DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed November 21, 2025 for the application # 17/373,198 filed on September 26, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and with a title VIRTUAL CLOUD WORKLOAD PROTECTION PLATFORM AND RELATED APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
REMARKS, provided by Applicant are based on the assertion that “Negrea teach the use of a local renderer rather than a remote render” (REMARKS, page 9). Examiner points Applicant attention that Applicant considers Smart Agent to be “local” and Renderer to be remote (ex. Drawings FIG.3). Negrea defines Cloud-based security system as local, and users as remote (Negrea, FIG.6). In any approach user and security system are separated.
Further cited by Applicant “client-side rendering” is not the rendering as currently claimed, and is the same as claimed plug-in, the purpose of which is “At the native browser 1402, the HTML5 WebSocket stream is rendered as an HTML5 friendly protocol into an HTML5 canvas (step 1516).” (Negrea, [0131]). The claimed rendering is disclosed by Negrea [0036] as “In an embodiment, the present disclosure includes a web isolation platform that secures Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) apps from data exfiltration and shields corporate endpoints from web-borne threats. It renders all content in the cloud and sends only passive, safe pixels (i.e., graphics files) to the browser to prevent exfiltration of confidential or regulated data from web apps (such as Salesforce (SFDC), Oflice365 (0365), or Workday) or exposure to malicious web content. IT security professionals gain peace of mind with GDPR and HIPAA compliance and visibility into end-user activity. The web isolation platform runs in the cloud, accessible from any web browser without installation.”
Conclusion: Examiner maintains rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Negrea et al. (US 2021/0250333, Pub. Date: Aug. 12, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Negrea.
As per claim 1, Negrea teaches a method comprising:
providing a smart agent for determining, whether a data stream is approved or unapproved (The cloud-based firewall can provide Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and access controls across various ports and protocols as well as being application and user aware. The URL filtering can block, allow, or limit website access based on policy for a user, group of users, or entire organization, including specific destinations or categories of URLs (e.g., gambling, social media, etc.). Negrea, [0045]);
providing a remote rendering device remotely located from the smart agent (Cloud-based security system 100 separate from remote users 102A, Negrea, FIG.6); and
initiating communication between the smart agent and the remote rendering device ensuring safe passageway of a network resource requested by a protected client (Negrea, [0128]-[0130]).
As per claim 2, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the smart agent is in communication with a distributed zero trust network (Negrea, [0005]).
As per claim 3, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, and further comprising at least one plug-in operably associated with the protected client and comprising at least a portion of the smart agent (Negrea, [0129]).
As per claim 4, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, wherein communication between the smart agent and the remote rendering device remotely renders unsafe content (Negrea, [0109]).
As per claim 5, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, wherein communication between the smart agent and the remote rendering device is configured for inbound and outbound connection protection with a public internet (Negrea, FIG.21).
As per claim 13, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the remote rendering device is located in a remote data center to thereby completely isolate the remote rendering device from the protected client (Cloud-based security system 100 separated from remote users 102A, Negrea, FIG.6).
As per claim 14, Negrea teaches the method of claim 13, and further comprising:
providing at least a partial bucket brigade mode between the remote rendering device and the smart agent (see workflow step by step diagram, Negrea, FIG.12A and 12B); and
fully surveying and safely obtaining all content by said at least a partial bucket brigade mode to thereby avoid ad-blocking side-effects (Negrea, [0035]).
As per claim 15, Negrea teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the smart agent is located on at least one of a workstation, server, gateway, and other connected device (300, 350, Negrea, FIG.3) to thereby block high-risk sites, protect the workstation, and associated networks (Negrea, FIG.17).
Claims 6-12 and 16-20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/232,240 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the reference application. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the reference application because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the reference application and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492