DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 16-20 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0124053 (“Campbell”), in view of Kjaer, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0091728 (“Kjaer”).
With regard to Claim 1, Campbell teaches a computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 12B) that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least:
receive, in a user interface of an application, a selection of a display format for a cell in a data table, wherein the display format defines visual arrangements of individual entries in cells based at least on entry characteristics of the individual entries ([0124] describes that a user can insert a compound object that defines content of a cell and formatting therefor when a cell is to contain multiple values, including a data structure which defines how content is presented);
receive multiple individual entries into the cell ([0124] describes that a user can input various values for the compound object); and
visually arrange the multiple individual entries in the cell based on an entry characteristic of each of the multiple individual entries and in accordance with the display format ([0045] describes that the data structure and cell an d card view properties of compound objects are created, and data in the object presented as specified).
Campbell does not teach the multiple individual entries in the cell as a set of cards layered in an order based on an entry characteristic. Kjaer describes at [0164] that a block of three-dimensional cells can be visualized on a spreadsheet as a stack of cell objects, which as shown in Fig. 1 are arranged as a stack of cards, each corresponding to one of the entries. [0100]-[0101] describe that the storeys that make up each of the elements of a block of cell entries can be sorted according to entered criteria. Fig. 6 shows a single cell can have its contents thusly displayed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kjaer with Campbell. Kjaer describes at [0014] that a disadvantage of the prior art is that it limits users possibilities of getting an overview of spreadsheet data and structure, when multiple sheets are required to contain data pertaining to different times, regions, etc. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Campbell with Kjaer, to improve user experience by providing more useful data views by using the stacked entries described therein.
Claim 9 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites one or media storing instructions to implement the apparatus of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Kjaer teaches that the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to, in response to receiving a user selection of the cell, display a new card for receiving a new entry to the cell. [0205]-[0215] describe that a user can make a selection to add a new story on top of an existing stack, which causes a new story to be created on top of the stack. [0203] describes that when creating a new storey, the new storey is displayed in place of the previously displayed storey.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kjaer with Campbell. Kjaer describes at [0014] that a disadvantage of the prior art is that it limits users possibilities of getting an overview of spreadsheet data and structure, when multiple sheets are required to contain data pertaining to different times, regions, etc. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Campbell with Kjaer, to improve user experience by providing more useful data views by using the stacked entries described therein.
Claim 10 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites one or media storing instructions to implement the apparatus of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Kjaer teaches that the entry characteristic comprises an order of entry of each of the multiple individual entries. [0216] describes that a newly created storey is placed on top of existing storeys, thereby placing cards in an order of creation as they are created in a stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kjaer with Campbell. Kjaer describes at [0014] that a disadvantage of the prior art is that it limits users possibilities of getting an overview of spreadsheet data and structure, when multiple sheets are required to contain data pertaining to different times, regions, etc. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Campbell with Kjaer, to improve user experience by providing more useful data views by using the stacked entries described therein.
Claim 11 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites one or media storing instructions to implement the apparatus of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Kjaer teaches that the entry characteristic comprises a user identity associated with each of the multiple individual entries. [0100] describes that storeys of a block can be sorted according to contents of the cells in the stack. Therefore, in the case of cells that contain names, cells can be sorted according to the user identified in each storey.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kjaer with Campbell. Kjaer describes at [0014] that a disadvantage of the prior art is that it limits users possibilities of getting an overview of spreadsheet data and structure, when multiple sheets are required to contain data pertaining to different times, regions, etc. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Campbell with Kjaer, to improve user experience by providing more useful data views by using the stacked entries described therein.
Claim 12 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites one or media storing instructions to implement the apparatus of Claim 4, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Kjaer teaches that the display format comprises at least a portion of an individual entry of the multiple individual entries, wherein the individual entry is determined based on the order. Fig. 1 shows that the stack can be visualized as a stack of cells where a portion of each individual entry is visible, in the order in which they are stored – as shown, the order is chronological from January to December.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kjaer with Campbell. Kjaer describes at [0014] that a disadvantage of the prior art is that it limits users possibilities of getting an overview of spreadsheet data and structure, when multiple sheets are required to contain data pertaining to different times, regions, etc. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Campbell with Kjaer, to improve user experience by providing more useful data views by using the stacked entries described therein.
Claim 13 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites one or media storing instructions to implement the apparatus of Claim 5, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Campbell teaches that the multiple individual entries comprise entries entered and committed to the cell at different times from other ones of the multiple individual entries. [0081] describes that a card view can be used to edit a compound object, allowing committing entries to the cell at different times.
Claim 14 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Campbell teaches that the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to receive user input comprising a request to display an expanded view of the multiple individual entries of the cell in the user interface. Fig. 3C shows various expanded views of each of a plurality of entries and data structures contained within a cell.
Claim 15 recites a method carried out by the computing apparatus of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Campbell teaches that to receive the selection of the display format for the cell, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to receive the selection of the display format for a column of the data table which includes the cell. [0079] describes that the content displayed in the cell from among the content values in the compound object are affected by the dimensions of the cell, thereby indicating that a selected column display width selects the display format for the compound object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Kjaer reference cures any deficiencies with regard to Campbell teaching or suggesting the elements of the amended claims.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057.
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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights