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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on November 3rd, 2025
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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, 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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Tibrewala, US PG PUB# 2022/0058617 A1(hereinafter Tibrewala) in view of Leme, US PG PUB# 2021/0027013 A1(hereinafter Leme) and further in view of Dines, US PG PUB# 2024/0220581 A1 (hereinafter Dines).
As for independent claim 1:
Tibrewala discloses system, the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving an indication that a user has accessed a webpage comprising a form (0023-0024, Tibrewala discloses a user device accesses a transaction page with payment fields and sending an autofill request through a browser);
responsive to determining that the user is registered with a remote server (0024, Tibrewala discloses the server determines if the user has an established account through the server, see web application and user account and token, 0057):
accessing an account information associated with the user, the account information including an attribute (0025-0026, see accessing account information and account data, generate virtual card information from the user account);
responsive to determining that the user is not registered with the remote server (0022, Tibrewala discloses the server sends a request to setup autofill when the system determines there is no link between browser application and user account);
autofilling a field of another form with the second form information (Tibrewala discloses automatically populating the transaction page with virtual card information in 0025-0027).
Tibrewala does not disclose identifying a field of the form of the webpage, the field including a first form information matching the attribute. In the same field of endeavor Leme discloses identifying a field of the form of the webpage, the field including a first form information matching the attribute in 0064-0065. In the cited sections Leme discloses identifying fields through descriptors, see email, name, address and view hierarchy information. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Tibrewala to incorporate the teaching of Leme of identifying a field of the form, thus allow remote provider to securely and privately parse the content and benefit the user with autofill request (Leme, 0063).
Tibrewala and Leme do not disclose generating a new selector that uniquely identifies the field in a document object model (DOM) associated with the form; transmitting, to the remote server, an indication of the new selector for subsequently identifying the field of the form; receiving, from the remote server, a selector selected from a plurality of selectors associated with the webpage, wherein each respective selector of the plurality of selectors is associated with a respective success rate indicating how frequently the respective selector correctly identified the field in the DOM, and the received selector is associated with a highest success rate relative to the plurality of selectors; accessing a second form information from a field of the form associated with the received selector. Dines discloses generating a new selector that uniquely identifies the field in a document object model (DOM) associated with the form; transmitting, to the remote server, an indication of the new selector for subsequently identifying the field of the form; receiving, from the remote server, a selector selected from a plurality of selectors associated with the webpage, wherein each respective selector of the plurality of selectors is associated with a respective success rate indicating how frequently the respective selector correctly identified the field in the DOM, and the received selector is associated with a highest success rate relative to the plurality of selectors; accessing a second form information from a field of the form associated with the received selector in 0158-0163, where Dines discloses generating selectors that identify UI elements and each node has attributes that assist with correct identification of specific level of the application, 00170, element ID trace path to the target UI element (UI tree). In 0045,0154, Dines discloses listener data that has UI elements that the user interacts with such as fields, values and forms and is transmitted to servers and stored in database used to train and matching AI/ML models, also see matching highest score output by semantic matching in in 0150, 0177. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Tibrewala and Leme to incorporate the teaching of Dines listener data, selector-based approach such as generate selectors and train semantic matching AI/ML models for matching, thus allow the system to received selectors with high success rate and score to enhance autofill function when UI element and interface changes (Dines, 0045, 0150.
As for dependent claim 2:
Tibrewala – Leme - Dines discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting is performed in response to a submission of the form (Tibrewala, 0024).
As for dependent claim 3:
Tibrewala – Leme - Dines discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the new selector comprises at least one of the following: generating a path from a root of the DOM to the field; generating a path from a unique parent element to the field; generating a path from a unique sibling element to the field; generating a class list associated with the field; or generating an attribute list associated with the field (Dines, 0171, 0158-161, see element IDs and node indicators tracing path through the UI tree, also see node attribute in 0161)
As for dependent claim 4:
Tibrewala – Leme - Dines discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, before autofilling the field of the other form: receiving, from the remote server, another selector from the plurality of selectors associated with the webpage; and accessing a third form information from a field of the form associated with the other received selector (Tibrewala autofill in 0023-0025; Dines, UI descriptors, identifying a target element in 0164 0174).
As for dependent claim 5:
Tibrewala – Leme - Dines discloses the method of claim 4, wherein, autofilling the field of the other form with the second form information comprises: comparing the second form information with the third form information; in response to the second form information being the same as the third form information, autofilling the field of the other form with the second form information; and in response to the second form information not being the same as the third form information: receiving a fourth form information input into the field of the other form; and in response to the second form information being the same as the fourth form information, transmitting, to the remote server, an indication that increases a success rate of the received selector; and in response to the third form information being the same as the fourth form information, transmitting, to the remote server, an indication that increases a success rate associated with the other received selector (Leme, 0043-0044, 0078-0082, Leme discloses comparing user input values against suggested values and computing similarity metric; Dines discloses semantic matching model, 0150, 0177, see AI/ML model).
As for dependent claim 6:
Tibrewala – Leme - Dines discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the autofilling, determining whether the field of the other form includes the second form information;
in response to determining that the field of the other form includes the second form information, transmitting, to the remote server, an indication that increases a success rate associated with the selector; and in response to determining that the field of the other form does not include the second form information, transmitting, to the remote server, an indication that decreases the success rate associated with the selector (Leme discloses similarity metric to the remote provide and for detecting user input values with quality measurement 0043-0044, 0082-0083, feedback metric in 0104. Dines autofill and semantic matching in 0040-0041).
As for dependent claim 7:
An Official Notice is taken that the following limitation is obvious: accessing the account information associated with the user comprises extracting the account information from a browser cookie. Accessing user’s information and account information from a browser cookie is well known in the art.
As for independent claim 8:
Claim 8 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 9-14:
Claims 9-14 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-7 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 15:
Claim 15 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 16-20:
Claims 16-20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-6 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights