DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/659,904 filed 5/9/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 6/22/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19, and cancelation of claims 2, 11, and 20 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are currently pending.
Claim Objections - Withdrawn
The previous claim objection(s) of claims 1, 9, 10, 18 and 19 is withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - Withdrawn
The previous 35 U.S.C §101 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12-14, and 18 and 19 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
The previous 35 U.S.C §112 rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
The previous 35 U.S.C §102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19, are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
However, it is pertinent to note that as far back as Microsoft Excel 2007, a Pivot Cache stores the data of the Pivot Table associated with workbooks. It is described as a copy of the spreadsheet data such that manipulating Pivot Cache data does not affect the spreadsheet data. See: Excel Maven (Youtube - “EXCEL PRO TIP: Reviving Data from the Pivot Cache” or GeeksforGeeks – “Pivot Cache in Excel.” Therefore, the pivot table data in Microsoft’s Excel has been independently/separately stored from the spreadsheet data since at least 2007. Even though the Pete video refers to Microsoft Excel, which would include Pivot Cache, Campbell has been cited to explicitly suggest the claimed features.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to clearly recite that every “style” determination is performed in response to the “location” determination: “in accordance with the determination that the first cell is located in the pivot table region[[,]]:
determining a first style corresponding to the first cell based on the pivot table module;
determining a second style corresponding to the first cell based on the spreadsheet; and
determining a style of the first cell based on the first style and the second style” is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pete – HowToAnalyst (Youtube – “How to Fix Pivot Table Errors”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERUM7NUfGw, published 6/15/2022, hereinafter “Pete”), and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 2009/0089067 A1, hereinafter “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 1, Pete teaches a method for processing table data, comprising:
determining whether a first cell of a spreadsheet is located in a pivot table region; in accordance with a determination that the first cell is located in the pivot table region, determining a value of the first cell based on a pivot table module; the pivot table module being configured to store information of a pivot table in the spreadsheet; and in accordance with a determination that the first cell does not belong to the pivot table region, determining a value of the first cell based on data stored in the spreadsheet itself; and rendering the first cell on a canvas based on determined value of the first cell. More specifically, the Pete video describes handling situations when a pivot table receives a modification instruction. Cells of the spreadsheet are identified that are located in the region of the resultant modified pivot table. At least a first cell is identified as effected by the modified pivot table as indicated in the alert “There’s already data…Do you want to replace it?” (Pete, screenshot 3, construed as determining whether a first cell of a spreadsheet is located in a pivot table region). User input to “OK” the replacement it is determining the value of the first cell based on a pivot table module. The video continues by describing a user moving cells with values out of the way, and then the modification of the pivot table proceeds without error (i.e., at least a first cell receives values of the pivot data and the data within the moved cells is not affected), which is construed as a determination that the first cell does not belong to the pivot table region, determining a value of the first cell based on data stored in the spreadsheet itself; and rendering the first cell on a canvas based on determined value of the first cell. The video also depicts a window construable as a pivot table module having information pertaining to the pivot table displayed as separate from the cells of the spreadsheet (Pete, screenshots 2-6, 0:22-0:52 seconds).
However, while the video from Pete depicts a window “PivotTable Fields” construable as a pivot table module having information pertaining to the pivot table displayed as separate from the cells of the spreadsheet (Pete, screenshots 2-6, time 0:22-0:52 seconds), Pete may not explicitly teach every aspect of
wherein the pivot table module is a separate module independent of the spreadsheet, and data of the pivot table and data of the spreadsheet are stored in different data models respectively.
Campbell discloses methods that enable a workbook author to break a workbook out into a set of logically separate pieces, referred to herein as "workbook parts." An organization may be enabled to manage each workbook part separately, thus certain users may be denied access to view or edit certain workbook parts (Campbell, abstract). Such workbook parts may be stored separately in a special directory (or document library on a document management server) (Campbell, [0006]). As used herein in connection with a spreadsheet, the term "workbook part" may refer to any discrete object from a spreadsheet. Examples of such objects include named ranges (which may be contiguous single-cell or multi-cell ranges), charts, tables (a.k.a., lists), pivot tables, single sheets, or any other logically distinct spreadsheet objects (Campbell, [0017]). The library may store each workbook part, and a master spreadsheet, as separate entries / in separate directories (Campbell, [0018]). The data required to render or manipulate a pivot table may travel with the object as part of the workbook part (Campbell, [0020]). Therefore, Campbell suggests pivot table parts/modules independent of, and stored separately from, the data of the spreadsheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Pete and Campbell that a method for processing table data in a spreadsheet with pivot table regions would include that a pivot table module is separate and independent of the spreadsheet with data of the pivot table and data of the spreadsheet are stored in different data models respectively. With Pete and Campbell disclosing using pivot tables with spreadsheets, and with Campbell additionally suggesting the pivot table part/module is a separate entity and stored separately from the spreadsheet data, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for processing table data in a spreadsheet with pivot table regions would include that a pivot table module is separate and independent of the spreadsheet with data of the pivot table and data of the spreadsheet are stored in different data models respectively in order to protect the data and calculations for corporate compliance reasons (Campbell, [0006]). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for processing table data where certain styles are applied to cells located in a specific region of a spreadsheet.
Regarding claim 3, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 1, wherein, the information of the pivot table in the spreadsheet stored by the pivot table module comprises: value information of each cell, style information of each cell and information of the pivot table region. More specifically, the pivot table includes value information, style information, and pivot table region information because it knows which cells could be overwritten as explained above and when the pivot table is modified, it shows formatting and values for an expansion of the pivot table due to a modification request (Pete, Screenshot 3 and 6; time 0:22-0:52 seconds). See also Campbell, [0020], pivot table part includes cache and data required for rendering.
Regarding claim 4, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the first cell is located in the pivot table region, determining a first style corresponding to the first cell based on the pivot table module; determining a second style corresponding to the first cell based on the spreadsheet; and determining a style of the first cell based on the first style and the second style. More specifically, the (first) style of the pivot table overwrites the (second) style of the base spreadsheet when the pivot table is added/expanded in cell range B6:C13 (first cell is located in the pivot table region), such as removing some cell boundary lines and adding blue shading. Otherwise, the base spreadsheet style is maintained (Pete, Screenshot 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to an editing operation performed by a user on the pivot table, determining an edited pivot table region; determining whether the edited pivot table region covers original cells filled with data in the spreadsheet; in accordance with a determination that the edited pivot table region covers original cells filled with data in the spreadsheet, displaying query information for querying whether the user agrees to cover the cells filled with data; and in response to an instruction that the user agrees to cover the cells filled with data, covering the cells filled with data with the edited pivot table. More specifically, the video describes handling situations when a pivot table receives a modification instruction, and cells of the spreadsheet are identified that are located in the region of the resultant modified pivot table. From the video, at least a first cell is identified as effected by the modified pivot table as indicated in the alert (query) “There’s already data…Do you want to replace it?” (Pete, screenshot 3). User input to “OK” the replacement it is an instruction that the user agrees to cover the cells filled with data, covering the cells filled with data with the edited pivot table (Pete, screenshots 2-6, 0:22-0:52 seconds).
Regarding claim 7, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to an instruction that the user does not agree to cover cells filled with data, restoring a configuration of the pivot table prior to the editing operation. More specifically, user input to “Cancel” the replacement it is an instruction that the user does not agree to cover cells filled with data, restoring a configuration of the pivot table prior to the editing operation (Pete, screenshots 2-6, 0:22-0:52 seconds).
Regarding claim 8, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 6, further comprising: before the determining whether the edited pivot table region covers original cells filled with data in the spreadsheet, determining whether the edited pivot table region overlaps with other pivot tables in the spreadsheet; and in accordance with a determination that the edited pivot table region overlaps with other pivot tables in the spreadsheet, displaying predetermined prompt information to prompt a user that the editing operation is not effective. More specifically, the video demonstrates an error generated when an existing pivot table could be overwritten by the modified pivot table (Pete, Screenshot 2, 0:22-0:52 seconds).
Regarding claim 9, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 1, including determining when a modified pivot table potentially overwrites cells with existing values (Pete, screenshots 2-6, 0:22-0:52 seconds).
Pete and Campbell may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein determining the pivot table region comprises: determining a location of the pivot table in the spreadsheet; determining a number of rows and a number of columns of the pivot table; and determining the pivot table region based on the location, the number of rows, and the number of columns.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Pete that a method for processing table data a user is notified when a modified pivot table potentially overwrites cells with existing values would include wherein determining the pivot table region comprises: determining a location of the pivot table in the spreadsheet; determining a number of rows and a number of columns of the pivot table; and determining the pivot table region based on the location, the number of rows, and the number of columns. With Pete disclosing determining when a modified pivot table potentially overwrites cells with existing values, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for processing table data a user is notified when a modified pivot table potentially overwrites cells with existing values would include wherein determining the pivot table region comprises: determining a location of the pivot table in the spreadsheet; determining a number of rows and a number of columns of the pivot table; and determining the pivot table region based on the location, the number of rows, and the number of columns because if the cells are identified that are potentially overwritten by a modified pivot table, then the specific numbers of rows and columns of the pivot table region are naturally determined when providing warning to a user in case the user does not want to overwrite the cells of the spreadsheet. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for processing table data where certain styles are applied to cells located in a specific region of a spreadsheet.
Regarding claims 10, 12, 13 and 15-18, these claims recite an electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a non-transitory computer storage medium storing program code for performing the steps of the method of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pete and Campbell, and further in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2007/0174760 A1, hereinafter “Chamberlain”).
Regarding claim 5, Pete and Campbell teach the method of claim 4, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein, the second style comprises at least one of the following: a conditional format style, a locality style, a cell style or a spreadsheet default style; and wherein determining a style of the first cell based on the first style and the second style comprises: merging the first style and the second style to obtain the style of the first cell; wherein display priorities of the first style and the second style are sequentially from high to low: a conditional format style, a locality style, a cell style, the first style and a spreadsheet default style, wherein when the first style and a particular type of the second style have different settings for a same style attribute, a final setting of the style attribute is determined according to the display priorities.
Chamberlain discloses applying multiple conditional formats to cells of a spreadsheet (Chamberlain, abstract, [0001]). A cell’s default (style) format is one type of format (Chamberlain, [0002]). Locality formats (styles) can include bold, italics, underline, alignment for text, and cell formats (styles) can include border, shadow, and fill color (Chamberlain, [0027]). Formatting can be prioritized such that, for a particular cell, each formatting can be applied, provided that the formatting does not conflict with a higher priority formatting (Chamberlain, [0029]). Using this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art can create style prioritizations as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Pete and Campbell with Chamberlain that a method for processing table data where certain styles are applied to cells located in a specific region of a spreadsheet would include prioritizing styles associated with a conditional format style, a locality style, a cell style or a spreadsheet default style. With Pete and Chamberlain disclosing applying styles to cells in specific regions of spreadsheets, and with Chamberlain disclosing formats including conditional, a locality, a cell, or a default formats can be prioritized, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for processing table data where certain styles are applied to cells located a specific region of a spreadsheet would include prioritizing styles associated with a conditional format style, a locality style, a cell style or a spreadsheet default style in order to allow a user to maintain a preference on the formatting within the specific region of a spreadsheet without it getting overwritten. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for processing table data where certain styles are applied to cells located in a specific region of a spreadsheet.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claim 5, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Excel Maven (Youtube - “EXCEL PRO TIP: Reviving Data from the Pivot Cache”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdahuy35t0, published 4/24/2019) - Excel Maven discusses that Pivot Cache generated any time a pivot table is created in excel. Pivot Cache stores a separate independent duplicate copy of the spreadsheet data such that deleting either the data in the Pivot Cache or data in the spreadsheet does not affect the other. You can modify table layouts, row and column labels, and add slicers and pivot charts just based on the Pivot Cache, which is construable as equivalent to the claimed pivot table module separate module independent of the spreadsheet (Excel Maven, 0:00-1:04).
Ghosh (US 2007/0260578 A1) – separate pivot table data.
Machalek (US 7,185,279 B2) – separate reporting (pivot table) modules.
Dickerman (US 2007/0061344 A1) – handling formatting of a cell when it is converted to a pivot table cell ([0063], [0084]).
Villard (US 2017/0116171 A1) – handling formatting of a cell when it is converted to a pivot table cell ([0070]-[0074]).
Simkhay (US 2007/0050699 A1) – formatting precedence order for pivot tables (Figures 4 and 6).
Moise (US 6,626,959 B1) – pivot table formatting.
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 PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights