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 .
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, 12-17 and 21 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”);
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).
Regarding Claim 21, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and Iyigun further discloses wherein: identifying, by the first process, the data to be processed by the second process comprises receiving an initial request at the first process from the second process for size information corresponding to the data (See, Paragraphs 0036 and 0052); and transmitting, from the first process to the second process, the request for allocation of the memory comprises transmitting the size information corresponding to the data from the first process to the second process, responsive to the initial request (See, Paragraphs 0031, 0036 and 0052).
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
Rahardha 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-41 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,849 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-41 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,849 B2 anticipates claims 1-21.
Conclusion
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