DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 36-57 are presented on 05/19/2025 for examination on merits. Claims 1 and 36 are independent base claims.
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 .
Examiner's Instructions for filing Response to this Office Action
When the Applicant submits amendments regarding to the claims in response the Office Action, the Examiner would appreciate Applicant if a clean copy of the claims is provided to facilitate the prosecution which otherwise requires extra time for editing the marked-up claims from OCR.
Please submit two sets of claims:
Set #1 as in a typical filing which includes indicators for the status of claim and all marked amendments to the claims; and
Set #2 as an appendix to the Arguments/Remarks for a clean version of the claims which has all the markups removed for entry by the Examiner.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 36-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-22 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,333,052 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The claims are compared as follows:
The Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,333,052 B2
36. (New) A system for encoding electronic data published by a publishing user node, the-system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory, coupled to the processor, comprising code stored therein and executable by the processor for:
detecting, via a listener, when an executing browser is about to draw a third party webpage at the publishing user node;
in response to detecting that the third party webpage is about to be drawn, parsing the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more text form input fields;
in response to detecting text input at a text detected form input field third party webpage, assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field;
transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field;
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field; and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the text input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content.
1. A system for encoding electronic data published by a publishing user node, the system comprising: one or more processors; and
a memory, coupled to the one or more processors, comprising code stored therein and executable by the one or more processors for:
detecting, via a listener, when an executing browser is about to draw a third party webpage at the publishing user node;
in response to detecting that the third party webpage is about to be drawn, parsing the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more form input fields;
in response to detecting input at a detected form input field third party webpage, assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field;
transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field;
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field; and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content.
37. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 35 wherein assigning the policy ID further includes assigning a policy associated with the form input field.
2. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein assigning the policy ID further includes assigning a policy associated with the form input field.
38. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 36 wherein the response to detecting input at the form input field includes transmitting the policy ID to a policy node, the policy node responding by:
generating the unique identifier assigned to the form input field;
generating the encoding key for encoding the input at the form input field; and
transmitting, to the publishing user's node, the unique identifier assigned to the form input field and the encoding key for encoding the form input field.
3. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 2
wherein the response to detecting input at the form input field includes transmitting the policy ID to a policy node, the policy node responding by:
generating the unique identifier assigned to the form input field;
generating the encoding key for encoding the input at the form input field; and
transmitting, to the publishing user's node, the unique identifier assigned to the form input field and the encoding key for encoding the form input field.
39. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 35 wherein the form input field is identified by:
processing a Document Object Model (DOM) associated with the third party webpage to identify the form input field; and
responding to the identification of the form input field by attaching a change or blur event handler to the form input field.
4. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein the form input field is
identified by:
processing a Document Object Model (DOM) associated with the third party webpage to identify the form input field; and
responding to the identification of the form input field by attaching a change or blur event handler to the form input field.
40. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 38 wherein the input is detected at the form input field by the event handler such that the event handler detects a change in a value associated with the form input field and the identified form input field loses focus.
5. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 4 wherein the input is detected at the form input field by the event handler such that the event handler detects a change in a value associated with the form input field and the identified form input field loses focus.
41. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 39 further including responding to the change event associated with the form input field losing focus by determining the policy associated with the form input field.
6. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 further including responding to the change event associated with the form input field losing focus by determining the policy associated with the form input field.
42. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 35 wherein the policy is a set of terms to be satisfied by a viewing user node attempting to access the page in order to receive access to a decoded version of the encoded content.
7. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1
wherein the policy is a set of terms to be satisfied by a viewing user node attempting to access the page in order to receive access to a decoded version of the encoded content.
43. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein if the viewing user node accesses the third party webpage and the terms of the policy are not satisfied by the viewing user node, replacing the encoded content with substitution content at the viewing user node.
8. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5
wherein if the viewing user node accesses the third party webpage and the terms of the policy are not satisfied by the viewing user node, replacing the encoded content with substitution content at the viewing user node.
44. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 43 wherein the publishing user node customizes the substitution content.
9. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 6 wherein the publishing user node customizes the substitution content.
45. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein if the terms of the policy specify that the viewing user node is permitted access, replacing the encoded content with cleartext.
10. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5
wherein if the terms of the policy specify that the viewing user node is permitted access, replacing the encoded content with cleartext.
46. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy include one or more of the following that need to be satisfied by the viewing user node:
defining a group of users that are granted access to the cleartext, where if the viewing user node is a member of the access group, the viewing user node is granted access to the cleartext; or
defining a group of users which are denied access to the cleartext, where if the viewing user node is a member of the access denied group, the viewing user node is denied access to the cleartext.
11. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 wherein the terms of the policy include one or more of the following that need to be satisfied by the viewing user node: defining a group of users that are granted access to the cleartext, where if the viewing user node is a member of the access group, the viewing user node is granted access to the cleartext; or defining a group of users which are denied access to the cleartext, where if the viewing user node is a member of the access denied group, the viewing user node is denied access to the cleartext.
47. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy specify an expiration date for providing access to the cleartext.
12. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 wherein the terms of the policy specify an expiration date for providing access to the cleartext.
48. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy specify a geographic location associated with the operating location of a viewing user node in which access to the cleartext is granted or denied.
13. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5
wherein the terms of the policy specify a geographic location associated with the operating location of a viewing user node in which access to the cleartext is granted or denied.
49. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy specify a minimum age or a maximum age of a user associated with the viewing user node to enable access to the cleartext.
14. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 wherein the terms of the policy specify a minimum age or a maximum age of a user associated with the viewing user node to enable access to the cleartext.
50. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to be verified as trustworthy by a machine health monitoring system to enable access to the cleartext.
15. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5
wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to be verified as trustworthy by a machine health monitoring system to enable access to the cleartext.
51. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to provide a passphrase to enable access to the cleartext.
16. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to provide a passphrase to enable access to the cleartext.
52. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 42 wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to meet a specified level of cryptographic capability in order to protect access and use of a decoding key for decoding the encoded content.
17. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 5 wherein the terms of the policy require the viewing user node to meet a specified level of cryptographic capability in order to protect access and use of a decoding key for decoding the encoded content.
53. (New) The system for-encoding electronic data as in claim 36 wherein the third party webpage is a webpage hosted by a social networking provider and the input is a comment provided by the publishing user node at the social networking webpage.
18. The system for-encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein the third party webpage is a webpage hosted by a social networking provider and the input is a comment provided by the publishing user node at the social networking webpage.
54. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 36 wherein the publishing user node selects, from a plurality of potential policies, which policy is associated with the form input field by selecting a style for the form input field.
19. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein the publishing user node selects, from a plurality of potential policies, which policy is associated with the form input field by selecting a style for the form input field.
55. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 54 wherein the publishing user node selects a style for the form input field, the selected style defining a background color, where the defined background color specifies which one of the plurality of potential polices is associated with the form input field.
20. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 19 wherein the publishing user node selects a style for the form input field, the selected style defining a background color, where the defined background color specifies which one of the plurality of potential polices is associated with the form input field.
56. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 36 wherein the code is further executable by the processor for:
in response to detecting image or video content at the form input field uploaded from the publishing user node, assigning a policy associated with the detected content;
obtaining a unique identifier assigned to the detected content and a key for encoding the detected content;
in response to obtaining the unique identifier and
the key for encoding the detected content, encoding the detected content by replacing the detected content with the encoded content.
21. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein the code is further executable by the one or more processors for:
in response to detecting image or video content at the form input field uploaded from the publishing user node, assigning a policy associated with the detected content;
obtaining a unique identifier assigned to the detected content and a key for encoding the detected content;
in response to obtaining the unique identifier and the key for encoding the detected content, encoding the detected content by replacing the detected content with the encoded content.
57. (New) The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 36 wherein the policy associated with the form input field allows the publishing user node to define an encoding process associated with encoding the input at the form input field.
22. The system for encoding electronic data as in claim 1 wherein the policy associated with the form input field allows the publishing user node to define an encoding process associated with encoding the input at the form input field.
Nonstatutory 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.
First,
Claims 1 and 36-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of Patent No. US 11132464 B2 (USPAT 464).
USPAT 464 anticipates claim 36 of the instant application:
36. A system for encoding electronic data published by a publishing user node, the-system comprising:
a processor (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: a processor); and
a memory (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: a memory), coupled to the processor, comprising code stored therein and executable by the processor for:
detecting, via a listener, when an executing browser is about to draw a third party webpage at the publishing user node (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: execute a browser application; using a listener, detect when the browser is about to draw the third party webpage on the display);
in response to detecting that the third party webpage is about to be drawn, parsing the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more text form input fields (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: parse the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more form input fields);
in response to detecting input at a detected form input field third party webpage, assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: in response to detecting input at a detected form input field in the third party webpage, assign a policy ID associated with the detected form input field;);
transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: transmit the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field);
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: receive, from the policy node, a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field); and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content (USPAT 464, CLM. 1: in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encode the input by replacing the input with the encoded content.).
Independent claim 1 is a method claim broader than claim 36 reciting similar limitations and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 37-57 of the present application, they are obvious variants of the same subject matter as found in the reference application and thereby rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Secondly,
Claims 1 and 36-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of Patent No. US 10,607,029 B2 (USPAT 029).
USPAT 029 anticipates claim 36 of the instant application:
Regarding claim 36, USPAT 029 teaches a system for encoding electronic data published by a publishing user node, the-system comprising:
a processor; and a memory (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: a client computer system), coupled to the processor, comprising code stored therein and executable by the processor for:
detecting, via a listener, when an executing browser is about to draw a third party webpage at the publishing user node (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: draw a third party webpage received; using a listener, detecting when an executing browser of the client system is about to draw a third party webpage received);
in response to detecting that the third party webpage is about to be drawn, parsing the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more text form input fields (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more form input fields; in response to detecting input at a detected form input field in the third party webpage);
in response to detecting input at a detected form input field third party webpage, assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field);
transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field);
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: receiving, from the policy node, a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field); and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content (USPAT 029, CLM. 1: in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content).
Independent claim 1 is a method claim broader than claim 36 reciting similar limitations and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 37-57 of the present application, they are obvious variants of the same subject matter as found in the reference application, thereby rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Thirdly,
Claims 1 and 36-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-20 of US Patent No. 9047489 B2 (hereinafter “USPAT 489”).
Regarding claim 36, USPAT 489 anticipates the claim with a similar comparison of the limitations as shown above.
Independent claim 1 is a method claim broader than claim 36 reciting similar limitations and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 37-57 of the present application, they are obvious variants of the same subject matter as found in the reference application, thereby rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Fourthly,
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-22 of Patent No. US Patent No. 12,333,052 B2 (USPAT 052).
It is noted that claims 36-57 are rejected earlier as a statutory type double patenting.
Regarding claim 1, USPAT 052 anticipates:
A method of encoding electronic data published by a user node, the method comprising:
processing contents of an electronic document to identify one or more text input fields (USPAT 052, CLM. 1: detecting that the third-party webpage … contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more form input fields);
in response to detecting text input at a text input field identified in the document, assigning a policy associated with the text input field (USPAT 052, CLM. 1: assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field);
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the text input field and a key for encoding the text input of the text input field (USPAT 052, CLM. 1: receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field); and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the key for encoding the text input, encoding the text input by replacing the text input with encoded text (USPAT 052, CLM. 1: in response to receiving the unique identifier and the encoding key for encoding the input at the detected form input field, encoding the input by replacing the input with the encoded content).
