DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Application filed on 4/5/2024 with effective filing date of 4/5/2024.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “492B” has been used to designate in two different places in Fig. 4F.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description (paragraphs in specification as filed):
492C in [62].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. (US Pub 20230325587, hereinafter Sarkar), in view of Weber et al. (US Pub 20060129929, hereinafter Weber).
Per claim 1, Sarkar teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to: ([0089-0090] Fig. 19 shows a computing system with storage 1903 storing program instructions);
display, in a digital environment, a user interface for defining a formula to perform within a table in the digital environment, wherein the table includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns; ([0056] Fig. 4 shows a user interface of a spreadsheet application having a table with a plurality of rows and columns, where there is a user interface 403 for defining a formula to perform within the table);
;
receive a selection, via the user interface, of a first identifier corresponding to a first column and an input to define an operation to be performed on a value in the first column; and ([0041-0042, 0056-0057] Fig. 4: user may enter column header names (identifier for first column) directly into a column cell with a formula (operation), e.g. column 2 + column 3 (input defining operation), so that the new column’s value is performed based on a value from column 2 and column 3; or formula auto-fill can suggest to users what formula to use, and upon acceptance from the user, populate the formula with needed values such as column names as parameters for the formula; see Fig. 4 as an example);
store the formula in association with a second column of the table, wherein the formula is executable to modify a value in the second column of the table based on performing the operation on the value in the first column. ([0041] Fig. 4: Fig. 4 shows user entered a formula of sum of score 1-score 3 columns into header cell F2 (formula stored in second column F), where it’s stored for the entire column, where the formula is executed for each cell in the column F based on values from columns score 1- score 3; also see [0062-0063] Fig. 6 flowchart).
Although Sarkar teaches using a column header as identifier directly as part of the user input to create a formula, or include formula auto-fill to automatic suggest and populate formula and column names as parameters, but Sarkar does not explicitly teach populating identifiers for each of the plurality of columns for user selection. However, Weber teaches:
… populate an identifier of each of the plurality of columns into the user interface for selection by a user; … ([0035] Fig. 6 shows a list of autocompletion options for completing a formulaic cell, where column names as identifiers are included for user selection to complete the formula).
Weber and Sarker are analogous art because Weber also teaches method of editing an formula for use on tables in a spreadsheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Sarkar and Weber before him/her, to modify the teachings of Sarkar to include the teachings of Weber so that a listing of all column headers can be presented as selectable options for users to complete the formula for a table as part of the autocomplete suggestions for building formula. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve usability by providing a list of suggestions as part of the building a formula for a table based on user input, so that online help is provided for building formula without requiring user to memorize name, arguments, other objects required in the formula, thereby improving user experiences (Weber [0002-0006]).
Per claim 2, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the formula is executable to modify a value in each of the plurality of rows of the second column. (Sarkar: [0056-0057] Fig. 4 shows after the formula for column F has been stored, the formula is executed to populate values into each row for the column F based on the formula).
Per claim 3, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to:
receive an input, via the user interface, to create the formula; and in response to the input, execute the formula to write the value in each of the plurality of rows of the second column. (Sarkar: [0056-0057] Fig. 4 shows user input into cell F2 for creating the formula, and in response, the function/formula is carried out for each row of the column F; also see [0062-0063] Fig. 6 flowchart).
Per claim 4, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to:
receive an input, via the user interface, to edit the formula; and in response to the input, execute the formula to modify the value in each of the plurality of rows of the second column based on the edited formula. (Sarkar: [0068] Fig. 9 shows when a user triggers a column operation, i.e. edit/change formula, and applies the operation to the column, engine of the spreadsheet application updates column metadata, and applies column operation to the range of the column).
Per claim 5, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to:
detect a change to a value in a first row of the first column; and in response to detecting the change, execute the formula to modify a value in the first row of the second column based on the change. (Sarkar: [0058-0060] Fig. 5 shows steps where a cell event, i.e. cell value change, falls within a special range of any user defined rules, i.e. formula instructions, table column instructions are then read and carried out for the associated column).
Per claim 9, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein displaying the user interface comprises populating the user interface with an identifier of one or more metadata attributes of the table for selection by the user. (Weber: [0035-0036, 0059] Fig. 7 shows a list of selectable special items 710 pertaining to the pivot table, where “#Totals” means the total number of rows for the table).
Per claim 10, claim 10 is a system claim with at least one hardware processor (Sarkar [0089, 0091] Fig. 19 processor 1902) and at least on non-transitory memory (Sarkar [0089-0090] Fig. 19 storage system 1903) that include limitations that are mostly the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected by the rejection set forth above for claim 1 by Sarkar-Weber; claim 10 further includes the additional limitation of “populate, into the user interface for selection by a user: … an identifier of one or more metadata attributes of the table”, which is taught by Weber ([0035-0036, 0059] Fig. 7 shows a list of selectable special items 710 pertaining to the pivot table, where “#Totals” means the total number of rows for the table; also see Fig. 6 with special items 610) using the same rationale for combining Weber with Sarkar as claim 1.
Per claim 11-14, claims 11-14 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2-5 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 17, claim 17 is a method claim that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Claims 6, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Sarkar, in view of Weber, and Campbell et al. (US Pub 20170124049, hereinafter Campbell).
Per claim 6, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 2, and does not explicitly teach “determining an expected output data type of an output of the formula; displaying one or more formatting options for the output of the formula that are selected based on the expected output data type; wherein the formula is executable to apply, to the value in the second column of the table, a selected formatting option from the one or more displayed formatting options”.
However, Campbell teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface further comprises:
determining an expected output data type of an output of the formula; ([0101-0102] Fig. 8 shows at step 802, the identification component identifies each of the units in a formula, and determines associated unit/data type for the formula; also see Fig. 7A-7B)
displaying one or more formatting options for the output of the formula that are selected based on the expected output data type; (Fig. 7A shows display of selectable formatting options for the output of the formula “C2+C3”, based on the expected output unit/data type, which is determined from step 802 from Fig. 8; also see [0102-0104]);
wherein the formula is executable to apply, to the value in the second column of the table, a selected formatting option from the one or more displayed formatting options. ([0097-0099] Fig. 7B shows that after a formatting option was selected in Fig. 7A, the result of the formula that was executed is displayed based on the selected formatting option).
Campbell and Sarker-Weber are analogous art because Campbell also teaches method of using formula in a table from a spreadsheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Sarker-Weber and Campbell before him/her, to modify the teachings of Sarker-Weber to include the teachings of Campbell so the data type/unit of a formula can be evaluated/validated so the correct data type/unit can be displayed based on formula. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve usability by including data type validation when calculation through formula are being made to ensure accuracy of the data within the current context (Campbell [0002-0004]), thereby improving user experiences.
Per claim 15, claim 15 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 6, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 8, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach: “determine a data type of data in the first column; determining a permissible data type of the operation; and outputting an error when the data type of the data in the first ”.
However, Campbell teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to:
determine a data type of data in the first column; ([0101-0102] Fig. 8 shows at step 802, the identification component identifies each of the units in a formula, i.e. a data type of data in the first column that is used in the formula and data type in the second column used in the formula, and determines associated unit/data type for the formula; also see Fig. 4 [0073-0075])
determining a permissible data type of the operation; and ([0102-0103] the identification then determines for the operation of the formula if consistent units are required for each value in the operation, and offer conversion is necessary, in step 804-810 from Fig. 8; also see Fig. 4 [0073-0075]);
outputting an error when the data type of the data in the first ( [0073-0075] Fig. 4 shows when the SUM operation for two values B2 and B3 are not compatible units and be added together, B2 is a date value, and B3 is a currency value, an error in cell B4 406 and an error message 418 are displayed).
Campbell and Sarker-Weber are analogous art because Campbell also teaches method of using formula in a table from a spreadsheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Sarker-Weber and Campbell before him/her, to modify the teachings of Sarker-Weber to include the teachings of Campbell so that the data type/unit of a formula can be evaluated for validity based on the operation and error message displayed if invalid units are involved for the operation. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide validation for the formula being built, and generate error messages when the validation fails, to ensure accuracy and validity of the formula being built (Campbell [0002-0004]), thereby improving user experiences.
Claims 7, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Sarkar, in view of Weber, and Weber et al. (US Pub 20060224947, Weber4947).
Per claim 7, Sarkar-Weber teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach “providing, within the user interface, a formula definition region configured to display aspects of the formula while the formula is being defined; wherein the formula definition region is configured to display the aspects of the formula on two or more lines, and wherein line breaks between the two or more lines are ignored during execution of the formula”.
However, Weber4947 teaches:
wherein displaying the user interface comprises:
providing, within the user interface, a formula definition region configured to display aspects of the formula while the formula is being defined; ([0022, 0045-0047] Fig. 4-5 show a formula definition region 404, 504 that can be used to define a formula);
wherein the formula definition region is configured to display the aspects of the formula on two or more lines, and wherein line breaks between the two or more lines are ignored during execution of the formula. ([0022, 0045-0047] Fig. 4-5 show the text box to define formula can expand to multiple lines, and execute as single command for the defined formula; it’s obvious line break, whether present or not, will be ignored for execution of the formula command).
Weber4947 and Sarker-Weber are analogous art because Weber4947 also teaches method of using formula in a table from a spreadsheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Sarker-Weber and Weber4947 before him/her, to modify the teachings of Sarker-Weber to include the teachings of Weber4947 so that the formula define region can be expanded to multiple lines for building a formula, and enabling users to resize the formula define region as needed. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide flexibility on the user interface to accommodate larger more complex formula that can be not fit into one line in addition to shorter simple formula, thereby improving user experiences.
Per claim 16, 20, claim 16 and 20 each include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 7, and are likewise rejected as claim 7.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights