DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments /Remarks filed on 05/29/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claim 1 was cancelled; claims 2, 9 and 16 have been amended; and claims 2, 9 and 16 are independent claims. Claims 2-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/239,642, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed August 29, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/578,202, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed January 18, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,784,992, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/773,584, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed January 27, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,228,576, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/111,042, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed August 23, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,567,365, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/869,974, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed September 29, 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 10,079,815, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/172,220, entitled "CREDENTIAL ENTRY AND MANAGEMENT," filed June 7, 2015.
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
Examiner maintains the rejected non statutory DP as the applicant held in obeyance until the presence of allowable subject matter is indicated.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lurey et al. (hereinafter Lurey), Pub. No.: US 20140157390 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lurey et al. (hereinafter Lurey), Pub. No.: US 20140157390 in view of Choi et al. (Hereinafter Choi),
Pub. No.: US 2014/0230045.
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 2-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No.US 12,149,518. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both patent applications relate to computer user interfaces, and more specifically to techniques for credential entry and management.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurey et al. (hereinafter Lurey), Pub. No.: US 20140157390 in view of Choi et al. (Hereinafter Choi),
Pub. No.: US 2014/0230045.
Referring to claim 2, Lurey teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a display (abstract, displaying…);
one or more processors (fig. 1, processor 18);
memory (fig. 1, memory device 24, 26); and
one or more programs stored in memory, the one or more programs including instructions for (para. 0010, executable program):
displaying, via the display, a restricted resource for accessing secure content, wherein the restricted resource includes a credential entry field (abstract; paras.0049, 0052, 0056, fig. 2, an interactive window 102 for the entry of a master password).
Lurey does not explicitly disclose while displaying the restricted resource that includes the credential entry field, detecting an input directed to a graphical object, wherein the graphical object is an affordance for searching one or more stored credentials;
in response to detecting the input directed to the graphical object, displaying a search field for searching one or more stored credentials.
However, in an analogous art, Choi discloses while displaying the restricted resource that includes the credential entry field, detecting an input directed to a graphical object, wherein the graphical object is an affordance for searching one or more stored credentials (Choi: para. 0038 and fig. 3, Regardless, the selected graphical object(s) and associated user interaction(s) will be compared against authentication credentials previously provided/stored. If a match is determined to exist, computerized device 12 will be unlocked and access to user 74 may be granted.); and
in response to detecting the input directed to the graphical object, displaying a search field for searching one or more stored credentials (Choi: para. 0038 and fig. 3, selected graphical object(s) and associated user interaction(s) will be compared against authentication credentials previously provided/store).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Lurey with the method and system of Choi, wherein while displaying the restricted resource that includes the credential entry field, detecting an input directed to a graphical object, wherein the graphical object is an affordance for searching one or more stored credentials; in response to detecting the input directed to the graphical object, displaying a search field for searching one or more stored credentials to provide users with a means for access control for computerized/electronic devices. Specifically, embodiments of the present invention relate to graphical object-based user authentication for computerized devices (e.g., handheld devices, etc.) (Choi: para. 0001).
Referring to claim 3, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 2. Lurecy further taches wherein displaying the search field includes: displaying, via the display, a credential-assistance user interface, wherein the credential- assistance user interface includes a representation of an identifier associated with the one or more stored credentials (Lurey: abstract, paras. 0002-0003, 0059-0060 and fig. 2).
Referring to claim 4, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 3. Lurecy further taches wherein the identifier is a username (Lurey: para. 0073, box 410, identifier of the name of a website, bank or credit account).
Referring to claim 5, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 4. Lurey further teaches wherein the credential-assistance user interface is displayed in a user interface region that is separate from the credential entry field (Lurey: para. 0042, a separate subject matter).
Referring to claim 6, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 2. Lurey further teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the search field for searching one or more stored credentials, receiving text input in the search field; and subsequent to receiving the text input in the search field, initiating a process for searching the one or more stored credentials for a credential corresponding to the received text input (Lurey: abstract, paras. 0058-0060 and fig. 3, 204).
Referring to claim 7, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 2. Lurey further teaches wherein the credential entry field is a password field (Lurey: abstract, paras. 0059-0062 and fig, 2-4; password entry field).
Referring to claim 8, Lurey and Choi teach the electronic device of claim 2. Lurey further teaches wherein the restricted resource is a web page (Lurey: abstract, paras. 0106-0107URL or website and fig. 14).
Referring to claim 9, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 10, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 11, This claim is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 12, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 13, This claim is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 14, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 15, This claim is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 16, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 17, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 18, This claim is and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 19, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 20, This claim is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 21, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 22, This claim is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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 YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights