DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 05/26/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al. (Pat. No.: US 6,714,926 B2), hereinafter “Ben” in view of Cardozo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0246563 A1), hereinafter “Cord”.
As to claim 1. Ben discloses, a data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory associated with a web browser, (Ben, Abstract, col.1, “storing selected data structures within browser cookie), wherein the system is configured such that:
When information associated with a browser cookie does not exceed a threshold size, the browser cookie includes session cookie information containing all of the information associated with the browser cookie (Ben, fig.2, steps78-90; col.4 – col 6, that reads DB structures, converts to bytes, computes checksum, encrypts, base-64 encodes, and writes the resulting character string as the cookie value i.e., the cookie contains the entire structured data when feasible.); and
When the information associated with the browser cookie exceeds the threshold size, the browser cookie includes session cookie information up to the threshold size (Ben, fig.3, col.5 -col.6, cookie invalid / absent, server accesses user database to retrieve data; supports server storage fallback. Ben further discloses the two-mode behavior e.g., cookie vs DB which supports the overflow concept.).
Ben however is silent to disclose explicitly, an overflow indication providing a database identifier pointing to a database on a server where a balance of the information associated with the browser cookie is stored.
Cord discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, an overflow indication providing a database identifier pointing to a database on a server where a balance of the information associated with the browser cookie is stored (Cord, fig.3, 4, [0035-0040], storing only a session identifier in the browser cookie and storing substantive cookie data in main storage 420 implemented as a relational database identifier /pointer used to lookup the remainder of the cookie data.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Cord” into those of “Ben” to provide a cloud storge computing. Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than as a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to client devices (e.g., computers, smart phones, etc.) as a utility over a network, such as the Internet. Cloud computing environments provide computation, software, data access, and/or storage services that do not require end-user knowledge of a physical location and configuration of a system that delivers the services.
As to claim 9. The combined system of Ben and Cord discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the threshold size is set for all cookies within the computer memory for a domain (Cord, fig.3, [0030-0033], domain/path discussion, fig.6, block 610-620, [0056-0057], Domain/path scoping for cookies across server cluster, explicit threshold/expiration logic for cloud cookies e.g. archive if older than a threshold.).
As to claim 10 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ben and Cord” as applied above in view of Wang et al. (Patent No.: US 11,381,600 B1), hereinafter “Wang”.
As to claim 2. Ben and Cord discloses the invention as cited above. Ben and Cord however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the session cookie information and the balance of the information are encrypted, the browser cookie further comprising an unencrypted header providing a key identifier for a key for decrypting the session cookie information and the balance of the information associated with the browser cookie that is stored in the database on the server.
Wang discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor, wherein the session cookie information and the balance of the information are encrypted, the browser cookie further comprising an unencrypted header providing a key identifier for a key for decrypting the session cookie information and the balance of the information associated with the browser cookie that is stored in the database on the server (Wang, col.6, The cookies 115 can include a unique cookie identifier and the small amount of data (which can include a cookie value, attributes, etc.). col.7, lines 41-47, When the web browser 111 sends a request 120 over the network 105, the web browser 111 can generate and send an attestation token 122 with the request, or send a request in the form of an attestation token 122, and col.12, lines 54-67, decrypting process.).
Therefore, before the effective fling date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Wang” into those of “Ben and Cord” to provide a method, for creating secure browser cookies. The method includes providing an encrypted cookie request that requests encryption of a cookie of the digital component provider and includes a digital component request identifier; receiving an encrypted cookie generated by encrypting the cookie using the digital component request identifier and an encryption key, wherein the encrypted cookie is configured for inclusion in a request for digital components from the digital component provider for presentation on the webpage; generating a digital component request for digital components that includes the encrypted cookie.
As to claim 11 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3-6, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ben and Cord” in view of Wang et al. (Patent No.: US 11,381,600 B1), hereinafter “Wang” and further in view of Tsai et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0089849 A1), hereinafter “Tsai”.
As to claim 3. The combined system of Ben, Cord and Wang discloses the invention as applied above. Ben, Cord and Wang however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the unencrypted header further includes a database location for the key.
Tsai discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the unencrypted header further includes a database location for the key (Tsai, [0017], The encryption module 104 may associate an encryption key with the cookie data and encrypt the cookie data using that key. The encryption key associated with the cookie data may be stored in the database 190.).
Therefore, before the effective fling date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Tsai” into those of “Ben, Cord and Wang” to provide a system for managing cookies in a client device on a network includes a communication module, a cookie parser, an encryption module, and a storing module. The communication module sends an HTTP request to a web server on the network, and the cookie parser extracts any cookie data from the HTTP response by the web server. The encryption module encrypts the cookie data and the storing module stores the encrypted data in a memory area of the client device.
As to claim 4. The combined system of Ben, Cord, Wang and Tsai disclose the invention as applied above including, wherein the browser cookie is compressed (Tsai, [0017]).
As to claim 5. The combined system of Ben, Cord, Wang and Tsai disclose the invention as applied above including, wherein the unencrypted header further comprises an indication of a compression algorithm used for compression of the browser cookie (Tsai, [0017], compression module).
As to claim 6. The combined system of Ben, Cord, Wang and Tsai disclose the invention as applied above including, wherein the browser cookie further includes a decryption key for allowing decryption of the balance of the information associated with the browser cookie that is stored in the database on the server (Tsai, [0017], The encryption module 104 may associate an encryption key with the cookie data and encrypt the cookie data using that key. The encryption key associated with the cookie data may be stored in the database 190.).
As to claim 12 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ben, Cord and Wang” and further in view of Spulak et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0084285 A1), hereinafter “Spul”.
As to claim 7. The combined system of Ben, Cord and Wang discloses the invention as applied above. Ben, Cord and Wang however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the browser cookie further includes overflow cookie information identifying a region for the database on the server.
Spul discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the overflow cookie information identifies a region for the database on the server (Spul, [0079], all the cookie related information is saved on remote database server).
Therefore, before the effective fling date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Spul” into those of “Ben, Cord and Wang” to provide a method of daily or other periodic creation of a user-sponsored cookie-like packet of encoded and encrypted information containing personal identity details and information use rules which, when the packet is attached to a delivery mechanism such as a browser header record, it is delivered to network-based resource provider platforms. Upon receipt and recognition of the modified header record by a subscribing provider, the cookie-like information packet is decrypted and decoded by application programs revealing personal identity details as well as associated data rules.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ben, Cord and Wang” and further in view of Kauffman et al (Pub. No.: US 2024/0236195 A1), hereinafter “Kauf”.
As to claim 8. The combined system of Ben, Cord and Wang discloses the invention as applied above. Ben, Cord and Wang however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein information associated with the browser cookie is prioritized, and wherein information stored in the session cookie information has a higher priority than the balance of the information stored at the database on the server.
Kauf discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein information within the browser cookie is prioritized, and wherein information stored in the session cookie information has a higher priority than information stored at the database on the server (Kauf, [0034], client manager uses new generated cookie for the modified session as opposed to using the stored cookie).
Therefore, before the effective fling date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Kauf” into those of “Ben, Cord and Wang” to provide a client cookie management system is disclosed that includes capabilities for securely managing a session between a web-based application and a user interacting with the web-based application using session cookies. The system receives a request from a user to access a resource provided by a web server and forwards the request to the web server. The web server generates a session cookie comprising a session identifier associated with a session created for the user. The system receives the session cookie from the web server and generates a new session cookie comprising a new session identifier and transmits the new session cookie to the client application. The system receives a second request to access a different resource from the client application. The second request comprises the new session cookie.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights