DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on December 26, 2025 for application 18/219,005.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues
that Tsui in view of Hammad and Burling, and further in view of Ecker, Jezek and Jonkers fails to disclose at least the features "responsive to determining that one of the fields has been selected, output second instructions to bring a contactless card to within a near-field communication (NFC) range of the computing device" and "copy, automatically by the autofill service, the first portion of the data to the digital clipboard" of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that in comparison to the paragraphs of Tsui that were cited, the pending claims actually require that the second instructions to bring the contactless card within an NFC range of the computing device is output "responsive to determining that one of the fields has been selected". The fields of the pending claims are fillable fields (i.e., blank) that are selected to be filled out. On the other hand, in Tsui, a choice of payment options is provided, and the user selects from the payment options. As such, no fillable field is selected in Tsui to trigger the output to put the card in NFC range of the device. In response and careful reconsideration of the cited references, Examiner respectfully disagrees as primarily paragraph [0099] specifically discloses “a client device 201 includes a user interface 506 comprising a display device 508 and one or more input devices or mechanisms 510”. Some of the cited paragraphs such as paragraph [0071] disclose and imply "responsive to determining that one of the fields has been selected, output second instructions to bring a contactless card to within a near-field communication (NFC) range of the computing device" when the merchant readies the customer checkout interface, the user is “presented” with choice of payment methods implying that a display was presented and the proximity based communications circuitry or module of an electronic communication device is utilized to extract the payment details. The API between the merchant's website 202 and the web browser attempts to energize the proximity-based communication module. Hence, one of ordinary skill in art can assume that once contactless card is brought close to the electronic communication device, the information can be transmitted from the card to the fields. Also, paragraph [0078] discloses that the NFC module of the smartphone is utilized to extract the payment and delivery details from a payment card 200 through the NFC module embedded in it. Paragraph [0079] further discloses that the dedicated or standard API
between the merchant's website and the web browser of the smartphone attempts to initiate the NFC module of the smartphone and once the API activates or energizes the NFC module directly from the browser, then the user is prompted to tap an NFC enabled payment card against the NFC enabled smartphone to extract available data from the payment card. Once again, one of ordinary skilled in the art can assume that an indication is displayed to tap the card since the contactless card is brought in proximity the NFC enabled smartphone to simply retrieve information. Paragraph [0081] further disclosed that after the data is collected by the website, some websites display the received data.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,037,136 B2 in view of Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1).
Claim 7 of US Pat. US 11,037,136 B2 recites: A method, comprising:
determining, by an application executing on a processor circuit, that a payment field of a form has received focus;
receiving, by the application, encrypted data from a communications interface of a contactless card associated with an account
transmitting, via the application, the encrypted data to a server;
receiving, via the application from the server, a decryption result;
determining, via the application based on the decryption result, that the server decrypted the encrypted data;
receiving, via the application from the contactless card, an encrypted account number;
decrypting, via the application based on the determination that the server decrypted the encrypted data, the encrypted account number;
providing the decrypted account number to an application programming interface (API) of an autofill service executing on the processor circuit; and
autofilling, by the autofill service, the decrypted account number to the payment field of the form.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 7 of the Patent Document recites all of the limitations of claim 14 of the instant application; however, claim 14 of the instant application differs since it further recites an additional claim limitations including: “performing, via an interface, an exchange of data with a contactless card, wherein at least a portion of the data received from the contactless card is associated with at least one of the one or more fields; sending a second portion of the data to a server to authenticate the contactless card; and receiving an indication the contactless card is authenticated prior to providing the data to each of the one or more fields; and providing the portion of the data to each of the one or more fields.”. Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1) disclose a computer implemented method: performing, via an interface, an exchange of data with a contactless card, wherein at least a portion of the data received from the contactless card is associated with at least one of the one or more fields (¶0026, ¶0027, ¶0055, ¶0073, ¶0090), send a second portion of the data to a server to authenticate the contactless card (¶0092 , ¶0132 , ¶0137, ¶0153, ¶0169), associate the portion of the data with each of the one or more fields (¶0026, ¶0029 “the extracted information includes an account number”, ¶0030, ¶0139, ¶0147-¶0148) and provide the portion of the data to each of the one or more fields based on the indication (¶0137, ¶0146-¶0149, ¶0159-¶0161, ¶0168-¶0169). The motivation would be to facilitate an information interchange over a network by using a proximity-based communication module and/or proximity-based communication circuitry of a mobile electronic communication device to extract data from a proximity-based communication card eliminating the need to manually input data into text fields.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. App. No. 2021/0342821 A1 in view of Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1).
Claim 21 of U.S. App. No. 2021/0342821 A1 recites: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by an application executing on a processor, encrypted data from a contactless card;
transmitting, by the application, the encrypted data to a server;
receiving, by the application from the server, an account number;
providing, by the application, the account number to an autofill service of an operating system (OS) executing on the processor; and
autofilling, by the autofill service, the account number to a payment field of a form.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 21 of the US 2021/0342821 A1 recites all of the limitations of claim 14 of the instant application; however, claim 14 of the instant application differs since it further recites an additional claim limitation including: “associate the portion of the data with each of the one or more fields and provide the portion of the data to each of the one or more fields based on the indication. Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1) disclose a computer implemented method: associate the portion of the data with each of the one or more fields (¶0026, ¶0029 “the extracted information includes an account number”, ¶0030, ¶0139, ¶0147-¶0148) and provide the portion of the data to each of the one or more fields based on the indication (¶0137, ¶0146-¶0149, ¶0159-¶0161, ¶0168-¶0169). The motivation would be to facilitate an information interchange over a network by using a proximity-based communication module and/or proximity-based communication circuitry of a mobile electronic communication device to extract data from a proximity-based communication card eliminating the need to manually input data into text fields.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,453 B2.
Claim 1 of US Pat. US 11,037,136 B2 recites: A method, comprising:
receiving, by an application executing on a processor circuit of a computing device from a communications interface of a contactless card, a uniform resource locator (URL) for an authentication server, the URL comprising a cryptogram;
accessing, by the application executing on the processor circuit, the URL for the authentication server by a first browser tab of a web browser;
receiving, by the application executing on the processor circuit from a virtual account number server, a virtual account number, an expiration date, and a card verification value (CVV);
copying, by the application executing on the processor circuit, the virtual account number to a clipboard executing on the processor circuit; and
pasting, by an operating system (OS) executing on the processor circuit, the virtual account number from the clipboard to a payment field of a form in a second browser tab of the web browser.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Patent Document recites some of the limitations of claim 14 of the instant application; however, claim 1 of the Patent Document differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including: receiving, by an application executing on a processor circuit of a computing device from a communications interface of a contactless card, a uniform resource locator (URL) for an authentication server, the URL comprising a cryptogram and accessing, by the application executing on the processor circuit, the URL for the authentication server by a first browser tab of a web browser.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the Patent Document by removing the additional limitations noted above, resulting generally in the claims of the present application, since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the Patent Document actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karison, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,783,736 B1
Claim 1 of US Pat. 10,783,736 B1 recites: A system, comprising:
a mobile device comprising a processor and a memory; contactless card comprising a processor and a memory; and a server communicatively coupled to the mobile device;
wherein the contactless card processor encrypts data associated with an account in the memory of the contactless card, wherein the contactless card generates the encrypted data using a diversified key obtained by providing a master key and a counter value stored in the memory of the contactless card as input to a crypto graphic algorithm, and wherein the contactless card sends the encrypted data to the mobile device responsive to a first tap of the contactless card to the mobile device;
wherein the server receives the counter value and encrypted data sent from the mobile device, decrypts the encrypted data using the diversified key, and sends an indication to the mobile device that the encrypted data was decrypted;
wherein the server encrypts an account number associated with the account and sends the encrypted account number to the mobile device after the decrypting;
wherein an application executing on the mobile device decrypts the encrypted account number to yield the account number;
wherein the contactless card sends an expiration date associated with the account number to the mobile device responsive to a second tap of the contactless card to the mobile device;
wherein the contactless card sends a card verification value (CVV) associated with the account number to the mobile device responsive to a third tap of the contactless card to the mobile device, wherein a tap counter counts a number of taps of the card to the mobile device, and wherein the encrypted data, expiration date, and CVV are sent by the contactless card based on the number of taps counted by the tap counter;
wherein the application copies the decrypted account number, expiration date, and CVV as information to a clipboard on an operating system (OS) executing on the mobile device; and
wherein the mobile device removes the clipboard information after the mobile device makes a purchase using the clipboard information or after a time threshold expires.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the mobile device pastes, from the clipboard: (i) the account number to the first field, (ii) the expiration date to the second field, and (iii) the CVV to the third field.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Patent Document recites some of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application; however, claim 1 of the Patent Document differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including: wherein the contactless card processor encrypts data associated with an account in the memory of the contactless card, wherein the contactless card generates the encrypted data using a diversified key obtained by providing a master key and a counter value stored in the memory of the contactless card as input to a crypto graphic algorithm, and wherein the contactless card sends the encrypted data to the mobile device responsive to a first tap of the contactless card to the mobile device; wherein the server receives the counter value and encrypted data sent from the mobile device, decrypts the encrypted data using the diversified key, and sends an indication to the mobile device that the encrypted data was decrypted; wherein the server encrypts an account number associated with the account and sends the encrypted account number to the mobile device after the decrypting; wherein an application executing on the mobile device decrypts the encrypted account number to yield the account number; wherein the contactless card sends an expiration date associated with the account number to the mobile device responsive to a second tap of the contactless card to the mobile device; and wherein the contactless card sends a card verification value (CVV) associated with the account number to the mobile device responsive to a third tap of the contactless card to the mobile device, wherein a tap counter counts a number of taps of the card to the mobile device, and wherein the encrypted data, expiration date, and CVV are sent by the contactless card based on the number of taps counted by the tap counter;
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the Patent Document by removing the additional limitations noted above, resulting generally in the claims of the present application, since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the Patent Document actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karison, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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 of this title, 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, 5-8, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1) in view of Hammad (US 8,473,414 B2) in view of Burling et al. (US 2009/0172580 A1) and in further view of VAN OS et al. (US 20190080189 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 14, Tsui discloses a computing device (¶0071 “A user shops online by visiting a merchant’s or other entity’s e-commerce website 202 using a web browser on an electronic communication device 201” or ¶0089 “brick or mortar location”, “physical environment”, “entity’s system”, ¶0099) comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory storing an application and instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
executing, by a processor of a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, an operating system (OS) that includes an autofill service [and a digital clipboard]; (Fig. 12; ¶0072, ¶0101, ¶0146, ¶0149)
determine one or more fields for data are presented on a display, wherein the one or more fields are [fillable fields] determined by the autofill service (“display device 508”) (¶0071, ¶0073, ¶0075, ¶0089, ¶0157)
responsive to determining that one of the fields has been selected, output second instructions to bring a contactless card to within a near-field communication (NFC) range of the computing device (¶0071, ¶0078, ¶0079, ¶0080, ¶0081)
perform, via an interface, an exchange of data with a contactless card, wherein at least a first portion of the data received from the contactless card is associated with at least one of the one or more fields (¶0026, ¶0027, ¶0055, ¶0073, ¶0090)
send a second portion of the data to a server to authenticate the contactless card (¶0092 “any payment data, address data, and/or other user data that is required to facilitate a transaction is sent to the payment processor 204 to process the transaction”, ¶0132 “the application sends a transaction to an authentication party 830, such as a bank or other financial institution”, ¶0137 “the authentication party (e.g., bank or credit card company) performs multifactor authentication, ¶0153)
receive, from the server, an indication the contactless card is authenticated (¶0094 “If the transaction is successfully processed with the payment processor 204, the details of the transaction are recorded with the entity”, ¶0169)
associate respective subsets of the first portion of the data with respective ones of the one or more fields (¶0026, ¶0029 “the extracted information includes an account number”, ¶0030, ¶0139, ¶0147-¶0148)
provide the respective subset of the first portion of the data to associated field of the one or more fields based on the indication (¶0137, ¶0146-¶0149, ¶0159-¶0161, ¶0168-¶0169)
Tsui does not disclose: wherein the second portion of the data comprises a unique identifier assigned to the contactless card and separate from an account number of the contactless card, and a counter value of the contactless card and receive, from the server, an indication the contactless card is authenticated based on the second portion of the data (Col.
Hammad however discloses:
wherein the second portion of the data comprises a unique identifier assigned to the contactless card and separate from an account number of the contactless card, and a counter value of the contactless card (Col. 3 lines 59-65, Col. 4 lines 10-60, Col. 9 lines 14-62)
receive, from the server, an indication the contactless card is authenticated based on the second portion of the data (Col. 9 line 63- Col. 10 line 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include wherein the second portion of the data comprises a unique identifier assigned to the contactless card and separate from an account number of the contactless card, and a counter value of the contactless card and receive, from the server, an indication the contactless card is authenticated based on the second portion of the data, as disclosed in Hammad, in order to provide additional pieces of data to exchange electronic transactions made by cardholders using payment cards to secure online payment transactions and protect cardholders, merchants and issuers against fraud through use of the additional pieces of data (see Hammad Col. 2 lines 59-62).
The combination of Tsui and Hammad does not disclose: a digital clipboard, copying the first portion of the data to the digital clipboard; and providing respective subsets of the first portion of the data from the clipboard to the autofill service to autofill respective ones of the one or more fields based on the indication.
Burling however discloses:
a digital clipboard (Fig. 2, Fig. 16; 0046, 0064, 0065)
copying the first portion of the data to the digital clipboard; and (Fig. 2, Fig. 16; 0046, 0064, 0065)
providing respective subsets of the first portion of the data [from the clipboard to the autofill service] to autofill respective ones of the one or more fields based on the indication (Fig. 2, Fig. 16; 0046, 0064, 0065)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include a digital clipboard, copying the first portion of the data to the digital clipboard; and providing respective subsets of the first portion of the data from the clipboard to the autofill service to autofill respective ones of the one or more fields based on the indication, as disclosed in Burling, in order to provide a method for copying all loan summary information from the student loan summary page onto a clipboard then pasting the loan summary information from the clipboard (see Burling abstract).
The combination of Tsui, Hammad and Burling does not disclose: wherein the one or more fields are [fillable fields].
VAN OS however discloses: wherein the one or more fields are [fillable fields] (¶0630, ¶0639, ¶0641, ¶0862, ¶1081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include wherein the one or more fields are [fillable fields], as disclosed in VAN OS, in order to provide user interfaces for autofilling fillable fields based on visibility criteria (see VAN OS abstract).
Regarding Claims 5, 11 and 18, Tsui discloses wherein the subsets of the first portion of the data comprises an account number, a CVV code, an expiration date, a name, an address, or any combination thereof (¶0012 “the card-holder's full name, the type of card, the account number associated with the card, the expiration date of the card, a CVV or CVC number, any form of unique identification code and/or security code, address data, and other user data”).
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 19, Tsui discloses wherein the one or more fields correspond with the account number, the CVV code, the expiration date, the name, and the address (¶0012 “the card-holder's full name, the type of card, the account number associated with the card, the expiration date of the card, a CVV or CVC number, any form of unique identification code and/or security code, address data, and other user data”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 13, Tsui discloses comprising a display device, and the processor is further configured to process instructions to cause, on the display device, presentation of the second instructions to bring the contactless card to within the NFC range of the computing device (“display device 508”) (¶0071, ¶0073, ¶0075, ¶0089, ¶0137, ¶0157).
Regarding Claim 20, Tsui discloses wherein outputting the instructions includes outputting the instructions on a display device of the POS terminal (“display device 508”) (¶0071, ¶0073, ¶0075, ¶0089, ¶0137, ¶0157).
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsui in view of Hammad in view of Burling in view VAN OS and in further view of Ecker et al. (US 2019/0188705 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, while Tsui discloses output, by the autofill service, a notification on a user interface of the computing device indicating a third portion of the data received from the contactless card for the third portion to be manually entered into one of the one or more fields (¶0018, ¶0167 - Examiner considers the “prompt” to be equivalent to the claimed “notification”)
The combination of Tsui in view of Hammad in view of Burling in view of VAN OS does not disclose a wherein the data is in a cryptogram and the exchange is a near-field communication exchange.
Ecker however discloses: wherein the data comprises encrypted data and the exchange is an (NFC) exchange (¶0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include wherein the data comprises encrypted data and the exchange is an (NFC) exchange, as disclosed in Ecker, in order to provide a method that clears pre-authorized transactions that are initiated at the POS terminal (see Ecker ¶0009).
Regarding Claim 9, while Tsui discloses wherein the processor circuit is further caused to output, by the autofill service, a notification on a user interface of the POS terminal indicating a third portion of the data received from the contactless card for the third portion to be manually entered into one of the one or more fields (¶0018, ¶0167 - Examiner considers the “prompt” to be equivalent to the claimed “notification”)
The combination of Tsui in view of Hammad in view of Burling does not disclose: wherein the counter value reflects a number of read operations performed by contactless card.
Ecker however discloses: wherein the counter value reflects a number of read operations performed by contactless card (¶0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include wherein the counter value reflects a number of read operations performed by contactless card, as disclosed in Ecker, in order to provide a method that clears pre-authorized transactions that are initiated at the POS terminal (see Ecker ¶0009).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsui in view of Hammad in view of Burling and in view of Ecker in view VAN OS and in further view of JEZEK, JR. et al. (US 2017 /0178234 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, while Ecker discloses wherein the counter value stores a number of wireless communications performed by contactless card on the contactless card (¶0081).
The combination of Tsui, Hammad, Burling and Ecker does not disclose: wherein the OS determines that one of the one or more fields has been selected based on a hypertext markup language (HTML) attribute of the one field.
JEZEK, JR. however discloses wherein the OS determines that one of the one or more fields has been selected based on a hypertext markup language (HTML) attribute of the one field (¶0022, ¶0118)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tsui to include wherein the OS determines that one of the one or more fields has been selected based on a hypertext markup language (HTML) attribute of the one field, as disclosed in JEZEK, JR, in order to provide a method to identify data fields containing components or elements of the market data based on attributes that define style information in a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) interface (see JEZEK, JR ¶0021).
Claims 4, 11, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsui in view of Hammad in view of Burling in view of VAN OS in view of Ecker and in further view of Jonkers et al. (US 11,138,675 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, 11 and 18, while Ecker discloses wherein the second portion of the data is encrypted with diversified keys by the contactless card (¶0081, ¶0083).
The combination of Tsui, Hammad, Burling, VAN OS and Ecker does not disclose: wherein the processor circuit is caused to determine the one or more fields for receiving data by inspecting metadata of a form comprising the one or more fields.
Jonkers however discloses: wherein the processor circuit is caused to determine the one or more fields for receiving data by inspecting metadata of a form comprising the one or more fields (Col. 10 lines 1-18, Col. 11 lines 17-46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus/method/medium of Tsui to include wherein the processor circuit is caused to determine the one or more fields for receiving data by inspecting metadata of a form comprising the one or more fields, as disclosed in Jonkers, in order to provide a system for preparing an electronic tax return in which a supporting document is associated with a specific form field of the tax return using metadata related to the form field for more efficient and accurate tax return preparation while eliminating the need for users to search for and view supporting documents (see Jonkers Col. 5 lines 30-36).
Regarding Claim 21, Jonkers however discloses: providing the subsets of the first portion of the data to the respective ones of the one or more fields: associating, based at least in part on respective metadata attributes of each of the one or more fields, respective subsets of the first portion of the data with respective ones of the one or more fields, wherein the respective subsets of the first portion of the data are provided to the associated field of the one or more fields (Col. 10 lines 1-18, Col. 11 lines 17-46)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights