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 .
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are amended. Claims 8, 11, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected. Claim 9 is objected to. Claims 1 and 9 contain allowable subject matter.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument BALDWIN does not teach “installation of a new browser extension”:
This argument is persuasive. This portion of the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1).
Regarding the cryptographic hashes and unique identifiers:
Applicant argues that the “security values” are not “unique identifiers.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hash values are commonly used in the art as identification values for any number of types of data. Given no further distinction regarding the claimed “unique identifiers,” the broadest reasonable interpretation applied to the identifiers easily encompasses a hash of the data to be validated. This portion of the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the argument BALDWIN does not teach comparing dates of the browser extension and new browser extension:
This argument is persuasive. This portion of the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 14, 19, 21, and 23:
The claims each recite, “… determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension …” or similar. The language does not make the claim indefinite; however, out of context, it indicates that every comparison results in the discovery of a spoofed version, and that these limitations described actions taken when the “new browser extension” is the spoofed version. This objection can be overcome by amending the claims such that this ambiguity is removed (i.e. “… determining that the new browser extension is [[[the]] a spoofed version of the browser extension …”). Examiner notes that as “a spoofed version” clearly refers to the “new browser extension,” which has its own antecedent basis the repeated use of the article “a” does not create an antecedence issue.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 22:
They are objected to for being dependent on one or more objected-to claims. These objections could be overcome by overcoming the objections to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claim such that they are no longer dependent on any objected-to claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites, “… comparing a first unique identifier and a first date … with a second unique identifier and a second date …”. The claim goes on to recite, “… determining … based on comparing the first unique identifier … with the second unique identifier and the second date …”. The claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are ambiguous. The first limitation cited above seems to contradict the second, where in the first, the first identifier and date are compared with second identifier and date, respectively; while the second limitation teaches that the first identifier is compared with both the second identifier and the second date. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim such that the ambiguity is resolved.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 16:
Claim 4 recites, “… the first local file is stored on a user device that stores the browser extension …”. Claim 16 recites similar language. The claims are indefinite because there is an antecedence issue with their parent claims. Claim 2, and similarly claim 14, on which these claims depend, recites, “… installation of a new browser extension not present on a user device …”. It is not clear if “a user device” recited in the dependent claims is the same as “a user device” recited in the parent claims. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claims such that the ambiguity is removed (i.e. in claim 2, “… fresh installation of a new browser extension and in claim 4, “… the first local file is stored on [[a]] the user device ).
Regarding claim 5:
The claim recites, “… determining first code is missing; and in response …, executing second code to determine that the new browser extension is the spoofed version…”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what “first code” refers. Multiple incompatible interpretations of this limitation are possible, including but not necessarily limited to:
Code which identifies a spoofed version of the browser extension is executed whenever any code is found to be “missing.”
Identifying code which is present on one extension but not the other.
Using backup code which performs the same function as primary code.
This rejection can be overcome by amending the claims such that it is clear what code is being identified as missing.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), and further in view of CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1) and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
BALDWIN teaches:
determining that the new browser extension is a spoofed version of a browser extension installed on a browser of the user device by comparing a first unique identifier of the browser extension with a second unique identifier of the new browser extension ([0037] "… During execution of the program code 100, at 404, a first security value for a part of the program code 100 is calculated …"); and
CHO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by BALDWIN:
A method for identifying fraudulent browser extensions, the method comprising: in response to installation of a new browser extension not present on a user device ([0058] "… there is a desire to block a security threatening factor beginning at the time of receiving software or content from a cloud service because, in the related art, the software or content is verified after being installed in a terminal."),
Making a determination regarding a piece of software by comparing two values to determine whether they match is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by BALDWIN. Further, performing an action on software in response to it being newly installed is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHO. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the value matching method of BALDWIN with the application installation detection of CHO with the motivation to trigger the comparison of values when software is installed to catch any anomalous behavior before the software can act on the system. This method is known to work in similar fields of endeavor and variations such as this are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
WATERSON teaches the following limitations not taught by the above combination:
in response to determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension, causing a notification to be transmitted ([0076] "… when a fraudulent site is detected, the method comprises immediately electronically notifying the owner of the legitimate site and/or the fraudulent blacklist sites are also notified, step 409.").
Transmitting a notification after detecting fraudulent software is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by WATERSON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN and CHO with the fraud notification of WATERSON with the motivation to ensure that the proper entities are alerted to the fraud so that proper remedial actions can be taken. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SHAO (Doc ID US 10050994 B2).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
SHAO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein further comprising: accessing a local file on the user device to retrieve the first unique identifier ((45) Col 6 lines 39-43 "In block S125, the computing device records … the ID of the plug-in as an index.").
Retrieving software identifier locally is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by SHAO. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the identifier retrieval of SHAO with the motivation to keep local copies of the identifiers so the system can function offline. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
SHAO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
The method of claim 2, wherein the user device comprises a filing structure that includes one or more files associated with the browser extension, and wherein the one or more files include a key that corresponds to the first unique identifier and metadata regarding the extension ((73) Col 8 lines 15-17 "The searching module 20512 is configured to search a configuration file for an original path, a target path and registry information of the plug-in to be processed.").
Examiner notes that neither the claims nor spec provide any details as to the nature of the "key," and as it is not claimed in any other function, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this feature encompasses any additional data "corresponding to" the identifier.
Retrieving data corresponding to a software identifier is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by SHAO. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the corresponding data retrieval of SHAO with the motivation to ensure that any pertinent data regarding identification of a piece of software is retrieved so that multiple requests are not needed. This method is known to work in similar fields of endeavor and variations such as this are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SHAO (Doc ID US 10050994 B2) and ALSOLAMI (Doc ID US 20210026942 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
SHAO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
further comprising: accessing a first local file to retrieve a first portion of the first unique identifier, wherein the first local file is stored on a user device that stores the browser extension ((45) Col 6 lines 39-43 "In block S125, the computing device records … the ID of the plug-in as an index.");
Retrieving data corresponding to a software identifier is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by SHAO. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the corresponding data retrieval of SHAO with the motivation to ensure that any pertinent data regarding identification of a piece of software is retrieved so that multiple requests are not needed. This method is known to work in similar fields of endeavor and variations such as this are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
ALSOLAMI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
accessing a second local file to retrieve a second portion of the first unique identifier, wherein the second local file is stored on the user device that stores the browser extension ([0188] "2. Split the user ID into eight shares and determine the threshold shares (three shares) by using the secret sharing scheme." Examiner notes that it would be trivial to split the user ID [unique identifier] into fewer shares [portions].); and
obtaining the first unique identifier by combining the first portion of the first unique identifier and the second portion of the first unique identifier ([0191] "4. Distribute the fingerprint data over eight cloud storage locations …").
Examiner notes that it would be trivial to distribute the shares [portions] to local locations instead of cloud locations.
Splitting an identifier into at least two portions, stored separately, is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ALSOLAMI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, WATERSON, and SHAO with the portioned identifier of ALSOLAMI with the motivation to prevent illicit access to one file from revealing the entirety of the identifier. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of VALENCIA (Doc ID US 20150040112 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
VALENCIA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination::
further comprising: determining first code is missing ([0022] "… operations to identify necessary portions, segments, data, variables, blocks, functions … missing from the second binary (or the library of the second binary)."); and
in response to determining that the first code is missing, executing second code to determine that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension ([0024] "Once … the code associated with the missing functions is identified, the computing device may insert that code into the second binary …").
Identifying and replacing missing code is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by VALENCIA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the missing code identification and replacement of VALENCIA with the motivation to make the system aware that necessary code is missing and to replace it so that execution can continue. It is obvious to not attempt to execute code which is found missing from the system.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of developer.mozilla.org.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
MOZILLA.ORG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein the browser extension is available from a plurality of sources (Website describes developing a cross-platform browser extension for a variety of web browsers.),
wherein each source provides a different unique identifier for the browser extension (Website describes how each web browser extension's implementation would require different programming for various web browsers. These differences would reveal which app store (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc.) was the source of the browser extension in question.).
Utilizing browser extensions from multiple sources is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MOZILLA.ORG. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the multiple extension sources of MOZILLA.ORG with the motivation to ensure that the system is capable of differentiating between extensions downloaded from various sources. It is obvious to consider the source of an extension when assessing whether the extension is fraudulent.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, WATERSON, and MOZILLA.ORG teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension further comprises: retrieving a third unique identifier that identifies the browser extension, wherein the third unique identifier that identifies the browser extension associated with the particular code (BALDWIN [0018] "... the second security value may be calculated remote from the validation program 204 .... The pre-calculated security values ... may be stored in the second processing environment 202 together with the validation program 204.");
comparing the second unique identifier of the new browser extension with the third unique identifier (BALDWIN [0037] "... The validation program 204 receives the first security value at 406 and, at 408, checks the first security value against the second security value … to obtain a check result."); and
determining that the second unique identifier of the new browser extension matches the third unique identifier (BALDWIN [0037] "... The validation program 204 receives the first security value at 406 and, at 408, checks the first security value against the second security value … to obtain a check result.").
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of ALSOLAMI (Doc ID US 20210026942 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
ALSOLAMI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein the first unique identifier is broken apart into a plurality of portions and distributed in the new browser extension, ([0191] "4. Distribute the fingerprint data over eight cloud storage locations …") and
wherein each of the plurality of portions is encoded ([0189] "3. Embed each share of a user ID in his/her a fingerprint data share.").
Splitting an identifier into multiple portions, stored separately, is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ALSOLAMI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the portioned identifier of ALSOLAMI with the motivation to prevent illicit access to one file from revealing the entirety of the identifier. It is obvious to portion the sensitive data so that it can be reassembled as needed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of MENCH et al (Doc ID US 20230214534 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
MENCH teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
further comprising: transmitting one or more requests to a server ([0032] "… the expected ID database is stored on server 330 ...")
that maintains a plurality of unique identifiers that includes the first unique identifier ([0032] "… the expected ID database can include an entry for each component type."); and
receiving, from the server and in response to transmitting the one or more requests to the server, the first unique identifier ([0032] "… device 320 queries server 330 to provide the expected ID for the first component type.").
Retrieving stored identifiers from a server is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MENCH. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the identifier retrieval of MENCH with the motivation to keep a master list of known identifiers in a location accessible to dispersed instances of the system. It is obvious to use a server to provide known identifiers as needed so that each device utilizing the system does not need to maintain and update its own repository of identifiers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SANTAUS et al (Doc ID US 20240020359 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
SANTAUS teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein the new browser extension is not verified by a trusted third-party authority ([0042] "FIG. 5 discloses aspects of sharing an untrusted executable."), and
wherein the new browser extension does not have a valid certificate ([0016] "… an operating system may prevent a user from running an executable that … does not have a valid certificate.").
Analyzing data which is not trusted or does not have a valid certificate is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SANTAUS. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the untrusted and uncertified data of SANTAUS with the motivation to pay particular attention to the installation of untrusted and uncertified extensions. It is obvious to consider extensions without a valid certification to be untrustworthy until proven otherwise.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), and further in view of CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1), and JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1).
Regarding claim 14:
BALDWIN teaches:
One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media comprising instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, causes operations comprising ([0039] "Examples described herein may be realized in the form of ... machine readable instructions .... Any such machine readable instructions may be stored in the form of volatile or non-volatile storage …"):
determining that the new browser extension is a spoofed version of a browser extension installed on a browser by comparing a first unique identifier of the browser extension with a second unique identifier of the new browser extension ([0037] "… During execution of the program code 100, at 404, a first security value for a part of the program code 100 is calculated …"); and
CHO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by BALDWIN:
in response to installation of a new browser extension ([0058] "… there is a desire to block a security threatening factor beginning at the time of receiving software or content from a cloud service because, in the related art, the software or content is verified after being installed in a terminal."),
Making a determination regarding a piece of software by comparing two values to determine whether they match is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by BALDWIN. Further, performing an action on software in response to it being newly installed is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHO. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the value matching method of BALDWIN with the application installation detection of CHO with the motivation to trigger the comparison of values when software is installed to catch any anomalous behavior before the software can act on the system. This method is known to work in similar fields of endeavor and variations such as this are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Of the limitation, “in response to determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension, executing an application programming interface (API) function to transmit a notification.”, WATERSON teaches:
in response to determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension, ... transmit a notification ([0076] "… when a fraudulent site is detected, the method comprises immediately electronically notifying the owner of the legitimate site and/or the fraudulent blacklist sites are also notified, step 409.").
Transmitting a notification after detecting fraudulent software is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by WATERSON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN and CHO with the fraud notification of WATERSON with the motivation to ensure that the proper entities are alerted to the fraud so that proper remedial actions can be taken. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Of the limitation, “in response to determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension, executing an application programming interface (API) function to transmit a notification.”, JAMES teaches:
… executing an application programming interface (API) function to transmit a notification ((7) Col 1 lines 42-44 "The API provides mechanisms for creating all parts of SOAP request messages, for sending the created messages over HTTP to a remote server ..").
Executing an API to transmit a notification is/are well-known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by JAMES. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fraudulent software detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the API notification of JAMES with the motivation to use a well-known protocol for communicating to remote devices. This is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 23:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 14 above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1), and JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of SHAO (Doc ID US 10050994 B2).
Regarding claim 15:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 3 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1), and JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of SHAO (Doc ID US 10050994 B2) and ALSOLAMI (Doc ID US 20210026942 A1).
Regarding claim 16:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 4 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1), and JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of ALSOLAMI (Doc ID US 20210026942 A1).
Regarding claim 17:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 10 above.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1), and JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of developer.mozilla.org.
Regarding claims 18 and 19:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 6 and 7 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1), CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1), and WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of HULTEN et al (Doc ID US 20100005291 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON teaches:
The method of claim 2,
HULTEN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension comprises: in response to installation of the new browser extension, retrieving the first unique identifier by calling one or more browser-provided runtime application programming interfaces (APIs) ([0028] "… the client application … is a web service API with functionality to obtain the … identity of the unverified application 103.").
Executing an API to retrieve application data is/are well-known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by HULTEN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoofed extension detection of BALDWIN, CHO, and WATERSON with the API call of HULTEN with the motivation to use a well-known protocol for communicating to remote devices. This is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1:
BALDWIN et al (Doc ID US 20180276374 A1) teaches the following limitation(s):
A system for identifying fraudulent browser extensions, the system comprising: one or more processors ([0020] "The first processing resource ..., and the second processing resource … are run on a single client system including a processor and memory …"); and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media that are configured to cause operations comprising ([0039] "Examples described herein may be realized in the form of ... machine readable instructions .... Any such machine readable instructions may be stored in the form of volatile or non-volatile storage …"):
determining that the new browser extension is a spoofed version of the browser extension based on comparing the first unique identifier of the browser extension with the second unique identifier and the second date of the new browser extension ([0037] "... The validation program 204 receives the first security value at 406 and, at 408, checks the first security value against the second security value … to obtain a check result."); and
CHO et al (Doc ID US 20130219483 A1) teaches the following limitation(s):
in response to installation of a new browser extension previously not present ([0058] "… there is a desire to block a security threatening factor beginning at the time of receiving software or content from a cloud service because, in the related art, the software or content is verified after being installed in a terminal.")
WATERSON et al (Doc ID US 20120023566 A1) teaches the following limitation(s):
in response to determining that the new browser extension is the spoofed version of the browser extension, ... generate information, to include in a notification to an external server of an entity that published the browser extension, regarding the new browser extension and transmitting the notification to the external server ([0076] "… when a fraudulent site is detected, the method comprises immediately electronically notifying the owner of the legitimate site and/or the fraudulent blacklist sites are also notified, step 409.").
JAMES et al (Doc ID US 6904600 B1) teaches the following limitation(s):
... executing an application programming interface (API) function that is configured to generate information, to include in a notification to an external server ... and transmitting the notification to the external server ((7) Col 1 lines 42-44 "The API provides mechanisms for creating all parts of SOAP request messages, for sending the created messages over HTTP to a remote server ..").
The following limitation(s) is/are not taught by BALDWIN, CHO, WATERSON, or JAMES alone or in combination:
comparing a first unique identifier and a first date of a browser extension installed on an internet browser with a second unique identifier and a second date of the new browser extension;
Regarding claim 9:
The claim limitation(s) is/are not taught by the combination of references mapped to its parent claim(s).
It should be noted that the determination of allowability is made on the combination of all limitations/features recited in the independent claims and not a single limitation.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BRANDON BINCZAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights