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 .
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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 81, 83-96, 98-100, 160 and 161 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 81, 96 and 100 are in independent form.
Claims 82 and 97 are cancelled. Claims 1-80, and 101-159 remain cancelled.
Claims 81, 84-86, 96, 100 are amended.
Claims 160 and 161 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 4/27/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s invention as claimed:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 81, 83-85, 92, 94-96, 98-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210026969 by Hod.
81. (Original) A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:
receive a code for execution (Hod: page 2, para 17 and 18); and
inject, into a web browser execution environment associated with the code, at least one agent by inserting instructions into the code that (Hod: page 6, para 49; page 3, para 23; first javascript code to execute on the page’s resource loading sequence), when executed, causes the inserted instructions to instantiate the agent inside the web browser execution environment (Hod: page 3, para 23-25), wherein the agent is configured to:
collect execution data associated with rendering webpage content based on the code (Hod: page 3, para 25-26);
analyze the execution data to detect at least one anomaly (Hod: page 4, para 29, 32-33);
determine, based on web browsing session runtime events resulting from executing the code in at least one execution context associated with the web browser execution environment, whether functionality associated with the renderable webpage content is valid (Hod: page 5, para 35-36; whitelist); and
implement a remedial action upon determining that the functionality associated with the webpage content is not valid (Hod: page 5, para 35-36; blacklist and mitigation of attacks).
83. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 81, wherein the code is configured for execution by a JavaScript engine and the at least one agent includes a JavaScript agent (Hod: page 3, para 23-24).
84. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 81, wherein to determine whether functionality associated with the webpage content is valid, the agent is configured to:
execute the code in the at least one execution context in an isolated environment, and emulate at least one event in the isolated environment to identify a behavior of the code associated with the at least one event (Hod: page 3, para 25-26; CFG runs encapsulating the webpage behaviors); and
wherein to determine that the functionality associated with the webpage content is not valid, the agent is configured to determine that the identified behavior diverges from an expected behavior (Hod: pages 3-4; para 33-35).
85. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 84, wherein to emulate at least one event in the isolated environment, the agent is configured to:
simulate following a link included in the webpage content;
monitor a Document Object Model (DOM) structure associated with the webpage content (Hod: page 3, para 30); and
determine that the identified behavior diverges from the expected behavior when the DOM structure remains unchanged after simulation of following the link.
92. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 81, wherein the at least one anomaly includes a property violating a security rule (Hod: page 5, para 35-37).
94. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 92, wherein the property includes a network request property (Hod: page 3, para 30).
95. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 92, wherein the property includes a DOM structure associated with the content (Hod: page 3, para 30).
Claims 96, 98-100 are rejected as being substantially similar in scope to claims 81, 83-84 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 86-87, 90-91, 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210026969 by Hod in view of 20140283068 by Call et al.
Regarding claim 86, the Hod reference teaches:
86. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 84, wherein emulating at least one event in the isolated environment.
The Hod reference fails to teach submitting form data.
However, in analogous art, the Call reference teaches:
submit at least one value using a form of the webpage content (Call: page 7, para 59); and
to identify the behavior of the code, the agent is configured to determine a response to submitting the at least one value (Call: page 7, para 59-60) in order to prevent malicious activity (Call: page 1, para 3-4).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effectively filed date, to include the submitting adjusted form data as taught by Call with the injected javascript isolated detection system of Hod in order to prevent malicious activity (Call: page 1, para 3-4).
87. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 86, wherein the at least one value is arbitrary (Call: page 7, para 59-60).
90. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 81, wherein the at least one anomaly includes a broken link (Call: pages 15-16, para 127-131; broken link is a modified link).
91. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 90, wherein the broken link is an invalid link lacking an associated listener in a DOM structure associated with the webpage content (Call: pages 15-16 , para 127-131).
93. (Original) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 92, wherein the property is associated with a root of a DOM structure associated with the webpage content where the DOM tree is compromised by a fake link and detected by a system in order to find vulnerabilities in GUIs (Call: pages 6-7, para 135, 149).
Claims 88 and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210026969 by Hod in view of 20140283068 by Call et al in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170244755 by Tsao et al.
Regarding claim 88, the modified Hod reference teaches:
88. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 87 with form data.
The Hod reference fails to teach login data.
However, in analogous art, the Tsao reference teaches:
the form is a login form, and wherein the at least one value corresponds to a login credential (Tsao: page 2, para 22-23; page 33, para 31-33; login credentials) in order to combat phishing login pages (Tsao: page 1, para 6).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effectively filed date, to include the detecting of phishing on login pages as taught by Tsao with the injected javascript isolated detection system of Hod in order to combat phishing login pages (Tsao: page 1, para 6).
89. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 88, wherein the webpage content is associated with a first web page, the expected behavior corresponds to an invalid credential warning, and the identified behavior includes redirecting a web browser to a second web page (Tsao: page 2, para 22-23; page 33, para 31-33; login credentials).
Claims 160 and 161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210026969 by Hod in view of 20180295151 by Amdahl et al.
Regarding claim 160, The modified Hod reference teaches:
160. (New) The method of claim 96, wherein the JavaScript agent is injected by inserting instructions immediately after page loading (Hod: page 2, para 23 teaches the agent is the first javascript to load ); and the at least one anomaly comprises a property associated with a root element of a Document Object Model (DOM) structure, the root element delineated by <html> and </html> tags (Hod: page 3, para 30).
The Hod reference fails to teach:
the injecting of the agent into multiple execution contexts created for the code, comprising execution contexts created for each iframe within a webpage.
Although Hod fails to teach the head tag, it is clear that the javascript agent must run first before other javascript and elements are loaded on a resource request to capture and measure their impacts.
Also, the Ahdahl reference teaches
at least one agent is a JavaScript agent injected into execution contexts created for the code, comprising execution contexts created for each iframe within a web page (Amdahl: page 7, para 67-70) in order to better identify attacks and attack conditions in a network environment (Amdahl: page 1, para 3-4).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effectively filed date, to include the detecting of phishing on login pages as taught by Tsao with the injected javascript isolated detection system of Hod in order to better identify attacks and attack conditions in a network environment (Amdahl: page 1, para 3-4).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US Patent Publication 20220164441 by Cohen (Inventor).
US Patent No. 11489845 by Feng.
US Patent Publication 20160239468 by CAPT et al.
US Patent No. 9391832 by Song et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R BRUCKART whose telephone number is (571)272-3982. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH: 7-6p.
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. 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.
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights