DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
The response filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 8, 10, and 15 are amended. Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending.
The previous rejections to claims 1, 3-5, and 10-14 under 35 USC 103 under Denoue et al in view of Kwon, claims 6-7 under 35 USC 103 under Denoue et al in view of Yu, claims 8-9 under 35 USC 103 under Denoue et al in view of Kwon and Fausak, and claims 15-16 under 35 USC 103 under Denoue et al in view of Kwon, Fausak, and Inala have been maintained but have been updated as necessitated by the amendments. New rejections have been made to claims 15-16 under 35 USC 101.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/3/2022 were accepted.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim discloses a system that is implemented as a software application. The browser plug-in or extension, the WebSocket server, and the user-interface-based application can all be interpreted as software.
As such the claims appear to be directed to software per se, which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of the patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoue et al (US20190394150A1; filed 9/9/2019) in view of Kwon et al (US20160063339A1; filed 8/28/2015).
With regards to claim 1, Denoue et al discloses 1. A method for completing a field in a form-based application, the method comprising: extracting form data and elements from a form within the form-based application, the form data and elements relating to at least a first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1a-1b: fields of the form are extracted from the form in 1a and displayed separately in fig. 1b);
generating an input window containing the form data and elements, including a second field corresponding to the first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the second field can be any of the fields displayed, and they correspond to the fields of the form in fig. 1a);
receiving input identifying the second field for which to fill in text and/or data (Denoue et al, paragraph 23: “When an agent drags-and-drops the form into the chat application as illustrated in FIG. 1(b), the system injects relevant fields from the form of FIG. 1(a).”);
receiving input from an external source providing the text and/or data (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “the system first extracts the structure of the form fields and pre-populates some of the fields with data already found in the chat messages (e.g. name, data, type of problem experienced by the customer). For those fields remaining to be filled-in by the customer, example implementations “conversationalize” the document by showing the customer relevant portions of the fields that need to be filled out;” Denoue presents 2 ways of providing this input – either automatically populating it with stored data or enabling the user to fill it in);
loading the provided text and/or data into the second field in the input window (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the form fields are displayed in the window);
and transferring the loaded text and/or data from the second field to the first field within the form-based application (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “This conversation-centric mode of operation gives the company a filled out form in the end.” Paragraph 24 describes the filling out of the fields (interpreted as the second fields), which are then used to fill out the form (which includes the first field); modifying the form document is also described elsewhere in Denoue, such as the abstract); wherein said receiving input from the external source comprises extracting the text and/or data (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “the system first extracts the structure of the form fields and pre-populates some of the fields with data already found in the chat messages (e.g. name, data, type of problem experienced by the customer). For those fields remaining to be filled-in by the customer, example implementations “conversationalize” the document by showing the customer relevant portions of the fields that need to be filled out”)…
wherein the input window and the form within the form-based application are synchronized in real time such that the transferring of the loaded text and/or data to the first field occurs automatically upon loading the text and/or data into the second field (Denoue et al, paragraph 30: “When the editable fragment is inserted in the chat application of FIG. 2(b), the representation changes slightly (the user interface (UI) is removed and text reflowed), but all edits are reflected in the main document immediately.”).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose extracting the text and/or data from an area of a user's monitor.
Kwon et al teaches extracting the text and/or data from an area of a user's monitor (Kwon et al, abstract: “determining a selected area based on a user input, determining an extraction method based on types of one or more objects included in the selected area, extracting information from the selected area according to the determined extraction method;” fig. 4: shows a user selecting an area, and the text in the area being selected).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Denoue et al does not disclose wherein said extracting the text and/or data from the area of the user's monitor comprises sending a request to a service that performs recognition of text and/or data.
However, Kwon et al teaches wherein said extracting the text and/or data from the area of the user's monitor (Kwon et al, paragraph 49: "Furthermore, the processor 120 may include a parsing module (e.g., a Hermes parsing engine) for extracting information from the selection area and analyzing the information. The parsing module may be construed as an analysis module or an extraction module. The processor 120 may further include an optical character recognition (OCR) module that is a slave to or parallel to the parsing module”) comprises sending a request to a service that performs recognition of text and/or data. (Kwon et al, paragraph 58: “the electronic device 101 may request at least a portion of functions related to the function or service from another device (e.g., the first or second external electronic device 102 or 104 or the server 106) instead of or in addition to performing the function or service for itself. The other electronic device (e.g., the first or second external electronic device 102 or 104 or the server 106) may perform the requested function or additional function, and may transfer a result of the performance to the electronic device 101… To this end, for example, a cloud computing technology, a distributed computing technology, or a client-server computing technology may be used”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form, using a remote service. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Denoue et al does not disclose further comprising generating a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area containing an image of the text and/or data to be extracted.
However, Kwon et al teaches further comprising generating a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area containing an image of the text and/or data to be extracted (Kwon et al, figs. 4 and 8: both figures show several forms of user input, which include drawing a box or freeform object on a layer above the selected text or image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from a selected portion of their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Denoue et al does not disclose wherein said generating the transparent layer on the user's monitor comprises forming the defined image area around the text and/or data to be extracted based on where a user has clicked.
However, Kwon et al teaches wherein said generating the transparent layer on the user's monitor comprises forming the defined image area around the text and/or data to be extracted based on where a user has clicked (Kwon et al, figs. 4 and 8: both figures show several forms of user input, which include drawing a box or freeform object on a layer above the selected text or image; the selection using touch input is further described in paragraphs 92 (“Referring to FIG. 4, a selection input from the user may be a touch-and-drag-type input that may be recognized as various curves or straight lines”) and 124).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from a selected portion of their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
With regards to claim 10, Denoue et al discloses A method for completing a field in a form-based application, the method comprising: extracting form data and elements from a form within the form-based application, the form data and elements relating to at least a first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1a-1b: fields of the form are extracted from the form in 1a and displayed separately in fig. 1b);
generating an input window containing the form data and elements, including a second field corresponding to the first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the second field can be any of the fields displayed, and they correspond to the fields of the form in fig. 1a);
receiving input regarding the second field for which to capture text and/or data (Denoue et al, paragraph 23: “When an agent drags-and-drops the form into the chat application as illustrated in FIG. 1(b), the system injects relevant fields from the form of FIG. 1(a).”)…
loading the extracted text and/or data into the second field in the input window (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the form fields are displayed in the window);
and transferring the extracted text and/or data to the first field within the form-based application (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “This conversation-centric mode of operation gives the company a filled out form in the end.” Paragraph 24 describes the filling out of the fields (interpreted as the second fields), which are then used to fill out the form (which includes the first field); modifying the form document is also described elsewhere in Denoue, such as the abstract) …
wherein the input window and the form within the form-based application are synchronized in real time such that the transferring of the loaded text and/or data to the first field occurs automatically upon loading the text and/or data into the second field (Denoue et al, paragraph 30: “When the editable fragment is inserted in the chat application of FIG. 2(b), the representation changes slightly (the user interface (UI) is removed and text reflowed), but all edits are reflected in the main document immediately.”).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose receiving input regarding an area of a user's monitor from which to capture the text and/or data; extracting the text and/or data from the area of the user's monitor.
Kwon et al teaches receiving input regarding an area of a user's monitor from which to capture the text and/or data; extracting the text and/or data from the area of the user's monitor (Kwon et al, abstract: “determining a selected area based on a user input, determining an extraction method based on types of one or more objects included in the selected area, extracting information from the selected area according to the determined extraction method;” fig. 4: shows a user selecting an area, and the text in the area being selected).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
Claims 11-13 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 3-5 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
With regards to claim 14, which depends on claim 13, Denoue et al does not disclose wherein the image area is formed to contain the text and/or data to be extracted with a defined width of surrounding pixels.
However, Kwon et al teaches wherein the image area is formed to contain the text and/or data to be extracted with a defined width of surrounding pixels (Kwon et al, Fig. 8: the selection area 810 has a width defined by the user input, which is measured in pixels since it is displayed on a digital screen).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from an area of their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoue et al in view of Yu et al (US 20130060579 A1; filed 7/27/2012).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Denoue et al discloses wherein said receiving input from the external source comprises retrieving the text and/or data (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “the system first extracts the structure of the form fields and pre-populates some of the fields with data already found in the chat messages (e.g. name, data, type of problem experienced by the customer).”).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose retrieving the text and/or data from an electronic health records or electronic medical records (EHR/EMR) data service.
Yu et al teaches retrieving the text and/or data from an electronic health records or electronic medical records (EHR/EMR) data service (Yu et al, paragraph 65: “Electronic medical images and records data are in certain instances reviewed by medical personnel on a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), which are computers and/or networks dedicated to the storage, retrieval, distribution and presentation of medical images and records;” paragraph 78: “Turning again to FIG. 1, a PACS 114 (or a separate image server) generally stores and archives medical images and/or records using a database or other data repository… thereby allowing medical professionals to locate and retrieve, receive, access, or accept medical files at a later date. The web interface and/or film librarian interface 120 may take on various forms.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Yu et al such that a user is able to retrieve data from a heath records system. “The capability of electronically transferring medical image and record files not only enables the electronic transfer of such files, but also enables off-site viewing and reporting, off-site backup for redundancy and disaster recovery, and/or other tele-diagnosis and telemedicine scenarios” (Yu et al, paragraph 6).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Denoue et al does not disclose yet Yu et al teaches wherein, based on a determination that a link is not established to the EHR/EMR system, the method further comprises: requesting from a user, via a user interface, a Medical Record Number (MRN) uniquely identifying a patient; sending the MRN to the EHR/EMR data service (Yu et al, paragraph 112: “In certain embodiments, the system semi-automatically and/or automatically conducts a search and/or matches the patient name and source patient identification number provided in the request form and/or searches a PACS, a RIS, a HIS, or the like to locate medical files associated with the information provided in the request form”);
retrieving identifying data for the patient via the EHR/EMR data service; retrieving identifying data for the patient from the user via the user interface (Yu et al, paragraph 113: “If the medical professional locates and matches the provided patient information with medical files at the source medical facility…” the data from the EHR data service is the files at the medical facility, while the data from the user is the provided patient information); and
establishing the link to the EHR/EMR system based at least in part on a comparison of the identifying data for the patient retrieved via the EHR/EMR data service with the identifying data for the patient retrieved via the user interface (Yu et al, paragraph 113: “If the medical professional locates and matches the provided patient information with medical files at the source medical facility, the medical professional approves the request form by interacting with the film librarian interface… the main server system then instructs the client server system at the source medical facility to send, transmit, or transfer the appropriate medical record files to the client server system located at the destination medical facility;” the link is interpreted as the connection which has the transmissions enabled).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Yu et al such that a user is able to retrieve data from a heath records system. “The capability of electronically transferring medical image and record files not only enables the electronic transfer of such files, but also enables off-site viewing and reporting, off-site backup for redundancy and disaster recovery, and/or other tele-diagnosis and telemedicine scenarios” (Yu et al, paragraph 6).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoue et al in view of Fausak et al (US 20170171289 A1; filed 12/14/2015) and Kwon et al.
With regards to claim 8, Denoue et al discloses A method for completing a field in a form-based application, the method comprising: parsing a form from the form-based application and extracting form data and elements from the form, the form data and elements relating to at least a first field (Denoue et al, paragraph 42: “In another example implementation, documents can be parsed into one or more fragments based on the segmentation as described above, whereupon a particular segment is provided to the chat of the chat application based on the chat content”);…
generating an input window containing the form data and elements, including a second field corresponding to the first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the second field can be any of the fields displayed, and they correspond to the fields of the form in fig. 1a);
receiving an indication from a user regarding the second field for which to capture data (Denoue et al, paragraph 23: “When an agent drags-and-drops the form into the chat application as illustrated in FIG. 1(b), the system injects relevant fields from the form of FIG. 1(a).”)…
loading the extracted text and/or data into the second field in the input window (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the form fields are displayed in the window);
transferring the extracted text and/or data to the first field within the form-based application (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “This conversation-centric mode of operation gives the company a filled out form in the end.” Paragraph 24 describes the filling out of the fields (interpreted as the second fields), which are then used to fill out the form (which includes the first field); modifying the form document is also described elsewhere in Denoue, such as the abstract) …
wherein the input window and the form within the form-based application are synchronized in real time such that the transferring of the loaded text and/or data to the first field occurs automatically upon loading the text and/or data into the second field (Denoue et al, paragraph 30: “When the editable fragment is inserted in the chat application of FIG. 2(b), the representation changes slightly (the user interface (UI) is removed and text reflowed), but all edits are reflected in the main document immediately.”).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose transmitting the form data and elements to a WebSocket server… generating a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area based on user input, the image area containing an image of text and/or data to be extracted; extracting the text and/or data from the defined image area… transmitting the extracted text and/or data from the WebSocket server.
