DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 06/10/2025 is a continuation of 18/407,512, filed 01/09/2024, which was a continuation of 17/157,222, filed 01/25/2021. Thus, the earliest effective filing date is 01/25/2021 for was recited therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it does not meet the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98, which requires a list of references with sufficient detail for the examiner to locate and evaluate them. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2 and 12 of the Instant Application are included in claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,308, while including some differences in scope.
U.S. Patent No. 11,907,308
The Instant Application
Claim 1.
A computing system, comprising: a processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to: obtain document data of a first web document;
identify one or more tradeable objects based on performing a contextual scan of the document data of the first web document;
generate supplementary display data associated with the first web document, the supplementary display data including
one or more user interface elements for initiating account access actions in connection with at least one trading account associated with the one or more identified tradeable objects;
graphically present the supplementary display data with webpage content of the first web document, wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises
displaying, for each identified tradeable object, only those user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for the tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information;
detect user selection of a first user interface element corresponding to a first account-related action; determine an access control level associated with performing the first account-related action in connection with a first one of the identified tradeable objects on the first web document;
determine that the user is logged in to a trading account and that further authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action based on the access control level associated with the first account-related action in connection with the first identified tradeable object on the first web document;
and responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generate a request to process performance of the first account-related action in connection with the first identified tradeable object on the first web document.
From claim 1 unless otherwise noted.
A computing system, comprising:
a processor;
and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
identify one or more tradeable objects based on performing a contextual scan of document data of a first web document;
From claim 2
graphically present supplementary display data with webpage content of the first web document, wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises
displaying, for at least one of the identified tradeable objects, object-specific user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for a trading account in connection with the at least one identified tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information.
(End of claim 2)
detect user selection of an object-specific user interface element corresponding to a first account-related action in connection with a first one of the identified tradeable objects;
determine that the user is already logged in to the trading account and that further authentication in addition to account login authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action;
and responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generate a request to process performance of the first account-related action.
Claim 11.
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining document data of a first web document; identifying one or more tradeable objects based on performing a contextual scan of the document data of the first web document;
generating supplementary display data associated with the first web document, the supplementary display data including one or more user interface elements for initiating account access actions in connection with at least one trading account associated with the one or more identified tradeable objects; graphically presenting the supplementary display data with webpage content of the first web document, wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises
displaying, for each identified tradeable object, only those user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for the tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information;
detecting user selection of a first user interface element corresponding to a first account-related action; determining an access control level associated with performing the first account-related action in connection with a first one of the identified tradeable objects on the first web document;
determining that the user is logged in to a trading account and that further authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action based on the access control level associated with the first account-related action in connection with the first identified tradeable object; and
responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generating a request to process performance of the first account-related action in connection with the first identified tradeable object.
From claim 11 unless otherwise noted.
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying one or more tradeable objects based on performing a contextual scan of document data of a first web document;
From claim 12
graphically presenting supplementary display data with webpage content of the first web document, wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises
displaying, for at least one of the identified tradeable objects, object-specific user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for a trading account in connection with the at least one identified tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information.
(End of claim 2)
detecting user selection of an object-specific user interface element corresponding to a first account-related action in connection with a first one of the identified tradeable objects;
determining that the user is already logged in to the trading account and that further authentication in addition to account login authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action; and
responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generating a request to process performance of the first account-related action.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Boer et al. (“Boer”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0332366, in view of Shelton et al. (“Shelton”), United States Patent No. 10,019,561.
As per claim 1, Boer discloses a computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor ([0041]), the memory storing computer-executable instructions ([0042]) that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
identify one or more tradeable objects based on performing a contextual scan of document data of a first web document ([0021]-[0022] wherein the page is scanned for security symbols (tradeable objects));
detect user selection of an object-specific user interface element corresponding to a first account-related action in connection with a first one of the identified tradeable objects ([0024]-[0025] wherein the system detects the user selection of an object-specific interface corresponding to a first account-related action (an online trade in the prior art));
determine that the user is already logged in to the trading account ([0033]–[0034] wherein it is determined that the user is already logged in (authenticated in the prior art)), but does not disclose to determine that further authentication in addition to account login authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action; and responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generate a request to process performance of the first account-related action. However, Shelton teaches to determine that further authentication in addition to account login authentication is required for initiating performance of the first account-related action ([Col 16, lines 19-40] wherein it is determined that the user that is logged in to a trading account requires further authentication for the specific account related action (See [Col 3, lines 45-59] wherein trading stocks is an activity that can be performed by a user logged into an account)); and responsive to successful further authentication of the user, generate a request to process performance of the first account-related action ([Col 16, lines 41-55] wherein the user is asked for further authentication and proceeding with the activity).
Both Boer and Shelton describe authenticating a user to allow for the trade of stocks. One could allow for the level of authentication required based on the account-related action as in Shelton with the integrated trading tools on a website as in Boer to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of detecting stocks and generating an interface to trade stocks as in Boer with the specialized authentication from Shelton in order to provide sufficient security to confidently allow access to financial accounts.
As per claim 3, note the rejection of claim 1 where Boer and Shelton are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 1. Boer further discloses wherein identifying the one or more tradeable objects comprises processing text data of the webpage content to parse identifiers associated with one or more predefined tradeable objects ([0021]-[0022] wherein the system scans for text i.e. processes that text, of the webpage to determine the security symbols i.e. identifiers).
As per claim 8, note the rejection of claim 1 where Boer and Shelton are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 1. Boer further discloses wherein the account actions comprise one or more of: requesting execution of a trade order in connection with at least one of the identified tradeable objects; adding at least one of the identified tradeable objects to a watchlist associated with a trading account; and managing profile and account activity data associated with a trading account. (Examiner Notes the use of “one or more” requiring only one of the elements after to disclose the invention and [0024] wherein an element (actionable icon) that can be activated, that can be used to execute a trade with regards to the security symbol).
As per claim 11, claim 11 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 18, claim 18 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 8 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Boer, in view of Shelton, in further view of Konstantinides et al. (“Konstantinides”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0192888.
As per claim 2, note the rejection of claim 1 where Boer and Shelton are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 1. Boer further discloses
the processor to graphically present supplementary display data with webpage content of the first web document ([0024] wherein a trading control is presented on the page next to the security symbol information), but does not disclose wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises displaying, for at least one of the identified tradeable objects, object-specific user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for a trading account in connection with the at least one identified tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information. However, Konstantinides teaches wherein the graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises displaying, for at least one of the identified tradeable objects, object-specific user interface elements corresponding to available account actions for a trading account in connection with the at least one identified tradeable object determined based on permission levels for the account actions and inputted user authentication information ([Col 19, lines 31-51] wherein only available actions are shown based on the users holdings and [Col 27, lines 63-67]-[Col 28, lines 1-3] wherein the trading account is determined by login and input user authentication information),
Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides describe authenticating a user for stock trade. Boer describes supplemental interface data including the ability to buy the stock, but does not expressly limit that to the actions available to his account permissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of adding supplemental interface actions based on stocks in websites as in Boer and Shelton with the filtering by available account actions for a trading account in connection with the at least one identified tradeable object as in Leanne in order to provide only possible orders that are relevant to the user.
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Konstantinides further teaches to obtain account data for the trading account associated with a user of the computing system, and wherein the supplementary display data is generated based on the account data ([Col 19, lines 17-28] wherein the account data is obtained at login to create the possible orders for the supplementary display data).
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Konstantinides further teaches wherein the account data comprises at least one of historical transaction data associated with the trading account or portfolio data for a portfolio of tradeable objects associated with the trading account (Examiner notes the use of “at least one” wherein only one of historical transaction data or portfolio data are required to be taught and [Col 19, lines 17-28] wherein portfolio data as the number of shares of a certain stock are described)
As per claim 6, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Konstantinides teaches to prompt for authentication information associated with a trading account ([Col 19, lines 17-28] wherein a “log in” is described as a result to a prompt), and wherein graphically presenting the supplementary display data comprises: transmitting, to an account management server, a request to access the trading account, the request including user-inputted authentication information ([Col 19, lines 17-28] wherein a user “log in” is descried, a request to access the trading account);
determining one or more account-related actions for the trading account that require user authentication ([Col 19, lines 17-28] wherein it is determined that the security is held by the user indicating the one or more account actions that required authentication); and generating user interface elements corresponding to the one or more account- related accounts ([Col 19, lines 31-51] wherein only available actions are shown based on the user’s holdings).
As per claim 7, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Boer further discloses providing, for at least one of the identified tradeable objects, a graphical indication of an association between the supplementary display data and content items associated with the identified tradeable object in the webpage content ([0024] wherein a trading control is presented on the page next to the security symbol information, wherein after the detection of an event such as a click or hover, a trading ticket is displayed).
As per claim 9, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Boer further discloses displaying the one or more user interface elements concurrently with the webpage content in a web browser ([0024] wherein a trading control is presented on the page next to the security symbol information, concurrently with the webpage content (See Fig. 7)).
As per claim 10, note the rejection of claim 2 where Boer, Shelton and Konstantinides are combined. The combination teaches the computing system of claim 2. Boer further discloses to receive, via an input interface, selection of at least one of the one or more user interface elements ([0024] wherein a trading control is presented on the page next to the security symbol information, wherein after the detection of an event such as a click or hover, a trading ticket is displayed; and transmit, to an account management server, a request to execute an account- related action corresponding to a selected user interface element in connection with a trading account ([0024] wherein the trading control includes an element (actionable icon) that can be activated, that can be used to initiate a trade with regards to the security symbol).
As per claim 12, claim 12 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 14, claim 14 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 16, claim 16 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 7 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 9 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is a method that is performed by the system of claim 10 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights