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 .
Claims 1-20 have been canceled by a preliminary amendment.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-25, 27, 28, 30-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of parent U.S. Patent No.12,271,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are mere obvious variations/combinations of each other as shown in the mapping below.
Claims of instant application
Claims of US Patent 12271686
21. A method comprising: accessing first application data of a first application, the first application having one or more data validation rules;
accessing an application data schema comprising a set of constraints on second application data consumed by a second application;
determining
the one or more data validation rules do not include at least one constraint from the set of constraints in the application data schema; and
in response to determining the one or more data validation rules do not include at least one constraint from the set of constraints in the application data schema, preventing synchronization of the second application data with the first application data; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors.
10. A method comprising: accessing spreadsheet data of a spreadsheet
having one or more data validation rules;
accessing an application data schema comprising a set of constraints on application data consumed by an application from among a plurality of applications hosted by one or more application servers; determining, by one or more processors of a machine, the one or more data validation rules do not include at least one constraint from the set of constraints in the application data schema; and
in response to determining the one or more data validation rules do not include at least one constraint from the set of constraints in the application data schema, preventing synchronization of the application data with the spreadsheet data.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising: determining that an additional validation rule has been associated with the first application; and in response to the determination, synchronizing the second application data of the second application with the first application data of the first application.
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising synchronizing the application data consumed by the application with the spreadsheet data corresponding to the spreadsheet based on determining that an additional validation rule has been associated with the spreadsheet.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the first application data includes data of a plurality of cells, wherein the method further comprises: causing display of a window that includes a
selectable list of predefined validation rules for association with one or more cells in the plurality of cells; and
receiving a user selection, from the user selectable list, of a predefined validation rules for association with the one or more cells in the plurality of cells, the predefined validation rule corresponding to the additional validation rule.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: causing display of a window that includes a user
selectable list of predefined validation rules for association with one or more cells in the spreadsheet; and
receiving a user selection, from the user selectable list, of a predefined validation rules for association with the one or more cells in the spreadsheet, the predefined validation rule corresponding to the additional validation rule.
24. The method of claim 22, further comprising: receiving a modification to at least one data entry in the first application data;
validating the at least one data entry according to the one or more data validation rules and the additional validation rule; and synchronizing the second application data consumed by the second application with the first application data such that the second application data includes the modification to the at least one data entry in the first application data.
14. The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a modification to at least one entry in the spreadsheet;
validating the at least one entry according to the one or more data validation rules and the additional validation rule; and
synchronizing the application data consumed by the application with the spreadsheet data such that the application data includes the modification to the at least one entry in the spreadsheet.
25. The method of claim 22, further comprising: receiving, from a client device, user specified logic, the user specified logic comprising a name, a validator, and a value type; and receiving, from the client device, one or more user specified configuration parameters; wherein the user specified logic and the user specified configuration parameters correspond to the additional validation rule.
15. The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from a client device, user specified logic, the user specified logic comprising a name, a validator, and a value type; and receiving, from the client device, one or more user specified configuration parameters; wherein the user specified logic and the user specified configuration parameters correspond to the additional validation rule.
27.The method of claim 21, further comprising causing display of a synchronization interface to present a status of synchronization of the first application data with the second application data.
16.The method of claim 10, further comprising causing display of a synchronization interface to present a status of synchronization of the spreadsheet data with each of the plurality of applications, the status of synchronization of the spreadsheet data with a second application indicating the spreadsheet data is synchronized with the second application.
28. The method of claim 21, wherein: the application data schema is a first application data schema; the set of constraints is a first set of constraints; and the method further comprises: accessing a second application data schema comprising a second set of constraints on third application data consumed by a third application; determining whether
the one or more data validation rules include the second set of constraints; and
in response to determining that the one or more data validation rules include the second set of constraints, synchronizing the third application data consumed by the third application with the first application data.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein: the application data schema is a first application data schema; the set of constraints is a first set of constraints; and the method further comprises: accessing a further application data schema comprising a second set of constraints on application data consumed by the second application; determining
the one or more data validation rules include the second set of constraints; and
in response to determining the one or more data validation rules include the second set of constraints, synchronizing the application data consumed by the second application with the spreadsheet data.
30. The method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving, from a client device running the first application, a modification to at least one data entry in the first application data;
validating the at least one data entry according to the one or more data validation rules; and
synchronizing the second application data consumed by the second application with the first application data
such that the second application data includes the modification to the at least one data entry in the first application data.
14. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving
a modification to at least one entry in the spreadsheet; validating the at least one entry according to the one or more data validation rules and the additional validation rule; and synchronizing the application data consumed by the application with the spreadsheet data
such that the application data includes the modification to the at least one entry in the spreadsheet.
31.The method of claim 21, wherein the first application data including data of a plurality of cells, wherein the method further comprises: validating the first application data according to the one or more data validation rules;
determining at least one cell of the plurality of cells includes an invalid data entry; and in response to determining the at least one cell of the plurality of cells includes the invalid data entry, causing the at least one cell to be visually distinguished from remaining cells during display of the first application data.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising:
validating the spreadsheet according to the one or more data validation rules; determining at least one cell in the spreadsheet includes an invalid entry; and in
response to determining the at least one cell in the spreadsheet includes the invalid entry, causing the at least one cell to be visually distinguished from remaining cells during display of the spreadsheet..
As shown above method claims 21-25, 27, 28, 30, 31 essentially recite limitations similar to claims 10-17 of parent U.S. Patent 12,271,686 with a slight difference in wording. For example the “spreadsheet data” in the claims of the U.S. Patent is broadened into “first application data” or “second application data” in the instant claims, thus anticipated by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 32-36, 38-39 of the instant application directed to systems, map to system claims 1-9 of the U.S. Patent in the same manner.
Claim 40 of the instant application directed to a computer program product similarly maps to claim 19 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 12, 15 of parent U.S. Patent No.12,271,686, in view of Rametta (US 20160292143 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the U.S. Patent does not claim wherein the validator includes a validator associated with the value type; wherein the validator includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a date validator and a geo-coordinate validator.
However it is customary in the art as shown by Rametta to use a date validator associated with the value type (see [0044]…. Some markers may work with another marker to specify further detail; for example, the attribute validator=“date” may work with the attribute format=“mm/dd/yyyy” to specify the required format of the date. FIG. 2 is a table of field/validator types and associated formats. FIG. 3 is a table of attributes for specifying further detail for a date validator type and the possible values of the attributes for the date validator type.).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of the U.S. Patent in order to enforce the required date attribute format.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 17 of parent U.S. Patent No.12,271,686, in view of Jones (WO 2012136584 A2).
Regarding claim 29, the U.S. Patent does not claim “in response to determining the one or more data validation rules do not include at least one constraint from the second set of constraints in the second application data schema, preventing synchronization of the third application data with the first application data”;
However it is customary in the art to do so as shown by Jones (see at least page 16 lines 17-22: ”Automatic validation of the processing operations defined by the data synchronisation module prevents (or at least reduces the likelihood of) data errors being synchronized between computer systems or users being created or updated with invalid data. The data synchronisation module also allows auditing and logging to track how synchronization events are handled”).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of the U.S. Patent in order to reduce the likelihood of invalid data being synchronized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho (US 9317484 B1) teaches techniques to validate data in document capture. An indication is received that a validation rule associated with two or more dependent fields in a data entry form comprising data values extracted from a multi-page document has failed. A human validation interface is provided that enables an operator to view the affected dependent fields and for each an associated document image portion from which a corresponding data value was extracted, including by providing automated navigation to and display of the affected dependent fields.
Jesudoss et al (US9292477 B1) teach a method for validating a data value, the method including receiving a data value entered into an input field of a software application, obtaining a validation rule corresponding to the input field from a validation rule book, executing the validation rule to determine a validation result, and returning the validation result to the software application.
Chitilian et al (US 8812625 B1) teach a method for tracking changes in an internet-accessible document. The method includes providing, with a presentation server system, data for producing a display of a document at a client computing device; receiving, at the presentation server system from a data server system, a timestamp that is sent by the data server system in response to an indication by a user of the client computing device to record changes to the document, wherein the timestamp indicates a time after which changes have been made to the document; and providing from the presentation server system to the data server system data indicating changes made to the document since a time corresponding to the timestamp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 4 February 2026