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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 22 April 2026, with respect to the 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejection of 22 January 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 22 April 2026, with respect to 102(a)(2) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(2) rejection of 22 January 2026 has been withdrawn. Anderson fails to teach or disclose at least “an indication of the field configured to receive the identifier associated with the account” and “in connection with the indication of the field being provided to the server system, the identifier being associated with the account and generated by the server system.”
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not present additional arguments to the Double Patenting 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.
Claims 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12045808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim term " identifier associated with an account " is broader than the narrower term "token" in the patented claims and it would be obvious for identifier associated with an account to also mean token, which is further claimed in the dependent claims. Additionally, the ‘808 fails to recite the steps are performed via a browser extension application, but Anderson 2015/0052061 teaches a plug-in software application that operates in the context of a browser ([0069], [0074]) and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the part to improve the system of ‘808 to operate with a web browser.
Claims 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11687918. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim term " identifier associated with an account " is broader than the narrower term "secure token" in the patented claims and it would be obvious for identifier associated with an account to also mean secure token, which is further claimed in the dependent claims. Additionally, the ‘918 fails to recite the steps are performed via a browser extension application, but Anderson 2015/0052061 teaches a plug-in software application that operates in the context of a browser ([0069], [0074]) and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the part to improve the system of ‘918 to operate with a web browser.
Claims 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10956902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim term "identifier associated with an account" is broader than the narrower term "secure token" in the patented claims and it would be obvious for identifier associated with an account to also mean secure token, which is further claimed in the dependent claims. Additionally, the patented claims are narrower than the current claims, but contain all the limitations of the patented claims. Additionally, the ‘902 fails to recite the steps are performed via a browser extension application, but Anderson 2015/0052061 teaches a plug-in software application that operates in the context of a browser ([0069], [0074]) and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the part to improve the system of ‘902 to operate with a web browser.
Claims 22-25, 27, 29-32, 34, and 36-39 are objected to because they depend from rejected independent claims 21, 28 and 35. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson US 2015/0052061. Boodman US 8,650,481 Goodman US 2005/0257148 Light US 6192380 Hammad US 8893967
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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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 P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights