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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on April 9th, 2024, which claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claim 1 is presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites limitation “with a third-party spreadsheet is performed” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be -- with [[a]] the third-party spreadsheet is performed --.
Claim 1 recites limitation “and generate provide a compiled production-ready build” lines 12-13, which contains a typographical error. It should be “and generate [[provide]] a compiled production-ready build” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 1 recites limitation “instructs builder system” in line 16. It should be -- instructs the builder system --.
Claim 1 recites limitation “a language supported by the spreadsheet system target and containing logic to integrate with the third-party spreadsheet software” in lines 18-20. It should be -- a language supported by the specific spreadsheet system target and containing logic to integrate with [[the]] third-party spreadsheet software --.
The claim 1 recites limitation “the spreadsheet target and capable of operating inside of the third-party spreadsheet target environment” in lines 25-26. It should be -- the spreadsheet system target and capable of operating inside of [[the]] third-party spreadsheet target environment --.
Claims 2-13: are dependent on claim 1, but not cure the deficiencies of the claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
The claim 3 recites limitation “the first third-party spreadsheet software application” in lines 1-2. It should be -- [[the]] first third-party spreadsheet software application --.
The claim 4 recites limitation “the first third-party spreadsheet software application” in lines 1-2. It should be -- [[the]] first third-party spreadsheet software application --.
The claim 3 recites limitation “the second third-party spreadsheet software application” in lines 1-2. It should be -- [[the]] second third-party spreadsheet software application --.
The claim 4 recites limitation “the third third-party spreadsheet software application” in lines 1-2. It should be -- [[the]] third third-party spreadsheet software application --.
The claim 6 recites limitation “the spreadsheet software application” in lines 1-2. It should be -- the third-party spreadsheet software application --.
The claim 7 recites limitation “the spreadsheet system specific build” in line 2. It should be -- [[the]] spreadsheet system specific build --.
The claim 8 recites limitation “wherein the build system identifies the third-party spreadsheet system specific adapter source code for the build system target” in lines 1-2. It should be -- wherein the [[build]] builder system identifies [[the]] third-party spreadsheet system specific adapter source code for [[the]] build system target --.
The claim 9 recites limitation “wherein the build system retrieves and prepares the primary application source code for compilation… across a built product regardless of the target third party spreadsheet system in use” in lines 1-4. It should be -- wherein the [[build]] builder system retrieves and prepares [[the]] primary application source code for compilation… across a built product regardless of [[the]] target third party spreadsheet system in use --.
The claim 10 recites limitation “wherein the build system combines the primary application source code, the spreadsheet adapter source code, and the third-party spreadsheet interface source code” in lines 1-2. It should be -- wherein the [[build]] builder system combines the primary application source code, [[the]] spreadsheet adapter source code, and the third-party spreadsheet interface source code --.
The claim 13 recites limitation “exposed by a third-party spreadsheet” in line 2. It should be -- exposed by [[a]] the third-party spreadsheet --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1: the claim recites “A universal spreadsheet adapter system comprising:
a software architecture and a build system …
one or more spreadsheet adapter source codes ...
a spreadsheet interface…
a builder system…”
although the preamble of the claim recites “a universal spreadsheet adapter system”, but the body of the claim does not positively recite any elements of hardware, thus such “system” reasonably interpreted as computer programs, software listing per se. The mere recitation of the system in the preamble with an absence of any hardware components in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 2-13: the claims depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiency as noted above; therefore, they are also rejected as non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are directed systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1: recites the limitations of “
wherein the universal spreadsheet adapter system comprises a software architecture and a build system design for a development and integration of a plurality of third-party spreadsheet software applications;
one or more spreadsheet adapter source codes of the plurality of third-party spreadsheet software applications, wherein the one or more spreadsheet adapter source codes are configured to implement one more functionalities from one or more functions exposed by a third-party spreadsheet;
a spreadsheet interface configured to obtain each spreadsheet adapter source code whenever an interaction with a third-party spreadsheet is performed;
a builder system configured to: obtain each spreadsheet adapter source code and generate provide a compiled production-ready build of each spread application,
obtain a parameterized request, wherein the parameterized request contains a system identifier that is made to a build pipeline, wherein the parameterized request instructs builder system to start a compilation for a specific spreadsheet system target, and
obtain another application source code written in a language supported by the spreadsheet system target and containing logic to integrate with the third-party spreadsheet software but maintained separately and obtained from the parameterized request,
wherein the build system compiles and generates a plurality of production-ready builds of the other application, and
wherein production ready builds are minified and compiled source code containing the application source code specific to the spreadsheet target and capable of operating inside of the third-party spreadsheet target environment.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a) and (e) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements - “universal spreadsheet adapter system,” “software architecture,” “a build system design,” “third-party spreadsheet software application” “one or more spreadsheet adapter source codes,” “spreadsheet interface,” “builder system,” “compiled production-ready build,” “system identifier,” “parameterized request,” “target environment, “MICROSOFT EXCEL,” “GOOGLE SHEETS,” “JSPREADSHEET,” “build package,” and “web portal,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the spreadsheet adapter source code comprises a first adapter source code for a first third-party spreadsheet software application and a second adapter source code for a second third-party spreadsheet software application, and a third adapter source code for a third third-party spreadsheet application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the first third-party spreadsheet software application comprises a MICROSOFT EXCEL spread sheet application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the second third-party spreadsheet software application comprises GOOGLE SHEETS spread sheet application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the third third-party spreadsheet software application comprises JSPREADSHEET spread sheet application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the spreadsheet interface is configured to determine the one or more functions exposed by the third-party spreadsheet required to interact with the spreadsheet software application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein a web portal is used to interact with one or more web-based spreadsheets” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 12 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the one or more functions exposed by a third-party spreadsheet comprise a function available to use that can be called and interacted with that exposes an underlying spreadsheet functionality” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 13 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of claims 7+8+9+10+11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mantuano et al. (Patent No.: US 7,840,889) discloses characterizing the functionality associated with the selected spreadsheet cells is generated to create spreadsheet function source code for incorporation into a source code application.
Fawcett et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0337233) discloses synchronizing data in real time and to custom adapters for integrating a Salesforce platform and an external service. The custom adapters also allow the external data to be dynamically mapped to data object(s) that are used to create the Salesforce interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 March 6th, 2026