DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/659,904 filed 5/9/2024 which claims priority from CN202310518566.2 filed 5/9/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “…a pivot table module[[;]], wherein the pivot table module being configured…” was intended.
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “determining the pivot table region based on the location, the [[row]] number of rows, and the number of columns” was intended.
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 1-5, 9-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The independent claim(s) recite(s) at least “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…; 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”. These limitations are construed as abstract ideas for being a mental process performable in the human mind or on paper. A user can observe that cells are within a region of a pivot table and determine what value the cell should have. The “determining” steps are not necessarily performing a tangible, computer-required step (e.g., actually entering the determined value within the cell of the spreadsheet).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “a pivot table module; the pivot table module being configured to store information of a pivot table in the spreadsheet” is reciting an entity for storing information and, therefore, is merely a generic computing component on which the instructions to implement the abstract idea are applied. Additional limitations directed toward mere instructions to apply the exception to generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution activity, alone or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP§2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above, being directed toward mere instructions to apply the exception to generic computing components, alone or in combination, are well-understood routine and conventional, do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the independent claims are directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 18, and 20 recite additional details of pivot table information, and style determination and obtaining steps (without necessarily applying the styles to the cell), that are also construed as additional abstract ideas, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to generic computing components, or insignificant extra solution activity and are, therefore, also directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly in claim 13), it is not clear whether “determination that the first cell is located in the pivot table region” is a new determination or referring to the same determination of claim 1. Additionally, as structured, it is not clear whether all three “determining” steps of claim 4 are dependent on the “determination that the first cell is located in the pivot table region”.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly in claim 14), it is not clear what is meant by “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, a first style and a spreadsheet default style.” First, it is not clear whether “a first style” is a new first style or should be referring to “the first style”. Second, how the styles would be merged according to these priorities is unclear. For example, if a first style of a pivot table is conditional formatting, and a second style of a cell in a spreadsheet is conditional formatting, which style has priority is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pete – HowToAnalyst (Youtube – “How to Fix Pivot Table Errors”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERUM7NUfGw, published 6/15/2022, the Examiner attached 6 Screenshots and a transcript, hereinafter “Pete”).
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. 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. 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).
Regarding claim 2, Pete teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, the pivot table module is a separate module independent of the spreadsheet. More specifically, the video 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).
Regarding claim 3, Pete teaches 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).
Regarding claim 4, Pete teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 claims 10-13 and 15-17, these claims recite an electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claims 1-4 and 6-8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these claims recite a non-transitory computer storage medium storing program code for performing the steps of the method of claims 1 and 2, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pete.
Regarding claim 9, Pete teaches 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 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 row number, 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 row number, 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 row number, and the number of columns because if the cells are idendified 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 claim 18, this claim recites the electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claim 9, 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 further in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2007/0174760 A1, hereinafter “Chamberlain”).
Regarding claim 5, Pete teaches 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, and 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, a first style and a spreadsheet default style.
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 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 I 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.
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
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