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 .
Specification
The use of the trademarks MICROSOFT [pages 2 and 3] and GOOGLE [page 2], have been noted in this application. They should be capitalized wherever they appear and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by B’Far et al., (US 20100250779 A1) hereinafter referred to as B’Far.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, B’Far discloses A system, comprising: a network interface; and a processor, configured to augment third-party code, via the network interface, with auxiliary code implementing a process for facilitating enforcement of one or more computer-usage rules, such that execution of the third-party code carries out the process. [paragraph 0031, The proxy server may also interact with a business application in order to retrieve the content requested by the user or retrieve the content from a cache. If any policies apply to the user, the proxy server may inject appropriate script into the content returned to the user. For example, scripts may be stored in a cache for retrieval by the proxy server. Also, scripts may be generated dynamically. For example, the JavaScript.RTM. code may be generated directly or Java code that modifies the user interface according to applicable policies may be created and then converted to appropriate JavaScript.RTM.. For instance, a Google Web Tools (GWT) Java-to-JavaScript.RTM. compiler may be used in order to provide a script that is compatible with commonly-used browsers. Once generated, the proxy server may inject script into the HTML or other content returned to the user. In an embodiment, an Apache Proxy Plugin is used to inject script]
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, B’Far discloses wherein the computer-usage rules restrict content allowed to be accessed by a user. [paragraph 0051, the governor 306 applies one or more policies to the communications occurring between the ERP system. Examples include preventing or restricting access to certain data in the ERP system]
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, B’Far discloses wherein the third-party code is contained in a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) response received via the network interface, [paragraph 0007, Conventional approaches for modifying application behavior include modifying a core application using configuration or extension application programming interface and using a protocol-specific (such as HTTP-specific) proxy server that modifies the user interface]
and wherein the processor is configured to augment the third-party code by injecting the auxiliary code into the HTTP response. [paragraph 0031, The proxy server may also interact with a business application in order to retrieve the content requested by the user or retrieve the content from a cache. If any policies apply to the user, the proxy server may inject appropriate script into the content returned to the user. For example, scripts may be stored in a cache for retrieval by the proxy server. Also, scripts may be generated dynamically. For example, the JavaScript.RTM. code may be generated directly or Java code that modifies the user interface according to applicable policies may be created and then converted to appropriate JavaScript.RTM.. For instance, a Google Web Tools (GWT) Java-to-JavaScript.RTM. compiler may be used in order to provide a script that is compatible with commonly-used browsers. Once generated, the proxy server may inject script into the HTML or other content returned to the user. In an embodiment, an Apache Proxy Plugin is used to inject script]
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, B’Far discloses wherein the execution of the third-party code renders a webpage, and wherein the process includes modifying the webpage prior to the rendering of the webpage. [paragraph 0046, the web server 214 is communicably coupled to an application server 216, which is a hardware component or software module configured to run one or more applications, such as one or more policy engines and other applications for managing organizational data. As is known, a user of the user workstation 208 may send a request to the web server 214 that specifies a specific action to be taken in connection with an internal business application implemented on the application server 216. The web server 214 then relays the request to the application server 216 which takes the specified action and returns the result of that action to the web server 214, which in turn relays the result to the user workstation 208. In accordance with an embodiment, the web server 214, or other component, may modify the content returned to the user workstation 208 in accordance with one or more policies applicable to a user of the user workstation 208]
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.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B’Far, as applied to Claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, in view of Barton et al., (EP 3422236 A1) hereinafter referred to as Barton.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, B’Far does not explicitly teach wherein the process includes prompting a user for input relating to the execution of the third-party code and facilitating the enforcement based on the input.
Barton teaches wherein the process includes prompting a user for input relating to the execution of the third-party code and facilitating the enforcement based on the input. [paragraph 0485, After prompting the administrative user to define one or more policies to be applied to the new application (and/or based on receiving input and/or other information from the administrative user in response to the prompt), the application store may receive at least one policy to be applied to the new application from the administrative user. For example, the enterprise application store may receive one or more selections and/or other input provided by the administrative user via the updated application store interface discussed in the example above. In this way, the administrative user may, for example, be able to define one or more policies that are to be applied to a new application that the administrative user has added to the application store. In addition, the one or more policies that are defined by the administrative user may, for example, be applied to the new application if and/or when the application is provided to and/or executed by one or more recipient devices]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barton with the disclosure of B’Far. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “Improved techniques for managing enterprise applications on mobile devices.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, B’Far does not explicitly teach wherein the computer-usage rules regulate sharing of information by a user.
Barton teaches wherein the computer-usage rules regulate sharing of information by a user. [paragraph 0099, In order to provide secure copy and paste functionality between a set of managed applications, the circuitry redirects copy and paste operations to a parallel secure clipboard. This parallel clipboard is hidden from general view by other applications (any app without the appropriate policy file), and all data written to it is encrypted. Only managed applications know how to access this hidden, encrypted clipboard]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barton with the disclosure of B’Far. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “Improved techniques for managing enterprise applications on mobile devices.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, B’Far does not explicitly teach wherein the third-party code defines an application, and wherein the auxiliary code defines an extension to the application, the extension being configured to execute the process.
Barton teaches wherein the third-party code defines an application, and wherein the auxiliary code defines an extension to the application, the extension being configured to execute the process. [paragraph 0438, an operation mode may be switched for a selected application. One or more contexts may be monitored for the selected application while running and a change in operation mode may be detected based on the monitoring. For example, one or more contexts may change for the selected application and a policy may define that an operation mode for the selected application is to be changed. Accordingly, the operation mode may be switched to the updated operation mode]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barton with the disclosure of B’Far. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “Improved techniques for managing enterprise applications on mobile devices.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, B’Far discloses and wherein the process includes modifying the email prior to the display of the email. [paragraph 0046, the web server 214, or other component, may modify the content returned to the user workstation 208 in accordance with one or more policies applicable to a user of the user workstation 208]
B’Far does not explicitly teach wherein the application includes an email application, wherein the execution of the third-party code displays an email.
Barton teaches wherein the application includes an email application, wherein the execution of the third-party code displays an email, [paragraph 0120, a managed email application can be configured, through its policy, to allow an attachment to be opened in a managed PDF annotator. But the same managed email application can be configured to prevent the same attachment from being opened in a PDF annotator that is not part of the managed set]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barton with the disclosure of B’Far. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “Improved techniques for managing enterprise applications on mobile devices.” (Abstract)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B’Far in view of Barton, as applied to Claims 2 and 12, respectively, above, in view of Banerjee et al., (US 20100186088 A1) hereinafter referred to as Banerjee.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of B’Far and Barton does not explicitly teach wherein facilitating the enforcement includes: passing the input to a machine-learned algorithm, and enforcing the computer-usage rules based on an output of the algorithm.
Banerjee teaches wherein facilitating the enforcement includes: passing the input to a machine-learned algorithm, and enforcing the computer-usage rules based on an output of the algorithm. [paragraphs 0081-0092]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Banerjee with the disclosures of B’Far and Barton. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “for automated identification of phishing, phony, and malicious web sites.” (Abstract)
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B’Far, as applied to Claims 1 and 11, above, in view of Banerjee.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, B’Far does not explicitly teach wherein the process includes notifying a user of the computer-usage rules.
Banerjee teaches wherein the process includes notifying a user of the computer-usage rules. [paragraph 0132, if a website is both in a good list and a bad/blacklist, then a notification is sent to the operator of the system to resolve the conflict]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Banerjee with the disclosure of B’Far. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “for automated identification of phishing, phony, and malicious web sites.” (Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497