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 .
This final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on: 4/2/2026.
With regards to claims 11-20, their prior 35 USC § 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-18 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 Sakai (US Application: US 20020083100, published: Jun. 27, 2002, filed: Mar. 29, 2001).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19 and 20 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 Sakai (US Application: US 20020083100, published: Jun. 27, 2002, filed: Mar. 29, 2001) in view of Kolb et al (US Application: US 2020/0258046, published: Aug. 13, 2020, filed: Feb. 7, 2020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the queries". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 22 and 23 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 Kim et al (US Application: US 2025/0007870, published: Jan. 2, 2025, filed: Jun. 30, 2023).
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’; providing an input field that prompts for an input, wherein the user interface comprises a guide prompt providing text to enter into the input field.
However Kim et al teaches ‘selecting a transformation option to transform source data’; providing an input field that prompts for an input, wherein the user interface comprises a guide prompt providing text to enter into the input field ( Fig. 13A, paragraphs 0058, 0060 and 0305 of Kim et al was explained to teach a destination/target of content is identified/selected and an input command prompt field is presented to the user, which allows the user to enter text (such as natural language query/command-request) to enter into the input field. Also shown is an overlay guide prompt interface element that allows the user to select text that is applied to the input field. The user can reference the text (which the examiner interprets each available text as query/command-request) from the guide prompt (which presents/identifies selectable output transformation format options) to enter into the input command prompt field to perform a desired selected transformation upon target content).
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 (target content provisioning preferences) between a source and desired destination field (through an assistive dialog interface having interactive selectable options) such the selectable options would have further included an input field option that allows the user to select for the target content, a specific transformation format option (from a plurality of guided/suggested available transformation options the target content) to apply to the target content, as taught by Kim et al. The combination would have improved content being provisioned and presented flexible and user assisted guided customization of content.
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 and Kim et al teaches wherein the input comprises a natural language query (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Fig. 13A, paragraphs 0058, 0060 and 0305 of Kim et al was explained to teach a destination/target of content is identified/selected and an input command prompt field is presented to the user, which allows the user to enter text (such as natural language query/command-request) to enter into the input field. Also shown is an overlay guide prompt interface element that allows the user to select text that is applied to the input field. The user can reference the text (which the examiner interprets each available text as query/command-request) from the guide prompt (which presents/identifies selectable transformation format options) to enter into the input command prompt field to perform a desired selected transformation upon target content), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11, Schneider et al and Kim et al teaches a computer program product for 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; providing an input field that prompts for an input; transforming the source data into transformed data based on the transformation option and the input, wherein the transformed data is in a second format; 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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 et al and Sakai 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 and Kim 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 22. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider and Kim et al teaches wherein an answer to the queries to enter into the input field identify the second format ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Fig. 13A, paragraphs 0058, 0060 and 0305 of Kim et al was explained to teach a destination/target of content is identified/selected and an input command prompt field is presented to the user, which allows the user to enter text (such as natural language query/command-request) to enter into the input field. Also shown is an overlay guide prompt interface element that allows the user to select text that is applied to the input field. The user can reference the text (which the examiner interprets each available text as query/command-request) from the guide prompt (which presents/identifies selectable output transformation format options) to enter into the input command prompt field to perform a desired selected transformation upon target content), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 23, the method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider and Kim 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, Fig. 13A, paragraphs 0058, 0060 and 0305 of Kim et al was explained to teach a destination/target of content is identified/selected and an input command prompt field is presented to the user, which allows the user to enter text (such as natural language query/command-request) to enter into the input field. Also shown is an overlay guide prompt interface element that allows the user to select text that is applied to the input field. The user can reference the text (which the examiner interprets each available text as query/command-request) from the guide prompt (which presents/identifies selectable output transformation format options) to enter into the input command prompt field to perform a desired selected transformation upon target content), 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 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).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, Schneider and Kim 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 Schneider et al and Kim 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 et al, Kim 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 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).
With regards to claim 21. The method of claim 1, the combination of Schneider et al and Kim 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 et al and Kim 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.
Claim(s) 24 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 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).
With regards to claim 24, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Schneider et al and Kim et al teaches wherein the first format … wherein the second format, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not teach … wherein the first format comprises a quantity of a first set of units and the second format comprise a quantity of a second set of units.
Yet Willis et al teaches … wherein the first format comprises a quantity of a first set of units and the second format comprise a quantity of a second set of units (Fig. 8, column 16, lines 6-25: an assistive interface is provided to allow a user to select conversion from a first set of units to a second set of 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 Kim et al’s ability to convert/transform target content data between source and destination fields based on an assistive interface and user input, such that the interface could have been provided/invoked to proactively suggest a unit(s) transformation based upon rule(s), as taught by Willis et al. The combination would have allowed implemented a more robust interoperability solution when assessing data formats.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues the combination of Schneider and Sakai do not teach the newly amended limitation concerning at least that the guide prompt providing text to inter into the input field. In response to the amendments (which have necessitated a new grounds of rejection), the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to a new combination of references (Schneider in view of Kim et al) in the rejection of claim 1 above for an explanation for how the limitations of claim 1 are now taught.
With regards to claim 11, the applicant argues that it is allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus the arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to the dependent claims, the applicant argues they are allowable for reasons by virtue of their dependency upon their corresponding independent claim(s). However this argument is not persuasive since the independent claims have been shown/explained to be rejected 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.
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