DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 02/06/2026. Claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an extensible markup language (XML) converter” in claim 20 (whose corresponding structure appears to be described in paragraph 34 of the original specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohraz et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0234886, hereinafter “Mohraz”) in view of Hattori et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0147711, hereinafter “Hattori”).
As to independent claims 1, 12, and 20, Mohraz shows a computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory program storage media on which are stored instructions executable by one or more processors or programmable circuits [¶ 08], a method [¶ 04], and a concomitant system [¶ 06] to perform operations for generating a user-formatted report [“REPORT DESIGNER TOOL AND METHOD” (Title) | ¶ 04], comprising:
providing a first graphical user interface [figs. 1A & 4-6] by which a user may define one or more ranges of measures respectively for one or more attributes of user account data [a user may define, via a first GUI (figs. 1A & 4-6), one or more ranges of measures (which may be comprised of one or more values/cells (¶ 22), rows/columns (¶ 22), and/or groups/levels of data (¶¶ 26 & 33)) respectively for one or more attributes/values of any kind of data (including data that may be attributed with the non-functional descriptive material/label of “user account”) | figs. 1A & 4-6],
query a database to retrieve [processing a query to a database/”warehouse” to retrieve the user account data falling within the one or more ranges of measures (¶ 04)],
define columns and rows of data based on the retrieved user account data [defining columns and rows of data based on the retrieved user account data (¶¶ 02 & 22)], and view the columns and rows of data as a table [the queried columns and rows of data may be viewed as a basic/pre-formatted table (see, for example, illustration of what a basic table/query output may be first “viewed as” in fig. 1A). “An example of a report is a table of columns and rows, where the intersection of one column and one row defines a cell that includes one object of data from the query.” (¶ 02)]; and,
in response to a request received over the graphical user interface, converting the table to a file having an extensible markup language (XML) format that defines one or more dynamic groups of rows or columns corresponding respectively to the one or more ranges of measures [The table may be converted/exported to a file having an XML format (fig. 7) that defines one or more dynamic groups of rows or columns corresponding respectively to the one or more ranges of measures (¶¶ 03, 07, 28, & 34). In other words, the specifications of a queried/original table may be converted/exported into a report template XML file via which the format of an original table/report may be further dynamically customized. See, for example, how “FIGS. 1B and 1C illustrate various alternative examples of a report. FIG. 1B shows a report 102 where dimension member rows can be configured to alternate shading from one row to the next, and where detail or result rows are interspersed within the dimension member rows. FIG. 1C shows another example row 104 in which rows are configurable for variable widths based on a column. The system and method for designing a report also supports various hierarchies and structures of BW queries. FIG. 1D shows a report formatted and rendered as a Microsoft Excel™ spreadsheet.” (¶ 25).].
Mohraz does not appear to explicitly recite a “providing a first graphical user interface by which a user may {…} query a database to retrieve one or more items of the user account data that fall within the one or more ranges of measures” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Hattori shows:
providing a first graphical user interface by which a user may define one or more ranges of measures respectively for one or more attributes of user account data, query a database to retrieve one or more items of the user account data that fall within the one or more ranges of measures [Hattori provides a first graphical user interface (fig. 44) by which a user may define one or more ranges of measures respectively for one or more attributes of user account data (via region W11 in fig. 44; ¶ 324), query a database to retrieve one or more items of the user account data that fall within the one or more ranges of measures (figs. 44 & 47; ¶¶ 322-326, 344-348, & 363-365). | For further context/examples of querying ranges of measures to retrieve one or more items, see also ¶¶ 414-417 & 422-428.]
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mohraz and Hattori before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Hattori’s graphical user interface techniques allowing it to define one or more ranges of measures and query a database to retrieve one or more items that fall within the one or more ranges of measures into Mohraz. The rationale for doing so would have been that Mohraz was already concerned with processing analogous queries, and by incorporating Hattori’s techniques, the one or more items in Mohraz “that match a retrieval condition can be easily retrieved” (Hattori: ¶ 366). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mohraz and Hattori (hereinafter, the “Mohraz-Hattori” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1, 12, and 20.
As to dependent claims 2 and 13, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
providing a second graphical user interface by which a user may customize a spreadsheet generated from the file [a second graphical user interface may be provided by which a user may customize a spreadsheet generated from the file (Mohraz: fig. 1D; ¶¶ 03, 25, & 29-30)].
As to dependent claims 3 and 14, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein said customizing includes customizing a report template that is produced from the file [“FIG. 4 shows an exemplary screen shot of a report designer. The report designer includes a report template 400 that is configurable by a user to define the formatting and layout of a report. {…}” (Mohraz: ¶ 31) | See also Mohraz: ¶ 06], the spreadsheet being generated using the report template [the spreadsheet is generated using the report template (Mohraz: fig. 1D; ¶¶ 03, 25, & 29-30)].
As to dependent claims 4 and 15, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the one or more dynamic groups is embedded in the report template [the one or more dynamic groups (of rows or columns) are embedded in the report template (Mohraz: figs. 5-6; ¶¶ 22-23, 26, & 30-34)].
As to dependent claims 5 and 16, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein each of the one or more dynamic groups embedded in the report template is expandable over the respective attribute [each of the one or more dynamic groups (of rows or columns) embedded in the report template has the possibility of being expanded over the respective attribute (Mohraz: figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 22-23, 26, & 30-34)].
As to dependent claims 6 and 17, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
providing a second graphical user interface by which a user may customize a report template that is produced from the file [“FIG. 4 shows an exemplary screen shot of a report designer. The report designer includes a report template 400 that is configurable by a user to define the formatting and layout of a report. {…}” (Mohraz: ¶ 31) | See also Mohraz: ¶ 06.].
As to dependent claims 7 and 18, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the one or more dynamic groups is embedded in the report template [the one or more dynamic groups (of rows or columns) are embedded in the report template (Mohraz: figs. 5-6; ¶¶ 22-23, 26, & 30-34)].
As to dependent claims 8 and 19, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein each of the one or more dynamic groups embedded in the report template is expandable over the respective attribute [each of the one or more dynamic groups (of rows or columns) embedded in the report template has the possibility of being expanded over the respective attribute (Mohraz: figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 22-23, 26, & 30-34)].
As to dependent claim 9, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the first graphical user interface further allows the user to define one or more filters for further limiting the user account data retrieved from the database [the first graphical user interface further allows the user to define one or more filters/”rules”/”patterns” for further limiting the user account data retrieved from the database (Mohraz: ¶¶ 07, 10, 26, & 30-31)], and
the file having the XML format further defines a filter for each of the one or more filters defined by the user [each of the filters/”rules”/”patterns” are further defined in the XML file (Mohraz: fig. 7; ¶¶ 03, 07, 28, & 34)].
As to dependent claim 10, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the one or more filters includes a filter that applies to a designated one of the columns and rows of data [the one or more filters may include a filter that applies to a designated/specific one of the columns and rows of data (Mohraz: ¶¶ 26 & 30-31)].
As to dependent claim 11, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the one or more filters includes a filter that applies globally to the retrieved user account data [the one or more filters may include a filter that applies globally to the retrieved/entire user account data (Mohraz: ¶¶ 02, 26, & 30-31)].
As to dependent claim 22, Mohraz-Hattori further shows:
wherein the file having the XML format defines information for transforming the retrieved user account data into the user-formatted report but without containing color formatting information or font formatting information [the file having the XML format defines information for transforming the retrieved user account data into the user-formatted report (Mohraz: ¶¶ 04 & 25). Mohraz does not recite the XML file itself containing color formatting information or font formatting information.].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohraz and Hattori in further view of Zhao (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0018249, hereinafter “Zhao”).
As to dependent claim 21, Mohraz-Hattori further shows a cloud/server system (Mohraz: ¶¶ 38-39). Nonetheless, Mohraz-Hattori does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein the second graphical user interface further allows the user to upload the report template to a cloud portal” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Zhao shows:
wherein the second graphical user interface further allows the user to upload the report template to a cloud portal [Zhao shows an operability wherein a graphical user interface allows the user to upload the report template to a cloud portal (Zhao: ¶ 35).].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mohraz, Hattori, and Zhao before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Zhao’s cloud-uploading techniques into the Mohraz-Hattori combination. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the user experience by amplifying the accessibility of Mohraz-Hattori’s report templates by enabling their access via any cloud-connected device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mohraz, Hattori, and Zhao in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Mohraz fails to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 1 including "providing a first graphical user interface by which a user may define one or more ranges of measures respectively for one or more attributes of user account data, query a database to retrieve user account data falling within the one or more ranges of measures, define columns and rows of data based on the retrieved user account data, and view the columns and rows of data as a table." According to the Office Action, these features are shown in Figs. lA and 4-6 of Mohraz and variously described in paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0022], [0026], and [0033]. However, none of the user interfaces shown or described by Mohraz allow a user to define ranges or query a database as claimed. Indeed, Mohraz is silent with respect to these aspects and only describes a system/method that presupposes the existence of a query. Mohraz's teachings center on creating a template that defines formatting rules and then applying the template to a preexisting query to produce a formatted report. There is no discussion of how the query comes into being and there is no user interface that appears to be capable of defining one or querying a database with one. {…}”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant premise appears to be based on the allegation that Mohraz limits itself to “applying the template to a preexisting query.” The Office respectfully disagrees and submits that Mohraz’s templates do not exist in a vacuum. They instead rely on data that is actively retrieved via a query in order to be able to create a report out of this queried data. Applicant’s arguments are also unpersuasive because Mohraz repeatedly interacts either with the query itself and/or with graphical representations of the query when designing the query-based report template. See, for example, how “A BW query is generated based on a query of the BW database” (Mohraz: ¶ 27); how “The BW system returns a BW query based on the user query to the database” (¶ 28); etc. In other words, the queries of Mohraz are not preexisting as Applicant alleges, but rather are actively generated in Mohraz’s invention. Moreover, it is noted that the addition of the “one or more items” limitation to the “user account data” has altered the scope of the claims, which led to the addition of the Hattori reference included above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Nonomura, Katsuhiko et al.
US 20020143742 A1
“providing a first graphical user interface by which a user may define one or more ranges of measures respectively for one or more attributes of user account data, query a database to retrieve one or more items of the user account data that fall within the one or more ranges of measures”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights