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
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Largo et al., US Pub. No.20190155868.
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]-[0127]).
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]).
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-5 and 1 respectively.
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) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Largo et al., US Pub. No.20190155868 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]). Largo does not 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art discloses or teaches an image processing apparatus comprising a combination of: when the version of the web browser is changed, the hardware processor outputs a read command of
the cookie information to the web browser of the new version, and thereafter, when there is no response to the read command from the web browser of the new version, the hardware processor changes processing for outputting the read command.
Conclusion
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