DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Amendment filed on 12/3/2025.
Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 27 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13-14, 16-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aveni et al. (“OmniFill: Domain-Agnostic Form Filling Suggestions Using Multi-Faceted Context”) in view of Lymer et al. (US2014/0258828) and McArthur et al. (WO 2022/193027 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Aveni et al. discloses a front-end process flow for an artificial-intelligence ("AI")-based autofill for document preparation, said front- end process flow comprising:
auto-recognizing, by the browser extension application, a document type assigned to the interactive document displayed in the browser (Aveni et al. pg2 section 2.2 para1, recognizing the structure of the form from prior demonstrations);
auto-tagging, by the browser extension application, the interactive document with the document type (Aveni pg2 section 2.2 para1, recognizes type (structure) of the form from prior demonstration);
autofilling, by the autofill process executing within the browser extension application, one or more fillable options within the interactive document displayed in the browser, said autofill process executing an artificial-intelligence engine (Aveni et al. fig. 5, pg5 section 5.1 para1-2, browser extension connects to LLM server to offer completion suggestions to displayed document), said executing the artificial-intelligence engine comprising:
retrieving a first data segment from the data associated with the first user the database partition, said first data segment applicable to one of the one or more fillable options ( Aveni et al. pg4 section 3.1 para8, user-specific information may come from sources other than form-filling activity or recent browsing context);
executing one or more artificial intelligence algorithms to electronically convert the first data segment into a second data segment ingestible by the one or more fillable options (Aveni et al. pg3 section3.2 para6, the task requires a transformation of the available information that produces an output that is syntactically and structurally distinct from the input information but still semantically related.); and
autofilling the one of the one or more fillable options with the second data segment (Aveni et al. fig. 7 pg8 section 6.1 para2, participants were shown how to generate and accept suggestions for the form).
Aveni et al. does not explicitly disclose displaying an interactive document in a browser operating on a hardware processor and hardware memory, the interactive document associated with a first user;
authenticating the login request at the browser extension application; and
upon successful authentication:
selecting, by the browser extension application, from a plurality of autofill processes, an autofill process corresponding to the document type;
instantiating, by the browser extension application, the autofill process corresponding to the document type.
However Lymer et al. substantially discloses displaying an interactive document in a browser operating on a hardware processor and hardware memory, the interactive document associated with a first user (Lymer et al. fig. 1 para[0020]);
authenticating the login request at the browser extension application (Lymer et al. para[0039], a password is configured to control access to the PII in memory); and
upon successful authentication:
instantiating a continual electronic communication link between the browser extension application and a database partition associated with the first user (Lymer et al. para[0021], generates secure connection to personally identifiable information database 118);
selecting, by the browser extension application, from a plurality of autofill processes, an autofill process corresponding to the document type (Lymer et al. fig. 3 para[0043], detects webform in webpage and calls autofill process.);
instantiating, by the browser extension application, the autofill process corresponding to the document type (Lymer et al. fig. 4 para[0048], presents selected autofill method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the contextual form filling of Aveni et al. with the PII storage method of Lymer et al. in order to protect sensitive personal information (Lymer et al. para[0006]).
Aveni does not explicitly disclose receiving a login request from a combination entity at a browser extension application operating within the browser, the combination entity comprising the first user and a second user associated with the first user, the second user comprising a standard second user or an administrative second user;
instantiating a continual electronic communication link between the browser extension application and a database partition associated with the first user, the database partition comprising data associated with the first user, the data comprising one or more file formats, wherein:
when the second user in the combination entity is the standard second user, the database partition permits access to a first subset of the data; and
when the second user in the combination entity is the administrative second user, the database partition permits access to the first subset of the data and a second subset of the data;
However McArthur et al. substantially discloses receiving a login request from a combination entity at a browser extension application operating within the browser, the combination entity comprising the first user and a second user associated with the first user, the second user comprising a standard second user or an administrative second user (McArthur et al. para[0070], The server platform 12 facilitates access to the universal profile by form content consumers (second user) for the purposes of obtaining form content data from the data owner user(first user), para[0077] login from second user account);
instantiating a continual electronic communication link between the browser extension application and a database partition associated with the first user, the database partition comprising data associated with the first user, the data comprising one or more file formats, wherein:
when the second user in the combination entity is the standard second user, the database partition permits access to a first subset of the data (McArthur et al. para[0058], based on access permissions of requesting party, second user permitted access to a subset of universal profile); and
when the second user in the combination entity is the administrative second user, the database partition permits access to the first subset of the data and a second subset of the data (McArthur et al. para[0058], based on access permissions of requesting party, second user permitted access to an entire universal profile);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the contextual form filling of Aveni et al. with the form processing method in order to provide additional protection for personal data and privacy compliance (McArthur para[0004]).
In regards to claim 3, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1 wherein the interactive document requires input by the second user for completion (Aveni et al. pg6 section 5.1.1 para4, users need to click the “save example” button manually before making form submissions).
In regards to claim 4, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1 wherein the autofilling the one of the one or more fillable options with the second data segment requires electronic approval of the second data segment (Aveni et al. pg8 section 6.1 para2, participants shown how to generate and accept suggestions for the form).
In regards to claim 5, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1 wherein the browser extension application displays, adjacent to the one of the one or more fillable options, a selectable option for a pop-up window corresponding to the first data segment, said pop-up window showing a correlation between the first data segment and the second data segment (Aveni et al. fig.4 pg6 section 5.1.1 parar5, upon invocation, omnifill generates suggestions for fields in the web form).
In regards to claim 6, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 5 further comprising:
Receiving a selection of the selectable option for the pop-up window (Aveni et al. figure 4, Upon invocation, OmniFill generates suggestions for fields in the web form.);
retrieving at least a portion of the data associated with the first user (Aveni et al. fig. 4 pg5 section 5.1.1 para4, Omnifill can be configured to save examples automatically when form is submitted); and
displaying the retrieved data within the pop-up window (Aveni et al. fig. 4 pg5 section 5.1.1 para1, the scrapbook lets users see which context has been collected for this form fill).
In regards to claim 7, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 6, wherein the interactive document is a first interactive document, the front-end process flow further comprising converting the retrieved data into a second interactive document, said second interactive document comprising:
one or more indicators to an indicator marking the first data segment (Aveni pg6 section5.1 para1, sidebar displays indicators of stored segments); and
one or more toggle selectable options, when selected, auto-reposition the second interactive document to display the indicator (Aveni pg6 section 5.1 para2, includes buttons to save and clear displayed indicators).
In regards to claim 8, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 7, wherein the indicator is a first indicator, the one or more fillable options is a first fillable option included in the one or more fillable options, the pop-up window is a first pop-up window, the front-end process flow further comprising:
in response to at least one auto-reposition of the second interactive document, enabling selection of an electronic reviewed selectable option associated with the second interactive document, selection of the electronic reviewed selectable option indicating that the second interactive document has been approved with respect to the first data segment (Aveni et al. pg5 section5.1.1 para1, repositions sidebar to display selective context); and
upon selection of the electronic reviewed selectable option, the second interactive document includes a second indicator, said second indicator displayed when the second interactive document is displayed in a second pop-up window corresponding to a second fillable option included in the one or more fillable options (Aveni et al. fig.4 pg6 section 5.1.1 parar5, upon invocation, omnifill generates suggestions for fields in the web form).
In regards to claim 9, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 6 wherein the autofilling the one or more fillable options with the second data segment is triggered upon: the selection of the selectable option for the pop- up window (Aveni et al. fig.4 pg6 section 5.1.1 parar5, upon invocation, omnifill generates suggestions for fields in the web form); and
the displaying the received data within the pop-up window (Aveni et al. fig. 4 pg6 section 5.1.1 para1, the scrapbook contains browsing context observed by Omnifill).
In regards to claim 10, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. substantially discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1 wherein, upon autofilling one of the one or more fillable options, an indicator adjacent to the one or more fillable options is auto-generated (Aveni et al. fig.4 pg6 section 5.1.1 parar5, upon invocation, omnifill generates suggestions for fields in the web form).
In regards to claim 13, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1 wherein:
the first data segment is associated with a level of relevance below a predetermined threshold, said level of relevance with respect to the one of the one or more fillable options (Aveni et al. pg12 section 8.2 para4, first data segments (context) collected determines it is not enough information to satisfy a transformation operation) ; and
the second data segment is a negative answer (Aveni et al. pg3 section 3.2 para6, second data segment (transformed information) is a negative (vegetarian) answer).
Claims 14, 16-23, and 26 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1, 3-10, and 13. Thus claims 14, 16-23, and 26 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1, 3-10, and 13.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aveni et al. in view of Lymer et al., McArthur et al. and Faxon et al. (US2024/0152802).
In regards to claim 2, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 1.
Aveni et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the interactive document is an assessment.
However Faxon et al. discloses wherein the interactive document is an assessment (Faxon et al. para[0025], interactive document is a smart assessment of user information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual form filling of Aveni et al. with the supervisory platform of Faxon et al. in order to identify the resources and requirements of employees or patients (Faxon et al. para[0018]).
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2. Thus claims 15 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim(s) 11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aveni et al. in view of Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. and Bourdev (US7,343,551).
In regards to claim 11, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 10.
Aveni does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the indicator displays an icon, said icon selected from a plurality of stored icons; and
selection of the icon is based on a confidence score assigned by the artificial-intelligence engine to the autofilling of the one of the one or more fillable options.
However Bourdev discloses wherein:
the indicator displays an icon, said icon selected from a plurality of stored icons (Bourdev col 9 ln37-46, displays icon of proposed values in order of likelihood); and
selection of the icon is based on a confidence score assigned by the artificial-intelligence engine to the autofilling of the one of the one or more fillable options (Bourdev col9 ln37-46, displays icon of value with highest likelihood at top of list to be selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined to contextual autofill of Aveni et al. with the proposed values of Bourdev in order to identify the most likely values and format to be accepted by a form (Bourdev col2 ln6-17).
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 11. Thus claims 24 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aveni et al. in view of Lymer et al., and McArthur et al. Bourdev and Faxon et al.
In regards to claim 12, Aveni et al. as modified by Lymer et al., McArthur et al. and Bourdev disclose the front-end process flow of claim 11.
Aveni et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the icon includes a hover-over capability, when triggered by a mouse hover, displays textual information relating to the selected icon (Faxon et al. para[0030], event handlers may generate a pop-up with information based on a mouse hovering).
However Faxon et al. discloses wherein the icon includes a hover-over capability, when triggered by a mouse hover, displays textual information relating to the selected icon (Faxon et al. para[0030], event handlers may generate a pop-up with information based on a mouse hovering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual form filling of Aveni et al. with the supervisory platform of Faxon et al. in order to identify the resources and requirements of employees or patients (Faxon et al. para[0018]).
Claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 12. Thus claims 25 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 12.
Claim(s) 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aveni et al. in view of Allahyari et al. (US12,124,515) and McArthur et al.
In regards to claim 27, Aveni et al. discloses a front-end process flow for an artificial-intelligence ("AI")-based auto-selection for document preparation, said front-end process flow comprising:
using an AI engine (Aveni et al. pg2 section 2.2 using a LLM to parse text);
scanning a plurality of electronic, stored at the database segment (Aveni et al. pg2 section 2.2 parsed copied text);
based on scanning the plurality of electronic data elements instances associated with a data field in the interactive document (Aveni et al. pg6 section5.1.1 para4, collects context from web and user activity);
generating, a list data structure comprising, a set of instances associated with the data afield, the set of instances comprising the instance, the list data structure comprising the set of instances for each of the one or more specific data elements (Aveni et al. pg6 section5.1.1 para1, collected context stored in sidebar data structure).
Aveni et al. does not explicitly disclose a timestamp associated with instances (Allahyari et al. col6 ln20-28, stores times associated with documents)
based on the list data structure, dynamically generating an electronic calendar, comprising a visual indicators marking the reference time window for completion of the interactive document.
However Allahyari discloses receiving, at a user interface, a request from an operator to identify one or more time windows in which a document associated with a subject should be completed to maximize resource consumption associated with the document (Allahyari et al. fig. 4 col3 ln28-38, receives a request from a user to identify a time window for a financial action);
a timestamp associated with instances (Allahyari et al. col6 ln20-28, stores times associated with documents); and
based on the list data structure, dynamically generating an electronic calendar, comprising a visual indicators marking the reference time window for completion of the interactive document (Allahyari et al. col9 ln5-12, selects location to maximize consumption of resources and minimize).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the contextual autofill of Aveni et al. with the information providing method of Allahyari et al. in order to tailor responses to the specific needs of a user (Allahyari et al. col11 ln36-47).
Aveni does not explicitly disclose receiving, at a user interface, a request from an operator to identify a reference time window for completion of an interactive document associated with an entity, the operator associated with a first level of access or a second level of access to a database segment associated with the entity;
At the database segment:
Granting access to a first subset of the data elements for an operator associated with the first level of access; and
Granting access to a first subset of the data elements and a second subset of the data elements for an operator associated with the second level of access.
However McArthur et al. substantially discloses receiving, at a user interface, a request from an operator to identify a reference time window for completion of an interactive document associated with an entity, the operator associated with a first level of access or a second level of access to a database segment associated with the entity (McArthur et al. para[0178], The governance specifications 438 may specify whether consumer 310 access to a data owner 314 universal profile is a one-time access or an ongoing access (e.g. for a specified time period, until revoked, etc.));
At the database segment:
Granting access to a first subset of the data elements for an operator associated with the first level of access(McArthur et al. para[0058], based on access permissions of requesting party, second user permitted access to a subset entire universal profile); and
Granting access to a first subset of the data elements and a second subset of the data elements for an operator associated with the second level of access (McArthur et al. para[0058], based on access permissions of requesting party, second user permitted access to an entire universal profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the contextual form filling of Aveni et al. with the form processing method in order to provide additional protection for personal data and privacy compliance (McArthur para[0004]).
In regards to claim 28, Aveni et al. as modified by Allahyari et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 27 wherein reference time windows is a date (Aveni et al. pg2 section2.2, converts time window to a calendar event).
In regards to claim 29, Aveni et al. as modified by Allahyari et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 27 wherein the electronic calendar is displayed on the user interface (Aveni et al. pg2 section2.2, displays calendar of events).
In regards to claim 30, Aveni et al. as modified by Allahyari et al. and McArthur et al. discloses the front-end process flow of claim 27 further comprising auto-selecting, by the AI engine, the reference time window (Allahyari et al. col6 ln29-44, col9 ln5-12, identifies time window necessary information is released to select time to maximize consumption of computing resources and minimize retrieval time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the contextual autofill of Aveni et al. with the information providing method of Allahyari et al. in order to tailor responses to the specific needs of a user (Allahyari et al. col11 ln36-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection.
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 NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/N.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141