DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Popular Science.
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, 5, 7-10, 14-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyakov (US 20100077481 A1) hereafter Polyakov in view of Tal et al (US 20150163234 A1) hereafter Tal in view of Popular Science
Regarding claim 1, Polyakov teaches a method comprising: downloading a web page including a plurality of elements (Para 0012, an application attempts to visit a website); for an original function of an user interactable element of the plurality of elements on the web page that provides reporting information to a server based on a first user action (Para 0012, the system may collect user actions performed and other information about a potential threat posed by malware), replacing the original function of the user interactable element with a different function that, based on a second user action performed on the downloaded web page (Para 0018, the threat analysis component 150 may inspect a threat report to determine the operating system and configuration of the client computer that submitted the report, configure a similar computer in a virtual or sandboxed environment, and carry out user and other actions indicated in the threat report to observe the behavior of the malware associated with the threat)(a user action performed in the “sandboxed environment” teaches “a second user action”), reports information about the replaced original function to a computer system other than the server to which the reporting information would be generated by the original function (Para 0033, the malware analysis system automatically submits threat information from the threat log to a server component of an anti-malware application); the information about the replaced original function comprising an uniform resource locator (URL) specific to the server and the reporting information that would have been provided by the original function (Para 0015, the information collection component 120 may store information about files, directories, registry keys, URLs, and other resources accessed by an application); and displaying the downloaded web page including the plurality of elements with the user interactable element unaltered but with the original function of the user interactable element being replaced with the different function, the first user action that would have caused the reporting information to be provided to the server, and the information about the replaced original function (Para 0026, Each client computer 210 includes client-side components 230 of the malware analysis system that detect and analyze information about threats on the client computer 210).
Polyakov does not appear to explicitly teach altering a link associated with the user interactable element on the web page to disable an operability of the user interactable element.
In analogous art, Tal teaches altering a link associated with the user interactable element on the web page to disable an operability of the user interactable element (Para 0075, generate an associated rule for the specific web-based malware and attempt to block/stop the activity by removing the malicious component such as malicious URL). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov to include the teaching of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform internet security, as taught by Tal (Para 0002, The disclosure herein relates to internet security).
Polyakov in view of Tal teaches downloading a web page including a plurality of elements. However, Polyakov in view of Tal does not appear to explicitly teach downloading a web page including a plurality of elements having at least one user interactable element; storing a local copy of the downloaded web page; selecting a different function for replacing an original function of the user interactable element on the local copy of the downloaded web page; replacing the original function of the user interactable element on the local copy of the downloaded web page with a the different function.
In analogous art, Popular Science teaches downloading a web page including a plurality of elements having at least one user interactable element (Page 3, email tracking is typically triggered by some kind of interactive element in a message); storing a local copy of the downloaded web page (Page 3, email client loads that element); selecting a different function for replacing an original function of the user interactable element on the local copy of the downloaded web page (Page 5, The easiest way to block email tracking across the board is to stop your email client from loading images by default); replacing the original function of the user interactable element on the local copy of the downloaded web page with a the different function (Page 5, The tradeoff is that no images will ever automatically display when you open emails—you’ll need an extra tap or click to load them each time). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov in view of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide online security, as taught by Popular Science (Page 8, Now that you’ve got the tools and know-how you need to reclaim a little bit of your email privacy, you have to decide what to do with all that).
Regarding claim 5, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising filtering one or more elements of the plurality of elements on the web page (Tal, Para 0075, generate an associated rule for the specific web-based malware and attempt to block/stop the activity by removing the malicious component such as malicious URL). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov to include the teaching of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform internet security, as taught by Tal (Para 0002, The disclosure herein relates to internet security).
Regarding claim 7, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science teaches the method of claim 5, wherein filtering the one or more elements of the plurality of elements on the web page includes removing the one or more elements from a document object model associated with the web page (Tal, Para 0075, generate an associated rule for the specific web-based malware and attempt to block/stop the activity by removing the malicious component such as malicious URL). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov to include the teaching of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform internet security, as taught by Tal (Para 0002, The disclosure herein relates to internet security).
Regarding claim 8, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science teaches the method of claim 5, wherein filtering the one or more elements of the plurality of elements on the web page includes filtering the one or more elements with no associated link or that do not generate reporting information (Tal, Para 0075, generate an associated rule for the specific web-based malware and attempt to block/stop the activity by removing the malicious component such as malicious URL). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov to include the teaching of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform internet security, as taught by Tal (Para 0002, The disclosure herein relates to internet security).
Regarding claim 9, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science teaches the method of claim 5, wherein filtering the one or more elements of the plurality of elements on the web page includes filtering the one or more elements based on an element type received from an administrator (Tal, Para 0075, generate an associated rule for the specific web-based malware and attempt to block/stop the activity by removing the malicious component such as malicious URL). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov to include the teaching of Tal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform internet security, as taught by Tal (Para 0002, The disclosure herein relates to internet security).
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 8, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the medium claim corresponding to method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-4, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Murthy (US 20110307867 A1) hereafter Murthy
Regarding claim 2, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science teaches the method of claim 1, as shown above. Polyakov in view of Tal does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising simulating at least one user action with the user interactable element on the web page that would have caused the replaced original function to provide the reporting information.
In analogous art, Murthy teaches simulating at least one user action with the element on the web page that would have caused the replaced original function to provide the reporting information (Para 0031, The web crawler may simulate different user actions in connection with specific web pages). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Popular Science to include the teaching of Murthy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate the use information associated with the application, as taught by Murthy (Para 0031, Particular embodiments may automatically analyze a user-interactive software application to generate the use information associated with the application).
Regarding claim 3, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Murthy further teaches further comprising collecting the information about the replaced original function that is reported in response to the at least one simulated user action (Murthy, Para 0031, Particular embodiments may automatically analyze a user- interactive software application to generate the use information associated with the application). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science to include the teaching of Murthy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate the use information associated with the application, as taught by Murthy (Para 0031, Particular embodiments may automatically analyze a user- interactive software application to generate the use information associated with the application).
Regarding claim 4, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Murthy further teaches wherein the at least one simulated user action includes at least one of a hover above the user interactable element on the web page and a click on the user interactable element on the web page (Murthy, Para 0029, user action includes the clicking of a link, clicking a link requires hovering over it first). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science to include the teaching of Murthy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate the use information associated with the application, as taught by Murthy (Para 0031, Particular embodiments may automatically analyze a user- interactive software application to generate the use information associated with the application).
Regarding claim 6, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Murthy further teaches simulating at least one user action with the user interactable element on the web page that would have caused the replaced original function to provide the reporting information, wherein filtering the one or more user interactable elements of the plurality of user interactable elements on the web page includes filtering the one or more user interactable elements before simulating the at least one user action (Murthy, Para 0027, filters elements of the XML Web page that do not comply with the element selection options). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science to include the teaching of Murthy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to generate the use information associated with the application, as taught by Murthy (Para 0031, Particular embodiments may automatically analyze a user- interactive software application to generate the use information associated with the application).
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 20, Polyakov in view of Tal in view of Popular Science in view of Murthy teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the system is further caused to filter one or more elements of the plurality of elements on the web page with no associated link or that do not generate reporting information, and simulate at least one user action with the user interactable element on the web page that would have caused the replaced original function to provide the reporting information (Polyakov, Para 0018, the threat analysis component 150 may inspect a threat report to determine the operating system and configuration of the client computer that submitted the report, configure a similar computer in a virtual or sandboxed environment, and carry out user and other actions indicated in the threat report to observe the behavior of the malware associated with the threat).
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 Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights