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
This is in response to the amendment and Remarks filed on 6/10/26. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Largo et al., US Pub. No.20190155868 in view of Kinarti et al., US Pub. No.20160182673.
As to claim 1, Largo discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor that:
causes a web browser (client's web browser) that manage account information
for login to a cloud server (121 fig.1) to function, transmits and receives data required for execution of a job to or from a cloud server (configured to request secure access to all of the web pages it hosts when a client's web browser, see fig,1, [0125] to [0126]),
when the web browser is logged in to the cloud server by using the account information and controls the account information managed by the web browser of an old version to be usable by the web browser of a new version (secure version of the web page), when the version of the web browser is changed (the intermediary server 101 runs an instance of a web engine, retrieves the files from the particular web page (old version), renders and produces an image of the web page so that the client machine may browse a secure version of the web page, see [0126]-[0128]).
Largo does not specifically disclose monitoring whether a version of the web browser is updated and in response to the version of the web browser being updated. However, in a similar network environment, Kinarti discloses monitoring whether a version of the web browser is updated and in response to the version of the web browser being updated (using the browser for continually contacting the host server regarding whether its stored web resources are relevant and up-to-date at regular or varying interval and thus notifications of changes to a web resource and/or a web site may be “pulled” by web browser from the host server, see [0028] to [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Kinarti’s teachings into the computer system of Largo to monitor the browser’s updates because it would have provided notifications of a change or alteration of the web site and web resources thereof to a browser that accesses the web site (see Kinarti’s [0029]).
As to claim 2, Largo discloses the account information is managed as cookie information by the web browser (cookie sessions, see [0044]).
As to claim 3, Largo discloses when the version of the web browser is changed, the hardware processor stores the cookie information that has been stored in a first storage
area by the web browser of the old version in a second storage area that the web
browser of the new version accesses (cookies may be maintained during the whole
instance as the files corresponding to cookies may be stored in the temporary directory
and used as well, see [0044] to [0047]).
As to claim 4, Largo discloses the hardware processor further stores the cookie
information in an external storage device when the version of the web browser is
changed (processing cookie sessions, see [0047]). Largo does not specifically disclose monitoring in response to the version of the web browser being updated. However, in a similar network environment, Kinarti discloses in response to the version of the web browser being updated (using the browser for continually contacting the host server regarding whether its stored web resources are relevant and up-to-date at regular or varying interval and thus notifications of changes to a web resource and/or a web site may be “pulled” by web browser from the host server, see [0028] to [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Kinarti’s teachings into the computer system of Largo to monitor the brewer’s updates because it would have provided notifications of a change or alteration of the web site and web resources thereof to a browser that accesses the web site (see Kinarti’s [0029]).
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-5 and 1
respectively.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Largo et al., US Pub. No.2019015and Kinarti as in above and further in view 5868 in view of Isareli et al. US Pub.No.20230164140.
As to claim 7, Largo discloses when the web browser of the new version can acquire the cookie information ((the intermediary server 101 runs an instance of a web engine, retrieves the files from the particular web page (old version), renders and produces an image of the web page so that the client machine may browse a secure version of the web page, see [0126]-[0127]). Neither Largo nor Kinarti specifically disclose changing encryption and decryption processing of the cookie information when the login to the cloud server fails. However, Israeli discloses changing encryption and decryption processing of the cookie information when the login to the cloud server fails (validating authentication tokens (such as in a cookie or header) or determining that authentication token is invalid or expired by using encryption and decryption processes, see [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to incorporate Israeli's teachings into the computer system of Largo to control data information because it would have configured the web browser to override the configuration of the computer and to allow all of the communications sent by the web browser to proceed to destinations that are indicated within the communications sent by the web browser (see Israeli's [0019]).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 7-15, under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kinarti et al., US Pub. No.20160182673.
Conclusion
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 Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. the examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
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, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights