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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered. Applicant did not amend any claims and added claim 22. Currently claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 17, applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
215
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reply, examiner would like to point out that current claim language does not positively require second process to actually process the data. The current language only recites identifying, by the first process, data to be processed by the second process”. As a result, the limitation amounts to intended use and not a limiting requirement. Furthermore, displaying is only a part of processing. The claims do not require displaying the data. Please note that Paragraph 0032 recites, “The guest shared memory manager module 132 communicates the request to open the file to the host shared memory manager module 112. The host shared memory manager module 112 knows that the request to open a file is actually a request to create shared memory. The host shared memory manager module 112 can know this in various manners, such as an indication that is included in the request (e.g., the namespace for the file is a namespace associated with shared memory). Alternatively, the host shared memory manager module 112 can be a module dedicated to only creating shared memory (as opposed to other types of files), and thus a request provided to the host shared memory manager module 112 is inherently a request to create shared memory” and Paragraph 0030 recites, “the access controls can be applied by the host shared memory manager module 112 after the shared memory 124 is created. The access controls can define various access rights for various different entities (e.g., programs, processes, guest or host, etc.), such as read access and/or write access. The access controls can also define various restrictions and/or permissions on the shared memory 124, such as whether the shared memory 124 is executable (instructions stored in the shared memory can be executed), and so forth”. As pointed out in Paragraphs 0030 and 0032, the guest shared memory manager module is responsible for receive a request to open a file (data) and in response create a shared memory and further provide access control for the same file (data) is enough to read on claim limitation “identify, by the first process, data to be processed by the second process”. As a result, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
215
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the second process processed the data generated by the first process”) 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).
Applicant did not provide separate arguments for claims 10 and 17.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
219
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reply, examiner would like to point out that Iyigun at Paragraph 0043 recites, “The guest can initiate section creation by calling a CreateVmSharedMemory API. In response, the CreateVmSharedMemory API calls a CreateFile API specifying a known (e.g., to the guest and the host) shared memory namespace. The purpose of this call is to open a handle to the host and allow handle lifetime using the file system. The CreateVmSharedMemory API can use various parameters, including desired access (e.g., indicating to translate requests for “page read only” to “file read data”, requests for “page read write” to “file write data”, and requests for “page execute read only” or “page execute read write” to read or write “file execute””) and Paragraph 0057, recites, “Data is communicated to and/or received from the guest via the shared memory (act 412). Any of a variety of data can be communicated to and/or received from the guest, such as data to be displayed, data input by a user, data to be transmitted to another device or system, data received from another device or system, and so forth”. As a result, the data is not just processed once but repeatedly by reading and writing from and to the memory region. Also from the web browser example of paragraph 0012, it can be seen that the web browser is not run in the guest for processing a single webpage or file using the shared memory, it is for continued processing of the web or local data by the web browser using the display generated by the host. As a result, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 9/10/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 21 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iyigun et al. (US 2018/0165133 A1), hereinafter, “Iyigun”.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 17, Iyigun discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a first process (See, Paragraph 0016, “guest”);
a second process (See, Paragraph 0016, “host shared memory manager module”);
a memory manager (See, Paragraph 0027, “host” or “memory manager module”),
the first process and the second process each being separate from the memory manager (See, Paragraph 0027, “Returning to FIG. 1, the host 102 includes a memory manager module 118 that manages the host physical memory 104. In one or more embodiments, the host memory manager module 118 manages the host physical memory 104 using virtual memory and paging” and Paragraph 0028, “The guest 120 and the host 102 (e.g., via the guest shared memory manager module 132 and the host shared memory manager module 112, respectively) agree on a name and a size for the shared memory 124”); and
one or more processors configured to:
identify, by the first process, data to be processed by the second process (See, Paragraph 0012, “The techniques discussed herein can be used in any of a variety of different situations in which a host and guest desire to communicate data between one another. For example, a guest can be used to run a Web browser, providing additional security by having the Web browser run isolated from other programs in the system. However, a window including the Web browser display can be displayed by the host. The techniques discussed herein allow the Web browser to store data to be displayed in the shared memory, then the host can display the data from the shared memory. No copying or marshaling of the data to be displayed between the guest and the host need be performed”, also see, Paragraphs 0030-0032);
transmit, from the first process to the second process, a request for allocation of memory (See, Paragraph 0031, “the creation of the shared memory 124 is initiated by the guest 120. A program running in the guest 120 (also referred to as a guest program) invokes a method of an application programming interface (API) requesting to open a file”, Paragraph 0032, “The guest shared memory manager module 132 communicates the request to open the file to the host shared memory manager module 112”);
receive, by the first process from the second process, an identifier corresponding to a memory region (See, Paragraph 0033, “The host shared memory manager module 112 returns an identifier of the shared memory 124 to the guest shared memory manager module 132. This identifier can be, for example, a file handle or other identifier that allows different shared memories to be distinguished from one another”);
perform, by the first process, a first processing of the data Paragraph 0012, “The techniques discussed herein can be used in any of a variety of different situations in which a host and guest desire to communicate data between one another. For example, a guest can be used to run a Web browser, providing additional security by having the Web browser run isolated from other programs in the system. However, a window including the Web browser display can be displayed by the host. The techniques discussed herein allow the Web browser to store data to be displayed in the shared memory, then the host can display the data from the shared memory. No copying or marshaling of the data to be displayed between the guest and the host need be performed”); and
write an output of the first processing to the memory region using the identifier (See, Paragraph 0057, “Data is communicated to and/or received from the guest via the shared memory (act 412). Any of a variety of data can be communicated to and/or received from the guest, such as data to be displayed, data input by a user, data to be transmitted to another device or system, data received from another device or system, and so forth” and also see, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses wherein the identifier is a descriptor that is generated by the memory manager (See, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the rejection of claims 3 and 12 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses wherein the descriptor is generated by the memory manager based on a request from the second process, the request including a request to provide access to the descriptor for the first process (See, Paragraphs 0031-0033 and 0036).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the rejection of claims 3 and 13 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses wherein the memory manager accounts the memory region to the second process (See, Paragraphs 0016, 0031-0033 and 0036).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses wherein the first processing of the data by the first process includes repeatedly
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the rejection of claims 6 and 15 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses performing a second processing of the output of the first processing in the allocated memory region by the second process by processing each processed portion of the data as it is received in the memory region from the first process (See, Paragraphs 0012, 0031-0033 and 0057).
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 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 of this title, 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 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyigun in view of Rahardja et al. (US 9,898,355 B2), hereinafter “Rahardja”.
Regarding Claims 2, 11 and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17 is incorporated and Iyigun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first process is a compute-only
Rahardja discloses wherein a first process is a compute-only sandboxed process and a second process has access to a system resource that is inaccessible by the sandboxed compute-only process (See, Column 3, lines 38-Column 4, line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, in the system of Iyigun, a first process that is a compute-only sandboxed process and a second process has access to a system resource that is inaccessible by the sandboxed compute-only process as taught by Rahardja in order to prevented the sandbox from accessing files and/or resources outside the sandbox which enables programs to run security sensitive processes or unknown tasks in an isolated environment without affecting the whole system.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyigun in view of Dorwin (US 9,223,988 B1), hereinafter, “Dorwin”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the rejection of claims 1 and 17 is incorporated and Iyigun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first processing of the data with the first process includes decoding or transcoding the data.
Dorwin discloses processing of data with a first process including decoding or transcoding the data (See, Column 4, lines 36-58 and Column 17, lines 42-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process, in the system of Iyigun, data with a first process including decoding or transcoding the data as taught by Dorwin in order to implement special sandbox dedicated to perform tasks such a decoding, compression/decompression in restricted and secured environment thereby increasing overall security of the system.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyigun in view of Yadava et al. (US 2013/0246536 A1), hereinafter, “Yadava”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the rejection of claims 1 and 17 is incorporated and Iyigun does not explicitly disclose prior to identifying, by the first process at the computing device, the data to be processed by the second process, receiving the data at the computing device in a message received via a messaging application.
Yadava discloses prior to processing data by the first process, receiving the data at the computing device in a message received via a messaging application (See, Paragraphs 0021, 0041 and 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, prior to identifying, by the first process at the computing device, the data to be processed by the second process in the system of Iyigun, data at the computing device in a message received via a messaging application as taught by Yadava so that results of opening the electronic message or any portion of such electronic message (e.g. unwanted results, etc.) may be identified within the virtual environment, such that the results may be analyzed (e.g. via a behavioral analysis, via a comparison with a fingerprint of known unwanted data, etc.) (See, Paragraph 0021).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
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 YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights