DETAILED ACTION
The following claims are pending in this office action: 1-3 and 5-10
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
The following claims are amended: 1-3 and 5-8
The following claims are new: 9-10
The following claims are cancelled: 4
Claims 1-3, and 5-10 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “disable any action on the file until a user confirms the notification, and continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification.” The amended limitations are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) as explained below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 03/02/2026 are moot.
Furthermore, Applicants arguments are not persuasive because the operation on the file infected on the virus cannot reasonably “be manipulated between the time when the virus is detected and before it is moved to the virus bin” in the manner discussed by the Applicant as “all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically when the files are scanned and a virus is detected.” See col. 4, ln. 20-22 of Templeton (US Patent No. 6,401,210).
Independent claim 6 is amended in a similar way to claim 1. The amended limitations are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) as explained below and rejected accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5 and 7-10 depend on independent claim 1. The amended elements in the claims are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) and Lurie et al. (US Pub. 2022/0103507) as explained below, and so any additional features to the dependent claims are rejected accordingly.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton (US Patent No. 6,401,210) (hereinafter “Templeton”) in view of Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) (hereinafter “Kai”).
As per claim 1, Templeton teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 59-61] “Embodiments of the present invention are related to the use of the system 400 to manage computer virus infected files”; [col. 6, ln. 27-28] “The computer system 400 includes a processor 402 that processes data signals [an information processing apparatus]”)
one or more controllers; and ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 67 to col. 8, ln. 3] “Execution of the sequences of instructions causes processor 402 [one or more controllers] to manage virus infected files according to embodiments of the present invention”)
a display wherein the one or more controllers: ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 30] “Fig. 4 is a diagram of a display”; [col. 6, ln. 26 to col. 7, ln. 2] “The computer system 400 includes ... a display device ... a computer set, a computer monitor, a flat panel display, or other suitable display”)
perform virus scanning on a file that is subjected to the virus scanning, ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 50-51] “The anti-virus process may be used to scan one or more files ... for a virus”)
display, on the display, a notification indicating that the virus has been detected when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning. ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-22] “all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically when the files are scanned and a virus is detected”; [col. 4, ln. 30-40] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention ... View Virus Bin button 310 provides the user with ... a virus bin contents window 312 [notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, such as the date the file was added to the virus bin [when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning]”)
Templeton does not clearly teach disable any action on the file until a user confirms the notification, and continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification.
However, Kai teaches disable any action on the file ([Kai, para. 0032] “the MFP 9 to ... document box ... copy ... document [action on the file]”; [para. 0044] “The disable controller 911 executes a mode ... In which the operation input ... Is disabled ... A normal operation input performed by a user ... Is not reflected in the operation of the MFP [disable any action on the file]”) until a user confirms the notification, and ([para. 0069] “The user who has confirmed the error notification on the notification screen 31 can cancel the touch disable mode”)
continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification ([Kai, para. 0058] “When “manual” is selected as the cancel method in the touch disable function setting ... the touch disable mode is canceled in response to the touch operation performed on an end button 23 [until the user confirms the notification]”; [para. 0070] “The drawing controller 912 displays the notification screen 31 that notifies an interrupt event on the interrupt layer 30 when an interrupt event has occurred [continue displaying the notification] while the touch operation is disabled [until the user confirms the notification]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton with the teachings of Kai to include disable any action on the file until a user confirms the notification, and continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so beneficially prevents an incorrect operation from being performed. (Kai, para. 0066)
As per claim 6, Templeton teaches a virus detection display method comprising: ([Templeton, col. 1, ln. 60-61] “An embodiment of the present invention is a method of managing a file infected by at least one computer virus”; [col. 4, ln. 30-32] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
perform virus scanning on a file that is subjected to the virus scanning, ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 50-51] “The anti-virus process may be used to scan one or more files ... for a virus”)
display, on the display, a notification indicating that the virus has been detected when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning. ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-22] “all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically when the files are scanned and a virus is detected”; [col. 4, ln. 30-40] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention ... View Virus Bin button 310 provides the user with ... a virus bin contents window 312 [notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, such as the date the file was added to the virus bin [when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning]”)
Templeton does not clearly teach disable any action on the file until a user confirms the notification, and continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification.
However, Kai teaches disable any action on the file ([Kai, para. 0032] “the MFP 9 to ... document box ... copy ... document [action on the file]”; [para. 0044] “The disable controller 911 executes a mode ... In which the operation input ... Is disabled ... A normal operation input performed by a user ... Is not reflected in the operation of the MFP [disable any action on the file]”) until a user confirms the notification, and ([para. 0069] “The user who has confirmed the error notification on the notification screen 31 can cancel the touch disable mode”)
continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification ([Kai, para. 0058] “When “manual” is selected as the cancel method in the touch disable function setting ... the touch disable mode is canceled in response to the touch operation performed on an end button 23 [until the user confirms the notification]”; [para. 0070] “The drawing controller 912 displays the notification screen 31 that notifies an interrupt event on the interrupt layer 30 when an interrupt event has occurred [continue displaying the notification] while the touch operation is disabled [until the user confirms the notification]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton with the teachings of Kai to include disable any action on the file until a user confirms the notification, and continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so beneficially prevents an incorrect operation from being performed. (Kai, para. 0066)
As per claim 7, Templeton in view of Kai teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches wherein one or more controllers, ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 67 to col. 8, ln. 3] “Execution of the sequences of instructions causes processor 402 [one or more controllers] to manage virus infected files according to embodiments of the present invention”) in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure that was performed on the file, ([col. 4, ln. 16-21] “The Scan Options Dialog window 306 presents the user with a set of actions to automatically perform when a virus is detected ... One of the options may be Move To Virus Bin 308 [the specific measure that was performed on the file] ... all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically [in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of the specific measure performed on the file]”; [col. 3, ln. 20-22] “The virus bin ... used to store virus infected files in a state where the virus may not be executed, copied, or detected”) update display content displayed by the display, the updated display content reflecting a state of the file changed as a result of the specific measure that was performed on the file. ([Col. 4, ln. 20-40] “If the user chooses this option [in a case] ... the user may view the contents of the virus bin ... by selecting a View Virus Bin option ... When the view Virus Bin button is selected, a virus bin contents window 312 may be displayed [update the display content displayed in the display] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, [updated display content] such as the date the file was added to the virus bin... viruses that the file contains [content reflecting a state of the file changed as a result of the specific measure that was performed on the file]”)
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more one or more controllers ... update display content.
However, Kai teaches wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more one or more controllers ... update display content. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is canceled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently, [by one or more controllers – see para. 0072: “Each function ... implemented by one or more processing circuits”] the screen may return to the home screen 11 by performing a normal operation of the operation panel [update display content]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton with the teachings of Kai to include wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more one or more controllers ... update display content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so beneficially allows the user to check the error notification and perform an operation to solve the error (in view of Templeton the detected malware). (Kai, para. 0069)
As per claim 8, Templeton in view of Kai teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches wherein one or more controllers perform ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 67 to col. 8, ln. 3] “Execution of the sequences of instructions causes processor 402 [one or more controllers] to manage virus infected files according to embodiments of the present invention”) a specific measure on the file infected by the virus in order to realize cleaning, deletion or isolation of the virus, ([col. 4, ln. 41-53] “Once the virus infected file is safely moved into the virus bin, the virus it contains can no longer be inadvertently spread to other programs or otherwise infect the system [realize isolation] ...The Clean option 316 attempts to remove the virus from the file ... The Delete Permanently option 318 removes the file from the virus bin and deletes it”) and update display content displayed by the display as a result of the specific measure that was performed on the file. ([Col. 4, ln. 34-35] “When the view Virus Bin button is selected [as a result of the specific measure that was performed], a virus bin contents window 312 may be displayed [update the display content displayed by the display”)
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more controllers perform a specific measure.
However, Kai teaches wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more controllers perform a specific measure. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is canceled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently, [by one or more controllers – see para. 0072: “Each function ... implemented by one or more processing circuits”] ... another application may be started [perform a specific measure]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Templeton and Kai for the same reasons as disclosed above.
As per claim 9, Templeton in view of Kai teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches displaying the notification, even in a case ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-40] “If the user chooses this option [in a case that the file has become inaccessible] ... the user may view the contents of the virus bin ... by selecting a View Virus Bin option ... When the view Virus Bin button is selected, a virus bin contents window 312 may be displayed [displaying the notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files”) that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure that was performed on the file. ([Col. 4, ln. 16-21] “The Scan Options Dialog window 306 presents the user with a set of actions to automatically perform when a virus is detected ... One of the options may be Move To Virus Bin 308 [the specific measure that was performed on the file] ... all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically [in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of the specific measure performed on the file]”; [col. 3, ln. 20-22] “The virus bin ... used to store virus infected files in a state where the virus may not be executed, copied, or detected”)
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification.
However, Kai teaches wherein the one or more controllers continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification. ([Kai, para. 0058] “When “manual” is selected as the cancel method in the touch disable function setting ... the touch disable mode is canceled in response to the touch operation performed on an end button 23 [until the user confirms the notification]”; [para. 0070] “The drawing controller 912 displays the notification screen 31 that notifies an interrupt event on the interrupt layer 30 when an interrupt event has occurred [continue displaying the notification] while the touch operation is disabled [until the user confirms the notification]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Templeton and Kai for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of Kai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trost et al. (US Pub. 2021/0173924) (hereinafter “Trost”).
As per claim 2, Templeton in view of Kai teaches claim 1.
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein, after the user confirms the notification, the one or more controllers update display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed on the file.
However, Kai teaches wherein, after the user confirms the notification, the one or more controllers update display content. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is canceled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently, [by one or more controllers – see para. 0072: “Each function ... implemented by one or more processing circuits”] the screen may return to the home screen 11 by performing a normal operation of the operation panel [update display content]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Templeton and Kai for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers update the display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed on the file.
However, Trost teaches wherein the one or more controllers ([Trost, para. 0121] “A processor ... can be configured to particularly perform ... the method described herein”) update the display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed on the file. ([para. 0107] “investigations platform ... timeline and timeseries [update display content] analysis which displays [displayed by the display] sequential actions [the specific measure] taken by the incident response team [performed on the file]”; [Fig. 12 ] the display includes 1) the file “FIRST DRAFT OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS”, 2) a specific measure performed on the file on the 9th: a tagging/classification of the file as a spear phish attack, and 3) an updated display content based on the specific measure performed on the file on the 14th: a link mitigation action on the document based on the spear phish tagging/classification)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai with the teachings of Trost to include wherein the one or more controllers update the display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed on the file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because incidents responders may be geographically distributed around the world which makes team collaboration during an investigation very difficult or impossible, and such a modification enables simultaneous user collaboration. (Trost, para. 0107)
As per claim 3, Templeton in view of Kai and further in view of Trost teaches claim 2.
Templeton also teaches wherein the specific measure performed on the file is any of a change in a file name of the file, a change in a file path indicating a storage location of the file, release of mounting of a device storing the file, deletion of the file, and overwriting and saving of the file. ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 57-62] “the user may be individually prompted to select an option [perform a specific measure] for each file in which a virus is detected ... If the virus bin option is selected, the anti-virus process moves an infected file to the virus bin for safe-keeping [a change in a file path indicating a storage location of the file]”; [col. 3, ln. 65 to col. 4, ln. 4] “the user may direct that the infected files be ... deleted, saved to a different storage location and ... renamed, or sent to another user while disabled or scrambled [overwriting and saving of the file]”; Examiner interprets “is any of” to mean that any of the following measures disclosed meets the claim limitation which are, as explained above, disclosed in Templeton)
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of Kai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lurie et al. (US Pub. 2022/0103507) (hereinafter “Lurie”).
As per claim 5, Templeton in view of Kai teaches claim 1.
Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained.
However, Lurie teaches wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. ([Lurie, para. 0043] “the notification escalation system issuing a command that allows a laptop computer to conspicuously display a text message on its screen [provide to the user another notification] ... In this example, such a visual display can prompt a user who has been unresponsive to a text message [previous notification] to receive the text message [notification indicating that the notification is being maintained as it is identical to the first text message] on the user's laptop computer”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai with the teachings of Lurie to include wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows for a set of notification options for notifying the user, thereby improving an ability to efficiently determine an effective manner of notifying a user. (Lurie, para. 0017-0018)
As per claim 10, Templeton in view of Kai and further in view of Lurie teaches claim 5.
Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, the other notification when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined period of time, or longer, without being confirmed by the user.
However, Lurie teaches wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, the other notification when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined period of time, or longer, without being confirmed by the user. ([Lurie, para. 0042] “the notification escalation system [the one or more controllers] can generate a set of three notification ... the set of three notification ... can have a corresponding 10-minute acknowledgment-time threshold [when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined amount of time or longer] ... the notification escalation system can, select, at a first time, the first notification [provide, to the user, the first notification] ... Continuing with this example, the notification escalation system can select, at a second time, the second notification [provide, to the user, the other notification] ... in response to determining that a user did not respond to a notification by the first notification option [when the notification continues to be displayed without being confirmed by the user]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai with the teachings of Lurie to include wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so the system can cyclically initiate notification until it obtains acknowledgement data, thereby improving an ability to efficiently determine an effective manner of notifying a user. (Lurie, para. 0017-0018)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Touloumtzis (US Patent No. 9,860,204) discloses presenting sending another notification to get the user’s attention if no indication of acknowledgement is detected within a predetermined about of time since receiving the first notification.
Mernyk et al. (US Pub. 2009/0193358) discloses disabling operations to a computer by a user until a requested operation or acknowledgement has been completed.
Karstens (US Pub. 2009/0125850) discloses a prompt to a user to confirm closing a window and preventing user operations to prevent accidental closure of the window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHE LIU whose telephone number is (571) 272-3634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM to 5:30 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, Carl 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ZHE LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights