DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, and 18 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on 5/15/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310544812.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, and 18 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.
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the citation content is a same formula”. It is unclear what is meant by “a same formula”. The claims do not recite any other formulas. A same formula implies that the citation content comprises a formula that is the same to some other formula. However, no other formula is recited and therefore it is unclear what formula the recited a same formula is referring to. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18, claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1 and therefore are rejected at least based on their dependency.
In regard to claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein the citation content is a same formula”. It is unclear what is meant by “a same formula”. The claims do not recite any other formulas. A same formula implies that the citation content comprises a formula that is the same to some other formula. However, no other formula is recited and therefore it is unclear what formula the recited a same formula is referring to. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claims 9, 10, 12, and 14, claims 9, 10, 12, and 14 depend from claim 8 and therefore are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon et al. (US 2016/0162461 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Simon discloses a method for processing collaborative table data, wherein the method is applied to a first client, and the method comprises (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-2: collaborative spreadsheets edited by multiple users):
acquiring a first data processing operation of a user on a first cell and a second cell in a collaboration table, wherein the second cell is one or more cells to be processed (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells);
generating first atomic operation information based on the first data processing operation, wherein the first atomic operation information comprises the second cell and citation information (Fig. 3B element 327b and Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14: pending change is generated that includes the copy operation with the second cells, revision #, and client originating the change);
sending the second cell and the citation information to a second client, so that the second client updates the collaboration table according to the second cell and the citation information (Fig. 3D element 346, Paragraph 0055 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0055 lines 13-14, and Paragraph 0056 lines 8-9: the pending change is provided to user Bob which causes Bob’s device to apply the pending change to update the collaborative spreadsheet at Bob’s device).
wherein the citation information comprises a citation identifier and a citation content, wherein the citation content is a same formula, and the citation identifier is represented by numbers or letters (Fig. 3B element 327b, Fig. 7, Paragraph 0024 lines Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14, Paragraph 0079, and Paragraph 0081: pending change includes the copy operation with the second cells (e.g. citation content) and client originating the change (e.g. identifier represented by letters). The copy operation can include copying a formula where the same contents (e.g. same formula) are provided and therefore the citation content can be considered a same formula).
In regard to claim 2, Simon discloses wherein the citation identifier is in one-to-one correspondence with the citation content (Fig. 3B element 327b and Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14: pending change includes the copy operation with the second cells (e.g. citation content) and client originating the change (e.g. identifier)).
In regard to claim 4, Simon discloses wherein the citation content comprises cell citation information (Fig. 3B element 327b and Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14: pending change includes the copy operation with the second cells (e.g. cell citation information)).
In regard to claim 5, Simon discloses wherein the first cell and the second cell are represented by R1C1 citation styles, and the cell citation information is determined based on relative position information between a R1C1 citation style corresponding to the first cell and a R1C1 citation style corresponding to the second cell (Paragraph 0024 lines 7-9 and Paragraph 0073: the copied content can include a relative reference (e.g. R2C5) that defines a relative position of a cell containing the reference to another cell).
In regard to claim 6, Simon discloses wherein the first processing operation comprises: copying a content of the first cell and pasting it into the second cell; or filling the second cell based on the content of the first cell (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells).
In regard to claim 8, Simon discloses a method for processing collaborative table data, wherein the method is applied to a second client, and the method comprises (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-2: collaborative spreadsheets edited by multiple users):
receiving first atomic operation information sent by a first client, wherein the first atomic operation information is generated by the first client based on a first data processing operation of a user on a first cell and a second cell in a collaboration table, and the second cell is one or more cells to be processed, and the first atomic operation information comprises the second cell and citation information (Fig. 3A element 308, Fig. 3B element 327b, Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6, Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells and pending change is generated that includes the copy operation with the second cells, revision #, and client originating the change);
updating the collaboration table based on the second cell and the citation information (Fig. 3D element 346, Paragraph 0055 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0055 lines 13-14, and Paragraph 0056 lines 8-9: the pending change is provided to user Bob which causes Bob’s device to apply the pending change to update the collaborative spreadsheet at Bob’s device),
wherein the citation information comprises a citation identifier and a citation content, wherein the citation content is a same formula, and the citation identifier is represented by numbers or letters (Fig. 3B element 327b, Fig. 7, Paragraph 0024 lines Paragraph 0046 lines 9-14, Paragraph 0079, and Paragraph 0081: pending change includes the copy operation with the second cells (e.g. citation content) and client originating the change (e.g. identifier represented by letters). The copy operation can include copying a formula where the same contents (e.g. same formula) are provided and therefore the citation content can be considered a same formula).
In regard to claim 9, Simon discloses wherein updating the collaboration table based on the second cell and the citation information comprises: deserializing the citation information to acquire a deserialization result; updating the collaboration table based on the second cell and the deserialization result (Paragraph 0052 lines 9-14, Paragraph 0053 lines 8-9, Paragraph 0055 lines 13-14, and Paragraph 0056 lines 8-9: The pending change correspond to Alice’s copy operation is transformed (e.g. deserialized) against an insertion operation performed by Bob, and provided to user Bob which causes Bob’s device to apply the pending change to update the collaborative spreadsheet at Bob’s device).
In regard to claim 11, Simon discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory is configured for storing instructions or computer programs; the processor is configured for executing the instructions or computer programs in the memory, so that the electronic apparatus executes the method according to claim 1 (Fig. 12, Paragraph 0092, Paragraph 0093, Paragraph 0095, Paragraph 0097, and Paragraph 0099).
In regard to claim 12, Simon discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory is configured for storing instructions or computer programs; the processor is configured for executing the instructions or computer programs in the memory, so that the electronic apparatus executes the method according to claim 8 (Fig. 12, Paragraph 0092, Paragraph 0093, Paragraph 0095, Paragraph 0097, and Paragraph 0099).
In regard to claim 13, Simon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions are stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the instructions are executed by a device, the device is caused to perform the method according to claim 1 (Paragraphs 0099-0101).
In regard to claim 14, Simon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions are stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the instructions are executed by a device, the device is caused to perform the method according to claim 8 (Paragraphs 0099-0101).
In regard to claim 15, Simon discloses wherein the first processing operation comprises: copying a content of the first cell and pasting it into the second cell; or filling the second cell based on the content of the first cell (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells).
In regard to claim 17, Simon discloses wherein the first processing operation comprises: copying a content of the first cell and pasting it into the second cell; or filling the second cell based on the content of the first cell (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells).
In regard to claim 18, Simon discloses wherein the first processing operation comprises: copying a content of the first cell and pasting it into the second cell; or filling the second cell based on the content of the first cell (Fig. 3A element 308 and Paragraph 0041 lines 5-6: user Alice copies contents of first cells to second cells).
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
6. Prior art rejections for claims 7 and 10 have not been provided, as these claims contain a combination of subject matter, as best understood in view of the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, not disclosed by the prior art of record. As these claims stand rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they would NOT be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and would require further consideration/search in view of any modification to their respective independent claims.
In regard to claim 7, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7 in combination with the other elements recited. In particular, the subject matter of claim 7 requires acquiring a second data processing operation of a user on a third cell and a fourth cell in the collaboration table, wherein the fourth cell is one or more cells to be processed; wherein the first data processing operation and the second data processing operation are a same type of processing operations, generating second atomic operation information based on the fourth cell and a calling of the citation information; sending the fourth cell and the citation information to the second client, so that the second client updates the collaboration table according to the fourth cell and the citation information, which is not disclosed by Simon, or any of the other cited references, alone or in combination.
In regard to claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the limitations of claim 10 in combination with the other elements recited. In particular, the subject matter of claim 10 requires receiving a second atomic operation information from the first client that is generated by the first client based on a second data processing operation that is a same type as the first data processing operation, where the citation information that was included as part of the first atomic operation is included with the second atomic operation information and the updating based on the second operation data processing operation is performed based the deserialization result with respect to the citation information of the first data processing operation, which is not disclosed by Simon, or any of the other cited references, alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
7. The amendments to claims 7 and 10 overcome the objections to claims 7 and 10. Accordingly, the objections to claims 7 and 10 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
8. The arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been full considered but are not persuasive.
It is argued that Simon fails to disclose or suggest at least "wherein the citation information
comprises a citation identifier and a citation content" and "wherein the citation content is a same
formula, and the citation identifier is represented by numbers or letters," because “paragraph [0046] and Figure 3B of Simon discloses that the pending change 327b includes Alice's copy-paste instruction together with a revision number 0. These cited contents represent the specific instruction that Alice executes on the current document and is therefore not a formula. Reference identifiers such as "Alice's client information" are also not numerals or letters. The revision number "0" is not a unique reference identifier either. As shown in Figure 3B of Simon, the revision number for Bob's change 327a is 0, and the revision number for Alice's change 327b is also 0. Thus, Simon differs from the present application at least with respect to the aforementioned features”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As provided in the rejections, Simon discloses citation information that includes the client originating the change which is interpreted as an identifier (e.g. it identifies the client that originated the change). Further, as described and illustrated, the client is represented by letters (e.g. “Alice”). Further, Simon teaches citation information includes the copy operation with the second cells, which is interpreted as the citation content and further teaches that the copy operation includes copying a formula where the copy operation results in the same contents. Therefore, the citation content (e.g. copying of cell with formula) provides citation content with a same formula. Accordingly, Simon does not differ from the claimed invention and suggests "wherein the citation information
comprises a citation identifier and a citation content" and "wherein the citation content is a same
formula, and the citation identifier is represented by numbers or letters,", as best understood by the examiner in view of the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “unique reference identifier”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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.
11. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights