Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn based on the approved terminal disclaimer.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues – “AGARWAL explains that when OpenDNS is used, a mistyped or nonexistent domain (e.g., "gmail.coms") can redirect to an OpenDNS "ad-filled search page," rather than the browser displaying its default "Address Not Found" behavior. However, the Examiner's assertion that AGARWAL "teaches reconfiguring network settings to block this redirect attempt" does not correspond to the claimed feature of "blocking an attempt to transmit a request as a browser-modified search request." AGARWAL does not disclose or suggest any "browser-modified search request," identify a request as a "browser- modified search request," or block transmission of such a request. (AGARWAL, pp. 1- 2.) Instead, AGARWAL discloses disabling OpenDNS's "typo correction" feature by changing OpenDNS Dashboard settings (e.g., unchecking "Enable typo correction" under "Domain Typos"), such that OpenDNS stops performing the redirection for invalid domains. This is a configuration change to OpenDNS's resolver/service behavior, not a mechanism that blocks an attempted transmission of a particular request (much less a request identified as a browser-modified search request) to avoid redirecting that request, as recited.”
Examiner’s response – In regards to Agarwal not disclosing a “browser-modified search request”, Argawal explicitly states on page one, as an example, typing a non-existent web domain in a browser redirects to an Open DNS search page. Applicant’s description in paragraph 5 of their specification describes the same scenario, stating,
“The invalid entry of website information or related web search information in the browser's address bar may pose an opportunity for the ISP, the search engine and/or the browser to transfer the request to a landing page or sponsored website link page, which may or may not be related to the search criteria entered by the user.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, a broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of applicant’s specification, has been made. It is not clear how Argawal example of a redirection of invalid entry of a request that leads to landing search page would somehow be excluded from the scope of a “browser-modified search request”.
In regards to “identify a request as a "browser- modified search request," or block transmission of such a request”, the examiner notes these specific features are not explicitly claimed. The claim only broadly and generically states “blocking an attempt to transmit”. The technical aspects of the “blocking” and the “attempt” are not provided in any detail. There is nothing claimed regarding any specific computer system, software or protocol features or interactions. Argawal clearly identifies the “attempt” as described above with the invalid entry redirecting to a search landing page. The reconfiguration of the network settings in Argawal will block this situation from occurring for the specific reason of wanting to avoid the redirect. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues – “Paragraphs 34-40 of the specification explain that the "dialog from the web browser" is the browser's captured request dialog (e.g., the GET line and associated header fields) as observed via a protocol analyzer, and that the application distinguishes an address- bar-initiated, browser-modified search based on characteristics of that dialog, including whether "REFERER" is present, and by determining whether the intercepted data "matches a predetermined pattern stored in the application itself for the more common web browsers." In other words, the claimed comparison is between a browser request- dialog pattern and stored, predetermined dialog patterns associated with common browsers/versions.
SHUE, by contrast, discloses heuristics to identify open redirects by examining links for URL patterns embedded in a query string and, in particular, searching for protocol prefixes such as "http://" or "https://" in the query string (including after decoding) to flag a potential redirect (SHUE, Sec. 2.1). SHUE's client-side proposal similarly has a browser examine a link for URL patterns in the query string and, if a destination is specified, replace the URL pattern with a test verification page; if the client is redirected to the verification page, the browser may refuse to connect or warn the user (SHUE, Sec. 5.2). This is not a comparison of a "pattern of dialog" (as defined in the application) to stored predetermined dialog patterns; it is analysis of the structure/content of a link's query string and optional validation via redirect traversal. Accordingly, the Examiner's mapping to "comparison of a pattern of a dialog ... to a stored, predetermined pattern of information" is not supported by SHUE.”
Examiner’s response – Section 2.1 of Shue specifically states “the browser sends the query string with the request”. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret the query string as browser dialog as it is part of the information/data the browser is communicating. Further, if such dialog is being examined for a predetermined pattern, a comparison is being made between browser dialog and a predetermined pattern. It is not clear how Shue’s examination of a browser query for a pattern would somehow be excluded from the scope of “based on a comparison of a pattern of a dialog from a web browser application to a stored, predetermined pattern of information”.
Applicant further argues specific features that are described in paragraph 34-40 of applicant’s specification are not present in Shue. It is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Stop OpenDNS From Redirecting Invalid URLs to their Search Pages” by Amitt Argawal August 4, 2008, from labnol.org (Agarwal) in view of “Exploitable Redirects on the Web: Identification, Prevalence, and Defense” by Shue et al. (Shue).
With respect to claim 1, Argawal teaches a method, comprising: blocking an attempt to transmit a request as a browser-modified search request to avoid a redirect of the request (Pages 1-2 – in normal behavior, a browser request with typos or invalid urls may be redirected, for example to a “ad-filled search page” (e.g. landing page). Argawal teaches reconfiguring network settings to block this redirect attempt).
Argawal does not explicitly disclose the element of “based on a comparison of a pattern of a dialog from a web browser application to a stored predetermined pattern of information”. Shue teaches methods for preventing undesired redirects (see Abstract and Introduction - identify redirects that can be exploited – protect clients from being misled by manipulated redirects such as typo-squatted variants of legitimate domains). This includes preventing redirects based on a comparison of a pattern of a dialog from a web browser application to a stored predetermined pattern of information (Section 2.1 – establishing predetermined patterns based on query strings from a browser – section 5.2 – comparison of browser query strings for URL patterns indicative of potential unwanted redirect and refusing the redirect if determined)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the blocking of the redirect in Argawal be based on a comparison of a pattern as in Shue. One would be motivated to have this as Argawal already indicates a desire for preventing redirects, including in a more convenient manner (Argawal – Page 1 – indicating redirects as “annoying”, last paragraph “wish this was the default setting”). Additionally, Shue’s method provides the further advantage of protecting the client from misleading, malicious, and/or inappropriate content (Shue Abstract and Introduction).
With respect to claim 2, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 1, comprising receiving a request including a uniform resource locator (URL) at the web browser application, wherein the request is received as input to an address bar portion of the web browser application. (Argawal Page 1 – a person may enter a URL in a web browser such as gmail.coms)
With respect to claim 3, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 1, comprising receiving a response that a URL is an invalid that cannot be resolved to a corresponding webpage. (Page 1 gmail.coms is invalid vs gmail.com – a response is either landing on a splash page or receiving error)
With respect to claim 5, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the browser-modified search request comprises modifications to the request. (Argawal Page 1 an invalid URL will normally result in landing on OpenDNS search page with search suggestions)
With respect to claim 6, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the browser-modified search request comprises at least part of the request. (Argawal Page 1 an invalid URL will normally result in landing on OpenDNS search page with search suggestions)
With respect to claim 7, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request is received as input to a search box portion of a search-enabled web page. (Argawal Page 1 –OpenDNS search page with resulting search suggestions)
Claims 8-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-3 and 5-7 and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Argawal and Shue as applied above, and further in view of “DNS Knowledge What is NXDOMAIN (Non-Existent Domain)” August 17, 2009, by dnsknowledge.com (DNS).
With respect to Claim 4, Argawal as modified teaches the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving a response that the URL is an invalid URL comprises receiving a NXDOMAIN HTTP parameter.
However, as shown by DNS, NXDOMAIN is a known term used for conveying a domain name is unable to be resolved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the NXDOMAIN parameter of DNS in the invalid URL response of Argawal. One would be motivated to have this as it is a well known and commonly used parameter for indicating an invalid URL .
Claims 11 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 4 and are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455