Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 02/18/2026. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 02/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/18/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent numbers 10404808 and 12107926 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1 of claim 20: “The method of claim 1” should be “The remote browsing administrator device of claim 11”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 1, 8-9, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DEL OJO ELLIAS et al. (WO 2013/079113 A1), hereinafter “ELLIAS”.
7. As to claim 1, ELLIAS discloses a method performed by at least one processor, said method comprising:
receiving a request for a remote browsing session, the request received from a first browser running on a client device ([0052] and [0122]: the user introduces in his pre-installed local (first) browser the URL of a web site … In response to the client device is prompted to formally request an instance of a container in a Secure Browsing Server, which creates a Secure (remote) Browsing Instance);
retrieving customization information associated with the first browser ([0125]: The Client Access Tool is prepared for the session, and all the data (customization information) required for establishing the connection between the (local browser of) the user device and the container (session ID and encryption keys) is embedded in the binary code before signing the software; and [0127]: the web site initially sends a login form so that the user can respond by introducing his credentials (customization information) using the Local Browser);
based on the request, allocating a remote browsing server ([0096]: when receiving the mentioned request, the Connection Manager chooses one of the Secure Browsing Servers to host the new environment and instructs it to create a new Secure Browsing Instance), the remote browsing server comprising a remote browsing connector and a second browser that is configured with the customization information ([0052]: the request is routed to the Access Manager, which will deliver a Client Access Tool 220, being customized for one specific session, to the user’s device 110. At the same time, the Secure Browsing Server 320 hosted in the Secure Server System 210 creates one Secure Browsing Instance 330 (comprising a Secure Remote Browser 335) assigned to the user as a browsing environment for the session and interacts with its corresponding Client Access Tool 220; and [0125]: The Client Access Tool is prepared for the session, and all the data (customization information) required for establishing the connection between the (local browser of) the user device and the container (session ID and encryption keys) is embedded in the binary code before signing the software); and
causing the first browser to connect to the second browser via the remote browsing connector such that a video stream of renderings of the second browser are displayed on the first browser ([0052]: A Secure Remote Browser 335, executed inside the Secure Browsing Instance 330, fetches, retrieves and renders, the contents of the destination web site following the usual process, as if it were hosted in the end user’s computing device 110. Once rendered, the web page contents are sent to the Client Access Tool 220 as images, for display on the user’s device display), and user input from the first browser is transmitted to the second browser ([0132]: Keyboard and mouse events are transmitted to the Secure Remote Browser to process them and update the display).
8. As to claim 8, ELLIAS discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: instantiating the remote browsing server after receiving the request ([0096]: when receiving the mentioned request, the Connection Manager chooses one of the Secure Browsing Servers to host the new environment and instructs it to create a new Secure Browsing Instance).
9. As to claim 9, ELLIAS teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the allocating comprises selecting the remote browsing server from a plurality of remote browsing servers ([0096]: when receiving the mentioned request, the Connection Manager chooses one of the Secure Browsing Servers to host the new environment and instructs it to create a new Secure Browsing Instance).
10. As to claims 11 and 18-19, claims 11 and 18-19 are corresponding remote browsing administrator device claims that recites similar limitations as of method claims 1 and 8-9, and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLIAS, in view of Gupta (US 2012/0303453 A1).
13. As to claims 2-3, ELLIAS discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “the customization information comprises at least one of bookmarks and cookies and is retrieved from a bookmark database on the client device”.
In an analogous art, Gupta discloses “the customization information comprises at least one of bookmarks and cookies and is retrieved from a bookmark database on the client device” ([0017] and [0030]: when a user visits login page 5-2, the browser application may send cookie information to one or more servers 508 … The browser cookie may be stored on a storage device on the user’s computer device and the browser application may retrieve the cookie and transmitted to one or more servers 508).
It have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to combine the teachings of ELLIAS and Gupta to achieve the claimed invention to allow users to be targeted with advertisements selected appropriately such that they can be properly displayed on different user devices based on various information extracted from the cookie information (Gupta, [0033]).
14. As to claim 5, ELLIAS-Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining at least one of a user profile or session profile associated with the request (Gupta, [0023]: a profile for the user may be determined based at least in part on the demographic information included in the targeting information extracted from the cookie information).
15. As to claim 6, ELLIAS-Gupta teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the customization information is selected based on the user profile (Gupta, [0023]: the user may be targeted with one or more advertisements based at least in part on [the information retrieved from] the user profile).
16. As to claims 12-13 and 15-16, claims 12-13 and 15-16 are corresponding remote browsing administrator device claims that recites similar limitations as of method claim 12-13 and 15-16, and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
17. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLIAS, in view of MacLachlan et al. (US 2012/0271702 A1), hereinafter “MacLachlan”.
18. As to claim 4, ELLIAS discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “the customization information is retrieved from a bookmark database associated with a remote browsing service”.
In an analogous art, MacLachlan discloses “the customization information is retrieved from a bookmark database associated with a remote browsing service” ([0021]: The electronic commerce server (remote browsing service) may include a profile database 36, which stores a plurality of user profiles 38. The user profile 38 may include one or more of: browsing history data (which may include bookmark data), transaction history data, demographic data, location data, IP address, email address and payment data. Each user profile may be associated with a user tag 42 of an authenticated user of client program 40… For some types of user profile data, the electronic commerce server may read the cookie to retrieve information from the client device 44 and store it in the user profile 38 at the server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ELLIAS and MacLachlan to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to collect session data to identify individual users and retain user preferences to be used in future browsing sessions.
19. As to claim 14, claim 14 is a corresponding remote browsing administrator device claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 4, and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
20. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLIAS-Gupta, in view of Moturu (US 10,069,812 B1).
21. As to claim 7, ELLIAS-Gupta discloses the method of claim 5, but does not explicitly discloses “the customization information is selected based on the session profile”.
In an analogous art, Moturu discloses “the customization information is selected based on the session profile” (col. 4, lines 49-56: After the server receives the initial request from the browser, the server checks whether a login cookie was sent with the initial request. If a login cookie was sent, the server simple validates the login cookie and retrieves session information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of ELLIAS-Gupta and Moturu to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system collect session data to identify individual users and retain user preferences to be used in future browsing sessions.
22. As to claim 17, claim 17 is a corresponding remote browsing administrator device claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 7, and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
23. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELLIAS, in view of Ellis et al. (US 2005/0028208 A1), hereinafter “Ellis”.
24. As to claim 10, ELLIAS discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “updating at least one of a bookmark database on the client device or a bookmark database associated with a remote browsing service in response to changes to the customization information on the second browser”.
In an analogous art, Ellis discloses “updating at least one of a bookmark database on the client device or a bookmark database associated with a remote browsing service in response to changes to the customization information on the second browser” ([0176]: After the user adds a bookmark with a remote access Internet browser, the remote access Internet browser may exchange one or more access communications with a local Internet browser to add the bookmark to the local browser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ELLIAS and Ellis to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to synchronize bookmarks across devices to improve search and access speed.
25. As to claim 20, claim 20 is a corresponding remote browsing administrator device claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 10, and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
26. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
27. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441