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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered, and the corresponding amended claim language persuasively claims beyond the previous rejection made under 35 USC 102. However, after further search and consideration, said amended language has necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter for the reasons given below in the 35 USC 112 written description rejection. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite “preventing submission of user input directed into the generated interface”. While Applicant’s specification supports, e.g., that a client application “may record or otherwise store user input while the remote browser session is being initiated”, this “storing” of input is not the same as the claimed “preventing submission of user input”. For example, “preventing submission” of user input does not require that the prevented input be stored, and “storing user input” does not require (or even suggest) that any “prevention” is taking place. In addition, language corresponding to “prevention” (prevent, prevention, preventing, etc.) is wholly lacking in Applicant’s specification when discussing user input management or performing submissions (the “prevented” occurs on a singular occasion, but only when providing background information regarding the treatment/behavior of “unsecured virtual machines”).
Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the above noted claim limitation in the application as filed. Regarding claims 10 and 17, said claims have been amended to include language analogous to that appearing in claim 1. Claims 10 and 17 thus suffer from issues corresponding to those noted above. Regarding claims 2 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 20, each of said claims depends on one of claims 1, 10, and 17, and inherits the issues of their respective parent claim. In order to perform a complete examination, the above language has been interpreted broadly.
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 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 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US-20150172359-A1) in view of CloudFlare (CloudFlare. "What is browser isolation?". https://web.archive.org/web/20220705014849/https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/access-management/what-is-browser-isolation/. July 5. (Year: 2022)) and Van Rotterdam (US-11070630-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor shows a method comprising: receiving, by a client application executing on a computing system, a request for content from a network location; ([21], see “a user may cause a client computing device to load a software browser application (henceforth referred to as a "browser") for accessing content”; [22], and [66] see “load a browser. . . ”) initiating, by the computing system, execution of a network access application, wherein the network access application is separately executed from the client application ([23,66]) before initiating the execution of the network access application (Fig. 8, steps 806->808, [36-37], and [95]): obtaining, by the computing system, at least one pre-stored content file corresponding to the requested content ([22]), wherein the at least one pre-stored content file is stored prior to receiving the request for content by the client application ([68], see “whether a requested resource is already stored. . .”); generating, by the computing system, a user interface based ([4]) on the at least one pre-stored content file ([96]); and receiving, by the computing system, user input directed into the generated user interface (Fig. 5, [11,47,93,98]); determining, by the computing system, that activation of the network access application is complete ([96,98] discussing monitoring when a remote browser session is ready, and then, e.g., switching to the remote browser session); and in response to determining that activation of the network access application is complete ([96,98]), transferring the received user input into the network access application ([24], discussing transfer of “user interaction data, intermediate processing results, and other information”). Taylor does not show: execution in a secure sandbox. CloudFlare recommends execution in a secure sandbox (pg. 1 lines 38-54, pg. 2 lines 55-69, pg. 4 lines 53-55, pg. 5 lines 35-60, suggesting use of sandboxing techniques when executing applications locally and/or remotely).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the remote browsing of Taylor with the sandboxing suggested by CloudFlare in order to improve the resultant security of any endpoint utilizing a browser or executing a browsing session. The above combination does not show all of: prior to determining that activation of a network access application is complete, preventing submission of user input directed into a generated user interface; and in response to determining that activation of the network access application is complete, transferring the received user input into the network access application and submitting the user input. Van Rotterdam teaches: prior to determining that activation of a network access application is complete, preventing submission of user input directed into a generated user interface (col. 8 lines 34-62, discussing that “network activity may . . . be suspended” while state synchronization is being performed (this synchronization represented the loading completion claimed above) and col. 9 lines 27-61 discussing “Once all the recorded user actions (i.e., browser commands) are exhausted, network activity may be resumed”); and in response to determining that activation of the network access application is complete, transferring the received user input into the network access application and submitting the user input (Abstract, see “store a series of browser commands” before using the stored commands as part of “replicating a state” of a first browser session; see also col. 7 lines 10-12 and 35 -40, along with col. 8 lines 34-62 discussing to “store a series of browser commands” and a “collected series of browser commands” that will subsequently be executed “to recreate the state” of the session after prior commands are finished executing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the remote browsing and browsing synchronization of the above combination with the remote browsing state synchronization suggested by Van Rotterdam in order to prevent execution desynchronization between the remotely (i.e., network) and locally executed applications (Van Rotterdam, col. 9 lines 27-34).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination further shows prior to receiving the request for the content, retrieving the content from the network location and storing the content as the at least one pre-stored content file (Taylor, [75]).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination further shows wherein retrieving the content from the network location includes: parsing at least one source content file received from the network location (Taylor, [25]); and
generating the at least one pre-stored content file based on the parsing of the at least one source content file (Taylor, [75-76]).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination further shows wherein generating the user interface based on the at least one pre-stored content file and receiving the user input directed into the user interface are performed through the client application (Taylor, [4,20-21,35,48,86,96]).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination further after transferring the received user input into the network access application (Taylor, [24,96,98]), switching a display from the generated user interface to an interface of the network access application (Taylor, [96,98]). Regarding claims 10 and 17, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 4.
Claims 2, 5, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of CloudFlare and Van Rotterdam, further in view of Dillon (US-20050108517-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the above combination shows wherein initiating execution of the network access application includes: sending a request to a remote device to execute the network access application (Taylor, [32,35,66,94]); and
establishing a communication channel between the computing system and the remote device for transmitting data to and from the network access application (Taylor, Figs. 1, 2, and 8). The above combination does not show use of secure communication channel. Dillon shows use of secure communication channel (e.g., [35,38] discussing HTTPS and [31,43,47-48] discussing SSL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network communications techniques of Taylor with the security features of Dillion in order to protected the privacy and integrity of the transmitted information.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination shows claim 4. the above combination does not show: wherein generating the at least one pre-stored content file further includes inserting computer-executable code in the at least one pre-stored content file based on the parsing of the at least one source content file. Dillon shows: wherein generating the at least one pre-stored content file further includes inserting computer-executable code in the at least one pre-stored content file based on the parsing of the at least one source content file ([49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network communications techniques of the above combination with the code insertion of Dillon in order to ensure the system works reliably when utilized pre-fetched data.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of CloudFlare and Van Rotterdam, further in view of Inohara (US-6757670-B1).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination shows wherein the at least one pre-stored content file is retrieved from a local network environment comprising a plurality of computing devices (Taylor, Fig. 1, where [28] notes the illustrated network may correspond to a LAN).
The above combination does not show where the computing devices are devices belonging to an organization and located in multiple different geographic locations. Inohara shows devices belonging to an organization and located in multiple different geographic locations (col. 6 lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network communications techniques of the above combination with the network types of Inohara in order to support common commercial/organizational types of computer networks.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 6.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of CloudFlare and Van Rotterdam, further in view of StackOverflow (StackOverflow. Run Javascript Function When User Finishes Typing. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4220126/run-javascript-function-when-user-finishes-typing-instead-of-on-key-up. (Year: 2010)).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination shows wherein transferring the received user input into the network access application includes: transferring the received user input (Taylor, [22-24]).
The above combination does not show determining whether user input is being actively entered; and in response to determining that user input is actively entered, waiting until user input is not being actively entered. StackOverflow shows determining whether user input is being actively entered; and in response to determining that user input is actively entered, waiting until user input is not being actively entered (various solutions outlined on pgs. 1 – 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network communications techniques of the above combination with the input processing of StackOverflow in order to avoid repeated network accesses, thus improving system operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes: Lowet (US-20100306642-A1), Labour (US-8675000-B2), and StackOverflow (StackOverflow. "How to block UI until all pending operations are complete?". https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60334292/how-to-block-ui-until-all-pending-operations-are-complete. (Year: 2020)).
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454