.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is the apparatus that performs the method of claim 7 and is rejected for the rationale and reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168