Fifthly,
Given claim 1 is a broader claim, the following parents anticipate claim 1: U.S. Patent # 11741264, U.S. Patent # 11244074, U.S. Patent # 10331908, and U.S. Patent # 9990516.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-20 of US Patent No. 11741264.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-20 of US Patent No. 11244074.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-20 of US Patent No. 10331908.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-20 of US Patent No. 9990516.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 37, 39, and 41-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are determined by the following reasons:
Claims 37, 39, and 42 each recite the canceled claim 35, causing unclarity of the claims.
Claim 41 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the claim depends from the rejected base claim 39.
Claims 43-51 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because they depend on the rejected base claim 42.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver (US 20120110680 A1) in view of Slater (US 20110307695 A1).
As per claim 1, Oliver teaches a method of encoding electronic data published by a user node, the method comprising:
processing contents of an electronic document to identify one or more text input fields (Oliver, par. 0058-0059: processing and applying privacy policies to data elements such as a credit card number; par. 0031: For example, a query for contact information may apply to both a user's private contact list stored at a user device and a public contact list stored, for instance, within a social networking service. In this example, the private contact list and the public contact list operate under different access and/or privacy policies whereby the private contact list is accessible only by the information owner, while the public contact list is accessible by the information owner and the owner's social networking friends);
in response to detecting text input at a text input field identified in the document, assigning a policy associated with the text input field (Oliver, par. 0078, the policy as assigned in Oliver … requires that fields ID and address being blocked from the exchange);
While Oliver teaches a technique of masking out certain elements in online shared data (see par. 0079-0080) to which a token is assigned (par. 0067), Oliver does not explicitly disclose receiving the token as well as an encoding key for encoding text input entered by user. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
In a related art, Slater discloses:
receiving a unique identifier assigned to the text input field and a key for encoding the text input of the text input field (Slater, par. 0101: When the message is posted, the encrypted message is also stored in a record of the feed, [which] is associated with the object record on which the feed is displayed in the database system. Slater discloses the use of identifiers as the entity id in the feed, i.e., text of the message; see par. 0025 and 0032 for the use of a key for encrypting input text and the post IDs as shown in FIGS. 6D-6E); and
in response to receiving the unique identifier and the key for encoding the text input, encoding the text input by replacing the text input with encoded text (Slater, par. 0061: selective encryption of private data marked private; par. 0074: feed data or, generally, as posts, can be selectively visible to users; par. 0095-0096: a message being entered into an object feed, is encrypted … and securely stored on a multi-tenant database system as shown in FIG. 4, BLOCKS 402-403).
Oliver and Slater are analogous art, because they are in a similar field of endeavor in improving protection of private data in social networking environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to use Slater to modify Oliver to encrypt data elements in posts or feed selectively for security purpose. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security and privacy protection with data sharing in social networking environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-57 are allowable over prior art for the following reasons:
Independent claim 36 repeats a substantial portion of the allowable subject matter of the parent case Application No. 14710451, filed 11/14/2011, now U.S. Patent # 9047489. The claim recites elements of “detecting, via a listener, when an executing browser is about to draw a third party webpage at the publishing user node; in response to detecting that the third party webpage is about to be drawn, parsing the third party webpage for input at a form input field by: parsing contents of the third party webpage to detect one or more text form input fields; in response to detecting text input at a text detected form input field third party webpage, assigning a policy ID associated with the detected form input field;
transmitting the policy ID to a policy node to request an encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field; receiving a unique identifier assigned to the detected form input field and the encoding key for encoding the input of the detected form input field; and in response to receiving the unique identifier and
the encoding key for encoding the text input at the detected form input field, encoding the text input by replacing the input with the encoded content.”. These features, in combination with the other limitations in the claim, are not anticipated by, nor made obvious over the prior art of record. Therefore, independent claim 36 is allowable. Dependent claims 37-57 are allowed by virtue of their dependencies on claim 36 as they further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art additionally discloses certain parts of the claim features (See “PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272.9953. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 7:30 A.M to 5:00 P.M EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl G Colin can be reached on 571.272.3862. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/Don G Zhao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 10/14/2026