Fausak et al teaches transmitting the form data and elements to a WebSocket server… transmitting the extracted text and/or data from the WebSocket server (Fausak et al, paragraph 10: “the browser-supported protocol may initially be HTTP and then elevated to WebSocket”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Fausak et al such that the data is transmitted using a WebSocket server. This would have enabled the invention to transmit the data in a format that the receiving application can understand (Fausak et al, paragraph 2: “When an application running on one computer desires to send data to an application on another computer, the sending application employs an application layer protocol (e.g., HTTP, WebSocket, SMTP, RDP, FTP, SSH, etc.) to structure the data in a format that the receiving application will understand”).
Kwon et al teaches generating a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area based on user input, the image area containing an image of text and/or data to be extracted; (Kwon et al, figs. 4 and 8: both figures show several forms of user input, which include drawing a box or freeform object on a layer above the selected text or image) extracting the text and/or data from the defined image area (Kwon et al, paragraph 49: "Furthermore, the processor 120 may include a parsing module (e.g., a Hermes parsing engine) for extracting information from the selection area and analyzing the information. The parsing module may be construed as an analysis module or an extraction module. The processor 120 may further include an optical character recognition (OCR) module that is a slave to or parallel to the parsing module”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al, Fausak et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from a selected portion of their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoue et al in view of Inala et al (US 20030014489 A1; filed 8/26/2002), Fausak et al, and Kwon et al.
With regards to claim 15, Denoue et al discloses A system for completing a field in a form-based application, comprising: … parse a form from the form-based application and extract form data and elements from the form, the form data and elements relating to at least a first field (Denoue et al, paragraph 42: “In another example implementation, documents can be parsed into one or more fragments based on the segmentation as described above, whereupon a particular segment is provided to the chat of the chat application based on the chat content”)…
a user-interface-based application to: generate an input window containing the form data and elements, including a second field corresponding to the first field (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the second field can be any of the fields displayed, and they correspond to the fields of the form in fig. 1a);
receive an indication from a user regarding the second field for which to capture data (Denoue et al, paragraph 23: “When an agent drags-and-drops the form into the chat application as illustrated in FIG. 1(b), the system injects relevant fields from the form of FIG. 1(a).”)…
load the extracted text and/or data into the second field in the input window (Denoue et al, Fig. 1b: the form fields are displayed in the window)…
transfers the extracted text and/or data to the first field within the form-based application (Denoue et al, paragraph 24: “This conversation-centric mode of operation gives the company a filled out form in the end.” Paragraph 24 describes the filling out of the fields (interpreted as the second fields), which are then used to fill out the form (which includes the first field); modifying the form document is also described elsewhere in Denoue, such as the abstract) …
wherein the input window and the form within the form-based application are synchronized in real time such that the transferring of the loaded text and/or data to the first field occurs automatically upon loading the text and/or data into the second field (Denoue et al, paragraph 30: “When the editable fragment is inserted in the chat application of FIG. 2(b), the representation changes slightly (the user interface (UI) is removed and text reflowed), but all edits are reflected in the main document immediately.”).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose a browser plug-in or extension… a WebSocket server to receive the form data and elements from the browser plug-in or extension… generate a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area based on user input, the image area containing an image of the text and/or data to be extracted; sending a request to a recognition service to extract the text and/or data from the area; receive the extracted text and/or data from the recognition service… wherein the WebSocket server transmits the extracted text and/or data to the browser plug-in or extension… the browser plug-in or extension transfers…
Inala et al teaches a browser plug-in or extension… (Inala et al, paragraph 35: “Software 37 is, in a preferred embodiment, a client chat-module implemented as a browser plug-in.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al and Inala et al such that the application is implemented as a browser plug-in. This would have enabled the invention to be function across multiple websites and URLs (Inala et al, paragraph 35: “In an alternative embodiment, software 37 may be a chat helper instead of a chat module such that it configures a client's existing chat program to the client's desired WEB browser or browsers and thereby enables the practice of the present invention. This is done by considering other chat networks to be namespaces within the URL namespace”).
Fausak et al teaches a WebSocket server to receive the form data and elements from… wherein the WebSocket server transmits the extracted text and/or data (Fausak et al, paragraph 10: “the browser-supported protocol may initially be HTTP and then elevated to WebSocket”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al, Inala et al and Fausak et al such that the data is transmitted using a WebSocket server. This would have enabled the invention to transmit the data in a format that the receiving application can understand (Fausak et al, paragraph 2: “When an application running on one computer desires to send data to an application on another computer, the sending application employs an application layer protocol (e.g., HTTP, WebSocket, SMTP, RDP, FTP, SSH, etc.) to structure the data in a format that the receiving application will understand”).
Kwon et al teaches generate a transparent layer on the user's monitor, the transparent layer defining an image area based on user input, the image area containing an image of the text and/or data to be extracted; (Kwon et al, figs. 4 and 8: both figures show several forms of user input, which include drawing a box or freeform object on a layer above the selected text or image) sending a request to a recognition service to extract the text and/or data from the area (Kwon et al, paragraph 49: "Furthermore, the processor 120 may include a parsing module (e.g., a Hermes parsing engine) for extracting information from the selection area and analyzing the information. The parsing module may be construed as an analysis module or an extraction module. The processor 120 may further include an optical character recognition (OCR) module that is a slave to or parallel to the parsing module”); receive the extracted text and/or data from the recognition service… (Kwon et al, paragraph 58: “the electronic device 101 may request at least a portion of functions related to the function or service from another device (e.g., the first or second external electronic device 102 or 104 or the server 106) instead of or in addition to performing the function or service for itself. The other electronic device (e.g., the first or second external electronic device 102 or 104 or the server 106) may perform the requested function or additional function, and may transfer a result of the performance to the electronic device 101… To this end, for example, a cloud computing technology, a distributed computing technology, or a client-server computing technology may be used”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al, Inala et al, Fausak et al and Kwon et al such that a user can extract text from a selected portion of their screen to be used for other functions, such as filling the form. This would have enabled a user to select text from any portion of their screen, even if the text is normally not easily selectable (Kwon et al, paragraph 8: “allowing a user to select a portion of content from the entire area of a screen of an electronic device, recognizing text and/or a non-text item (e.g. an image, a camera preview, or the like) included in an area associated with the portion of selected content, and extracting and/or analyzing any type of a text included in the selected area so as to provide an analysis result and various operations related thereto”).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Denoue et al teaches operate on a form (Denoue et al, Fig. 1a-1b: fields of the form are extracted from the form in 1a and displayed separately in fig. 1b).
However, Denoue et al does not disclose wherein the browser plug-in or extension is registered to operate on… from a specific uniform resource locator (URL).
Inala et al teaches wherein the browser plug-in or extension is registered to operate on… from a specific uniform resource locator (URL) (Inala et al, paragraph 1: “providing URL-sensitive interactive chat capability;” paragraph 14: “a method and apparatus that enables real-time chat capability that is URL-sensitive in real time such that individuals visiting a URL may be detected and offered an opportunity to engage in chat with other individuals visiting the same URL”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Denoue et al, Inala et al, Fausak et al and Kwon et al such that the application is implemented as a browser plug-in and operates on specific URLs. This would have enabled the invention to be function across multiple websites and URLs (Inala et al, paragraph 35: “In an alternative embodiment, software 37 may be a chat helper instead of a chat module such that it configures a client's existing chat program to the client's desired WEB browser or browsers and thereby enables the practice of the present invention. This is done by considering other chat networks to be namespaces within the URL namespace”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026, with regards to amended claim 1, claims 8, 10, and 15, and claims dependent on them, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Denoue and Kwon fail to teach the claims as amended, which now include a limitation that claims the real time synchronization of the first and second fields. Examiner disagrees because Denoue discloses the updating of the fields of the main document “immediately.” As cited in the rejections above, Denoue states, “When the editable fragment is inserted in the chat application of FIG. 2(b), the representation changes slightly (the user interface (UI) is removed and text reflowed), but all edits are reflected in the main document immediately” (Denoue, paragraph 30). Thus examiner argues that the synchronized/real-time updates are disclosed by Denoue, and the rejections above have been amended to reflect the amendments. Thus the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights