DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed 3/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominac, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0151369 (“Kominac”), in view of Momchilov, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0226742 (“Momchilov”), and in view of Choh, U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0087506 (“Choh”).
With regard to Claim 1, Kominac teaches a method for processing web contents, comprising:
receiving a request to open a web page from a client device ([0052] describes that a client device can view remote content as a web page in a browser, including a webpage itself as shown at Fig. 1. [0079] describes a server receiving an HTTP request from a client web browser);
replacing, via an agent, a first function with a second function, the agent being loaded from a memory of an isolation server to a browser, the agent being used when a canvas sanitization process is performed ([0081] describes that a web application container of the server includes a remote desktop client adapter which translates drawing commands of an image of a remote desktop into Java graphics drawing commands. [0079] describes that the remote client desktop adapter operates on the transcoding server along with the web application container);
loading the web page from a web server to the browser ([0074] describes that the graphical applications executing on a remote desktop server are transmitted to the transcoding server);
in response to an attempt to perform the first function on the web page, performing, via the browser, the second function corresponding to the first function to generate a drawing for a first period of time ([0082] describes that translated drawing commands are drawn into an off-screen Java bitmap in a drawing commands queue, where [0086] describes that responses can be set to send to clients after a specified timeout period);
converting, via the agent, the drawing to an image; and transmitting the image to the client device ([0083]-[0084] details the bitmap image being subsequently served to the requesting client for display in the client web browser).
Kominac does not teach determining a risk associated with the web page based by searching for a website address of the web page on a list of safe website addresses or domains in a memory of the client device using a lookup table or a hash algorithm, or that the or that the replacing, via an agent, a first function with a second function is based on the risk.
Momchilov teaches at [0177]-[0178] that a use of a remote virtual desktop for rendering content can be selective based on a URL that a user attempts to access. URL redirection can be performed in response to security zone policies, as well as white-lists which define URLs that are acceptable for opening using the browser local to the user, versus opening the URL in the remote virtual desktop application. Therefore, an agent to handle remote operation of a browser environment is not loaded for handling the request in instances where a selected URL appears on a white-list, where a white-list is understood by those of skill in the art as a list of safe or low risk webpages. Choh teaches at [0062] that URL matching can be carried out using a hash algorithm that matches hash values between a data structure and a URL. [0089] describes that matching can be carried out between a URL and a whitelist hash map, in order to apply policies to the URL.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Choh with Momchilov. Choh teaches at [0002]-[0003] that the methods described therein are intended to solve problems with prior art systems, where matching algorithms can exhibit poor performance when comparing text to a large number of patterns. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring good performance for matching even when there are a large number of matching targets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to then combine Momchilov and Choh with Kominac. Enabling selective local browser usage as described in Momchilov allows for reduction in data transmission and bandwidth used by a remote desktop application, while also allowing unverified pages to open remotely rather than be given access to the user’s device. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by reducing data transmission and bandwidth while also maintaining separation between user systems and potentially unsafe webpages.
Each of Claims 12 and 20 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 1, and each is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Kominac teaches that the agent being loaded to the browser is prior to the loading of the web page from the web server to the browser. Fig. 9A shows that the web server with the application container is provided in step 904 prior to receiving input commands.
With regard to Claim 3, Kominac teaches that the agent comprises a proxy, and wherein the replacing of the first function comprises: redefining the first function to the second function. Fig. 3A shows that the web application container acts as an intermediary server between the remote desktop server and the client device. [0081] describes that the drawing commands of the remote desktop are translated into Java graphics drawing commands.
Claim 13 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Kominac teaches that the first function is configured to be performed using a drawing parameter, and wherein the second function is configured to be performed using the drawing parameter. [0110] describes that translating a screen drawing command can include calculating new or adjusting received drawing command parameters.
Claim 14 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Kominac teaches receiving the web page from the web server; and generating a drawing object of a hypertext markup language canvas element on the browser based on the web page, wherein the first function is configured to be performed based on the drawing object. [0093] describes that when drawing commands are received from the remote desktop, the commands are then translated in order create an image that can be drawn to the canvas of the receiving user device’s web browser.
Claim 15 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Kominac teaches that the performing of the second function comprises: performing the second function on the browser based on the drawing object. [0082] describes that the translated drawing commands are used to generate the bitmap images.
Claim 16 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Kominac teaches initiating a timer for the first period of time, wherein the timer is associated with the drawing object. [0086] describes a long polling function, whereby a request sent by the client has an associated timeout period, after which a complete response can be sent to the client if any new information is available.
Claim 17 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Kominac teaches that the drawing comprises a first partial drawing, wherein the method further comprises: performing, via the agent, the second function corresponding to the first function to generate a second partial drawing for a second period of time; and aggregating, via the agent, the first partial drawing and the second partial drawing to generate an aggregated drawing, and wherein the converting of the drawing comprises: converting the aggregated drawing to the image. [0082] describes that a user can provide input on an existing image, causing changes to a portion of the received page. The affected coordinates can be recorded, and that portion can be updated and sent to the user browser, per the process of translating drawing commands described therein, including the request timeout after which a response can be sent described at [0086].
Claim 18 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, Kominac teaches receiving a user input to indicate a change to the drawing object, wherein the change to the drawing object comprises the attempt to perform the first function. [0090] describes that a user input listener is responsive to user inputs, where [0092] describes that user inputs are relayed to the transcoding server, which sends a number of drawing requests. Therefore, the process of translating drawing commands can be carried out in response to user interaction that causes a change to the interface.
Claim 19 recites a server comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a communication system coupled to the processor (Fig. 8) configured to carry out the method of Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Kominac teaches that the attempt to perform the first function comprises: completing a command on the web page prior to a call of the first function. [0081]-[0082] describe that the drawing commands for a page are stored in an off-screen Java bitmap, portions of which can be provided to a user as needed. Therefore, a first function that is replaced can exist in a queue, where other commands have previously executed on the page.
With regard to Claim 11, Kominac teaches that the drawing comprises an object drawn by the second function, and wherein the converting of the drawing comprises: converting the object to the image. [0081]-[0082] describes that drawing commands for a page are translated into Java drawing commands, and then the commands are drawn into a bitmap for transmitting to a client device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with regard to Claim 1 that Momchilov is silent on specific data structures regarding checking a whitelist; the newly cited Choh reference cures this deficiency. Additionally, the Kominac reference teaches the aspects of the claim directed toward the loading of an agent from an isolation server, as explained above; the Momchilov reference is relied upon for conditionally applying security measures.
It is the combination of Kominac teaching the aspects of the claim regarding loading an agent to replace a first function with a second function, and the teaching of Momchilov directed to consulting a whitelist and then selectively using a remote desktop for rendering depending on whether a page is on a whitelist, which renders these aspects of the claim obvious in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights