DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15 and 20 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended to recite determining if one or more dynamically rendered elements of a web page includes at least one input field for autofill “based on the corresponding one or more dynamically assigned identifiers of the one or more dynamically rendered elements.” There does not appear to be support for this limitation in the specification.
In support of the amendments, Applicant points to [0006] and [0090] of the specification. [0006] describes that elements in a page can have dynamically assigned identifiers, however [0090] only describes form elements in terms of selectors and [0006] describes selectors and identifiers as different things. Neither paragraph describes determining that an element contains a field for autofill based on dynamically assigned identifiers. The only apparent described use of an identifier is at [0106], where a final checkout button is identified using the ID attribute of an HTML tag. However, this is not referring to identifying a field for autofill, but rather identifying a checkout button.
As there is no description in the specification to support the claim language of determining if one or more dynamically rendered elements of a web page includes at least one input field for autofill “based on the corresponding one or more dynamically assigned identifiers of the one or more dynamically rendered elements,” this constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthil, U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0222735 (“Senthil”), in view of Iasi, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0019197 (“Iasi”).
With regard to Claim 1, Senthil teaches a system for autofill of one or more input fields on a web page, the system comprising:
a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that when executed by the processor([0036], processor and memory), cause the system to:
obtain a first data set representative of user data associated with a user device used to access one or more web pages from a web server ([0025] describes that a data collection module collects user profile data, including personal data associated with a user and a particular desktop or mobile environment);
obtain a second data set representative of site data from data communication messages between the user device and the web server ([0025] describes that the data collection module collects product information for a product to be purchased by a user; [0022] describes that the data collection module also collects preference data regarding payment and shipping);
determine, using a page classifier module, if a current web page from the one or more web pages includes at least one input field for autofill ([0027] describes that a form filling module parses HTML to identify form post artifacts);
when the current web page is determined to include at least one input field for autofill: use a field classifier module to identify one or more input fields for autofill from the at least one input field ([0028] describes that the form filling module uses a classifier data mapping process to map one or more fields associated with the web-based form with the user profile data);
generate, based on one or both of the user data and site data, one or more values for the one or more input fields; and perform an autofill of the one or more input fields with the one or more values ([0028] describes that the form filling module creates and submits a form post payload using the mapping between the fields and user profile data to fill the web-based form).
Senthil, in view of Iasi teaches the one or more web pages including one or more dynamically rendered web elements having a corresponding one or more dynamically assigned identifiers assigned upon web page load; and to determine, using a page classifier module, if the one or more dynamically rendered elements of a current web page from the one or more web pages includes at least one input field for autofill, based on the corresponding one or more dynamically assigned identifiers of the one or more dynamically rendered elements.
Senthil teaches the one or more webpages and determining if rendered elements include at least one input field for autofill, as described above. Iasi teaches at [0084] that some ebsites can implement arbitrary and rotating field identifiers. [0089] describes that a form filler application can identify whether a form exists as a static form element. [0091] further describes that the form filler application is able to make field-level checks to determine whether a form is designed with rotating or arbitrary field attribute values. [0097] describes that fields with such attributes can be identified and filled by the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Iasi with Senthil. Iasi describes at [0087] that a traditional form filler will fail to recognize a form field in cases where a field identifier changes in a subsequent instance of a form. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to combine Iasi with Senthil, to improve system functioning by ensuring that forms can still be properly filled when they use arbitrary, changing identifiers for elements.
Claim 11 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a medium storing instructions which cause a processor to function as the processor of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Senthil teaches that the one or more one or more values used for autofill for the one or more input fields are generated using a machine learning module. [0046] describes that a trained machine learning mechanism can be used for identifying the type of information that is supposed to be input into various user input controls, and automatically fill user input controls with the information.
Claim 19 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 12, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthil, in view of Iasi, and in view of Hitchcock, et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,062,083 (“Hitchcock”).
With regard to Claim 2, Hitchcock teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: initiate a watcher process to periodically or continuously monitor changes in the current web page; perform an initial autofill of the one or more input fields in the current web page; and upon detecting a change on the current web page, perform a second autofill of the one or more input fields in the current web page. Col. 11, lines 5-26 describe that an automated form filler can identify that an error has been returned for one or more fields and displayed in the page. Col. 11, line 53 – Col. 12, line 32 describe that in response, the automated filling application can fill alternative values into fields for which an error was detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Hitchcock with Senthil and Iasi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling the correction of erroneous values, thereby improving the accuracy and performance of an automatic form filler.
Claim 12 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Hitchcock teaches that the watcher process is configured to monitor changes in a Document Object Model (DOM) associated with the current web page. Col. 11, lines 8-11 describe that the data entry application examines the DOM upon entering data or periodically thereafter to detect whether an error has been identified in the page.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Hitchcock with Senthil and Iasi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling the correction of erroneous values, thereby improving the accuracy and performance of an automatic form filler.
Claim 17 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthil, in view of Iasi, and in view of Peri, U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0183003 (“Peri”).
With regard to Claim 3, Peri teaches that performing an autofill of the one or more input fields with the one or more values comprises: simulating a user-agent; and injecting, into an instruction set for loading user interface (UI) elements on a user interface for the current web page, a value from the one or more values, the value generated based on at least one data set from the user data.
Peri teaches at [0045] that an automatic filling process can be carried out using stored user data by simulating the user using a form filling script to input values into the form fields which are part of the document. [0043] describes that the script accesses elements of the HTML page through the page DOM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Peri with Senthil and Iasi. Peri at [0011] describes that the methods described therein improve prior art automatic form filling techniques by protecting client security and privacy, as well as supporting dynamic changes in forms. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by realizing these benefits in the automatic form filling described in Senthil.
Claim 13 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Peri teaches that simulating the user-agent comprises: simulating a sequence of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) events configured to simulate actions of the user-agent. [0045] describes that the automatic filling process simulates the user in filling in the form. [0046] describes that a filling script is used to fill the form within the web browser, inserting retrieved values into the page elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Peri with Senthil and Iasi. Peri at [0011] describes that the methods described therein improve prior art automatic form filling techniques by protecting client security and privacy, as well as supporting dynamic changes in forms. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by realizing these benefits in the automatic form filling described in Senthil and Iasi.
Claim 14 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claims 5 and 15, Peri teaches a system wherein the sequence of HTML events is pre-determined based on a type of input field from the one or more input fields. [0046] describes that a script is used to fill the fields, where [0045] describes that the script is a script that has been used as a learning script, where [0042] shows that the learning script includes an order of fields that are filled in, including the type of each that is identified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Peri with Senthil and Iasi. Peri at [0011] describes that the methods described therein improve prior art automatic form filling techniques by protecting client security and privacy, as well as supporting dynamic changes in forms. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by realizing these benefits in the automatic form filling described in Senthil and Iasi.
With regard to Claim 6, Senthil teaches wherein the value comprises part of payment or delivery information. [0025] describes that the autofill process can include payment info, billing address, and shipping address for a user.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthil, in view of Iasi, and in view of Udumudi, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0019628 (“Udumudi”).
With regard to Claim 7, Udumudi teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: initiate a listener when a dormant script associated with the current web page indicates that an iframe is loaded as part of the current web page; and upon detecting, by the listener, that the iframe loaded is related to a checkout or payment process, perform autofill of one or more payment fields in the iframe loaded.
[0061] describes that JavaScript technology can be used for handling dynamic screens for shipping or payment options. [0062]-[0063] describe that handlers for store specifications can be customized, and custom handlers can be used in cases where a dynamic page includes various checkout elements in frames. Controls can be identified within a frame to perform a requisite action when required for completing a transaction, including filling various user information into a form such as address, membership, and payment information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Udumudi with Senthil. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by ensuring the autofill system has the scripts and other technology required to handle a wider variety of checkout types, including those which use dynamic frames.
Claim 16 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthil, in view of Hitchcock, and in view of Engel, U.S. PGPUB No. 2008/0158160 (“Engel”).
With regard to Claim 9, Engel teaches that the watcher process is configured to monitor changes in one or more selectors in the site data. [0013]-[0018] describe a process that analyzes page code in order to identify one or more fields. The matching stored data is identified and can be presented to a user. The user can make a second entry into a field, changing a field value which is used in the process of selecting matching data items to retrieve additional or different sets of data for filling the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Engel with Senthil, Iasi and Hitchcock. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional methods of autofill that may suit user needs better in some situations. For example, users may find that the ability to receive continuous refinement of autofill options in response to completion of one or more fields an optimal method for filling a form.
Claim 18 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Iasi reference teaches or suggests the elements added by amendment that are argued by Applicant as overcoming the rejections under the previously cited references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights