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 .
The 35 USC 112 rejection for claim 22 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, 20, 22 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Kim et al (US Application: US 2025/0007870, published: Jan. 2, 2025, filed: Jun. 30, 2023).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Kim et al (US Application: US 2025/0007870, published: Jan. 2, 2025, filed: Jun. 30, 2023) in view of Sakai (US Application: US 20020083100, published: Jun. 27, 2002, filed: Mar. 29, 2001).
Claim(s) 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Kim et al (US Application: US 2025/0007870, published: Jan. 2, 2025, filed: Jun. 30, 2023) in view of Bierner et al (US Application: US 20080215976, published: Sep. 4, 2008, filed: Nov. 26, 2007).
Claim(s) 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Kim et al (US Application: US 2025/0007870, published: Jan. 2, 2025, filed: Jun. 30, 2023) in view of Willis et al (US Patent: 11587652, issued: Feb. 21, 2023, filed: Nov. 26, 2019).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, 20, 23, and 25 – 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Sobhy Deraz (US Application: US 20240303441, published: Sep. 12, 2024, filed: Apr. 28, 2023) in view of Willis et al (US Patent: 11587652, issued: Feb. 21, 2023, field: Nov. 26, 2019).
With regards to claim 1, Schneider et al teaches a method executed by a transformation engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the method comprising:
selecting a [transfer] option to transform source data of a source field, wherein the source data is in a first format (paragraph 0094: source fields are first mapped to destination fields of a provider’s form prior to input/selection-option provided to the user, given at least a bulk amount of reference values recognized in a catalog for transfer. The user is presented an option to choose to mapping to transfer value(s) of each specific field to the destination provider field(s) should there be a degree of uncertainty or if there are subsequent lack of defined linkage between additional specific source and additional destination fields. The user is able make a map/link-selection to transfer the values of source fields to the destination fields based upon user selection based upon prompts to the user to make selection(s). As also explained in paragraphs 0156-159: the value transfers further include additional transformation of field data from source data in a first format to a second format configured for the target provider’s form’s field to be used with the user selected mapping(s)/selection(s));
providing an input [assistive dialog] within a user interface for display on a screen to a user (paragraphs 0094 and 0156-0159: an assistive dialog accepts user input to make a selection (a user making a selection impacts targeting and content of a destination field) ;
transforming the source data into transformed data based on the [transfer] option and the input, wherein the transformed data is in a second format (paragraphs 0094 and 0156-0159: the source data is transformed to a different target provider’s format according to transformation logic that includes a macro engine (interpreted as a type of model) to apply macros to perform transformation into a target/second format); and
providing the transformed data to a destination field (paragraphs 0094 and 0156-0159: the source data is transformed to a different target provider’s format and the value is provided based on the mapping).
As explained above, Schneider et al teaches selecting a selecting a … ‘transfer’ option to ‘transfer’ and optionally transform source data, however Schneider et al does not expressly the ‘selecting a transformation option to transform source data, wherein the source data is in a first format comprising a first set of units’; providing an input field that prompts for an input, wherein the user interface comprises a guide prompt providing example transformation queries identifying transformations of the source data from the first format to a second format; … the transformed data is in the second format comprising a quantity of a second set of units.
However Sobhy Deraz teaches … the ‘selecting a transformation option to transform source data, wherein the source data …; providing an input field that prompts for an input, wherein the user interface comprises a guide prompt providing example transformation queries identifying transformations of the source data (paragraphs 0020, 0066 and 0087: source data such as a table or spreadsheet-object in a spreadsheet is selected from user input using a task pane interface/tool-tip, based upon a prompt provided as a NLP query/question for processing the source data of a table or spreadsheet object (via a LLM natural language processing model taking the input/arguments). Within this task pane interface additional examples can be further provided for task /query execution for processing the source data/spreadsheet object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Schneider et al’s ability to allow a user to selectively indicate target content preferences between a source and destination field (through an assistive dialog having interactive selectable options) such that the selectable options would have further included an input field option that allows the user to select for the target content, as specific processing option, as taught by Sobhy Deraz. The combination would have allowed Schneider et al to have integrated LLM services in a spreadsheet environment through processing a natural language input and provided the user with desired spreadsheet data processing based upon the processing.
However Schneider et al and Soby Deraz does not expressly teach … transform source data, wherein the source data is in a first format comprising a first set of units; … transformations of the source data from the first format to a second format; … the transformed data is in the second format comprising a quantity of a second set of units.
Yet Willis et al teaches … transform source data, wherein the source data is in a first format comprising a first set of units; … transformations of the source data from the first format to a second format; … the transformed data is in the second format comprising a quantity of a second set of units (column 6, lines 65-67, column 7, lines 1-5: source data can be suggested to transform first data having temperature units to a second format having different second units).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Schneider et al and Sobhy Deraz’s ability to allow the user to trigger an application to take in a NLP query to process and transform field data through an interface that includes suggestions , such that each of the suggestions could have included the ability to include transformation of units, as taught by Willis et al. The combination would have allowed Schneider et al and Sobhy Deraz to have reduced potential exceptions/issues by normalizing record data to be in a compatible/acceptable format.
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation engine maps one or more source fields of a first document, form, or page comprising the source field to one or more destination fields of a second document, form, or page prior comprising the destination field prior to the selection of the transformation option, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 0094 of Schneider: source fields are first mapped to destination fields of a provider’s form prior to input/selection-option provided to the user, given at least a bulk amount of reference values recognized in a catalog for transfer. The user is presented an option to choose to mapping to transfer value(s) of each specific field to the destination provider field(s) should there be a degree of uncertainty or if there are subsequent lack of defined linkage between additional specific source and additional destination fields. The user is able make a map/link-selection to transfer the values of source fields to the destination fields based upon user selection based upon prompts to the user to make selection(s). As also explained in paragraphs 0156-159 of Schneider: the value transfers further include additional transformation of field data from source data in a first format to a second format configured for the target provider’s form’s field to be used with the user selected mapping(s)/selection(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 2, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the source data comprises bulk information copied from the first document, form, or page comprising the one or more source fields configured in the first format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 0094 of Schneider: source fields are first mapped to destination fields of a provider’s form prior to input/selection-option provided to the user, given at least a bulk amount of reference values recognized in a catalog for transfer. The user is presented an option to choose to mapping to transfer value(s) of each specific field to the destination provider field(s) should there be a degree of uncertainty or if there are subsequent lack of defined linkage between additional specific source and additional destination fields. The user is able make a map/link-selection to transfer the values of source fields to the destination fields based upon user selection based upon prompts to the user to make selection(s). As also explained in paragraphs 0156-159 of Schneider: the value transfers further include additional transformation of field data from source data in a first format to a second format configured for the target provider’s form’s field to be used with the user selected mapping(s)/selection(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 2, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the one or more destination fields are configured in the second format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 0094 of Schneider: source fields are first mapped to destination fields of a provider’s form prior to input/selection-option provided to the user, given at least a bulk amount of reference values recognized in a catalog for transfer. The user is presented an option to choose to mapping to transfer value(s) of each specific field to the destination provider field(s) should there be a degree of uncertainty or if there are subsequent lack of defined linkage between additional specific source and additional destination fields. The user is able make a map/link-selection to transfer the values of source fields to the destination fields based upon user selection based upon prompts to the user to make selection(s). As also explained in paragraphs 0156-159 of Schneider: the value transfers further include additional transformation of field data from source data in a first format to a second format configured for the target provider’s form’s field to be used with the user selected mapping(s)/selection(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation of the source data comprises providing the source data, the transformation option, and the input to a model and obtaining the transformed data from the model, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraphs 0094 and 0156-0159 of Schneider: the source data is transformed to a different target provider’s format according to transformation logic (based on user map option) that includes a macro engine (interpreted as a type of model) to apply macros to perform transformation into a target/second format), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, Schneider teaches wherein the input is automatically entered into the input field and causes transformation engine to transform the source data into the transformed data (paragraph 0051-0053 and 0097: an interactive filed linker is used to automatically provide available /selectable input fields and a suggestion(s) can be provided for the user input mapping )
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the input comprises a natural language query (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 in paragraph 0066 and 0087 from Sobhy Deraz: an NLP query can be accepted as input. As also explained in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Schneider at al, Soby Deraz and Willis et al teaches the input is used to transform source data to a transformed data of a second format), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11, Schneider et al, Sobhy Deraz, and Willis et al teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a transformation engine stored as processor executable code on a memory of a computing environment and executed by at least one processor of the computing environment to cause operations within the computing environment, the operations comprising: selecting a transformation option to transform source data of a source field, wherein the source data is in a first format comprising a quantity of a first set of units; providing an input field that prompts for an input, wherein the user interface comprises a guide prompt providing example transformation queries identifying transformations of the source data from the first format to a second form; transforming the source data into transformed data based on the transformation option and the input, wherein the transformed data is in the second format comprising a quantity of second set of units; and providing the transformed data to a destination field, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The computer program product of claim 11, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation engine maps one or more source fields of a first document, form, or page comprising the source field to one or more destination fields of a second document, form, or page prior comprising the destination field prior to the selection of the transformation option, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The computer program product of claim 12, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the source data comprises bulk information copied from the first document, form, or page comprising the one or more source fields configured in the first format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The computer program product of claim 12, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the one or more destination fields are configured in the second format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The computer program product of claim 11, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation of the source data comprises providing the source data, the transformation option, and the input to a model and obtaining the transformed data from the model, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The computer program product of claim 11, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the input is automatically entered into the input field and causes transformation engine to transform the source data into the transformed data, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, which depends on claim 11, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the input comprises a natural language query, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 23, the method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the guide prompt comprises a tool tip providing text guidance, as the text, and wherein the text guidance identifies queries to enter into the input field format ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Sobhy Deraz was explained to teach an interface/tool-tip interface that presents suggested queries to be part of the input entry and Schneider and Sobhy Deraz was explained in the rejection of claim 1 to be modified with Willis et al’s teachings to include unit transformations for the query suggestions), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 25, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein transforming the source data comprises providing the source data, the transformation option, and the input to a natural language processing model, and wherein the natural language processing model generates arguments for a conversion function to transform the source data from the first format to the second format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (the combination was explained to teach that suggestions could be transformation option(s) and the input is provided to a LLM processing model to perform an act/transformation upon data ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 26, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation engine determines a scope of the transformation as one of a general transformation using a built-in conversion model or an advanced transformation using natural language processing, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (the combination was explained to teach that suggestions could be transformation option(s) such as a scope of transformation related to temperature units. Also in the rejection of claim 1, it was explained that the input is provided to a ‘built in’ LLM processing model to perform an act/transformation upon data ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Sobhy Deraz (US Application: US 20240303441, published: Sep. 12, 2024, filed: Apr. 28, 2023) in view of Willis et al (US Patent: 11587652, issued: Feb. 21, 2023, field: Nov. 26, 2019) in view of Sakai (US Application: US 20020083100, published: Jun. 27, 2002, filed: Mar. 29, 2001).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the transformation options is selected from one or more options, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … selected from one or more options including date transformation options, address transformation options, currency transformation options, and temperature transformation options.
Yet Sakai teaches … selected from one or more options including date transformation options, address transformation options, currency transformation options, and temperature transformation options (the address /locale selection is tied to different destination formats such as date and address as explained in Sakai, paragraph 0003, Fig. 1, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al’s ability to allow a user to select to transfer and transform (target content) between a source and destination, such that suggested transform options would have included an option to apply a locale type transformation to target content, as taught by Sakai. The combination would have allowed Schneider et al and Kim et al to have customized presentation of a document’s data format(s) to specific context (transformation/format specific to a locale), see paragraph 0005 of Sakai.
With regards to claim 17. The computer program product of claim 11, Schneider, Sobhy Deraz, Willis et al and Sakai teaches wherein the transformation options is selected from one or more options including date transformation options, address transformation options, currency transformation options, and temperature transformation options, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (US Application: US 2007/0256005, published: Nov. 1, 2007, filed: Apr. 26, 2006) in view of Sobhy Deraz (US Application: US 20240303441, published: Sep. 12, 2024, filed: Apr. 28, 2023) in view of Willis et al (US Patent: 11587652, issued: Feb. 21, 2023, field: Nov. 26, 2019)in view of Bierner et al (US Application: US 20080215976, published: Sep. 4, 2008, filed: Nov. 26, 2007).
With regards to claim 21. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al teaches wherein the guide prompt overlays the user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1.
However the combination does not expressly teach the guide prompt … identifies the input field.
Yet Bierner et al teaches identifies the input field (Fig 2, paragraph 0035, 0036: cascaded guide prompts can each be an overlay and can include an indicator to identify /direct attention to a field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Schneider, Sobhy Deraz and Willis et al’s ability to implement an input field that has an associated guide prompt, such that the guide prompt could have visually provided an indicator that directs/points to a field of focus, as taught by Bierner et al. The combination would have reduced user frustration for form/field data entry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues with respect to the latest claim language amendments that neither Schneider nor Kim teaches guide prompts that include transformation. In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the amendments, the examiner respectfully points out that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and necessitated a new grounds of rejection. More specifically, the examiner directs applicant’s attention to how Schneider et al is newly combined with Soby Deraz and Willis et al to address/teach the applicant’s newly amended limitations.
With regards to claim 11, the applicant argues it is allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to the dependent claims, the applicant argues they are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claims 1 and/or 11. However claims 1 and 11 have been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights