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 .
This Office Action is in response to application 18/923,438 filed on 10/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
The examiner notes the IDS filed on 10/22/2024 has been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,500,979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,500,979:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 10 and 19, of U.S. patent No. 11,500,979 anticipates by reciting: A method to monitor integrity of webpages, the method comprising: obtaining, at a computing system, rendered code generated using source code of a webpage, the source code obtained in response to a request to a webserver that hosts the webpage, the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage and the rendered code including elements not represented in the source code without parsing and/or executing the source code; analyzing, at the computing system, the rendered code to determine a code portion of the rendered code configured to establish a network connection and transmit data obtained by the rendered code over the network connection; determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage in response to the code portion of the rendered code being configured to establish the network connection and the data being transmitted being financial information or personal information, such that the change in integrity of security is determined in response to the financial information or the personal information being transmitted over the network connection established by the code portion of the rendered code, wherein a change in the integrity of security of the webpage indicates an altering of the webpage; and in response to a change in the integrity of security of the webpage, generating an alert regarding the integrity of security of the webpage.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 10 and 11 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,836. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 10,289,836:
The examiner notes that claim 12, and representative independent claim(s) 1 and 15, of U.S. patent No. 10,289,836 anticipates by reciting: A method to monitor integrity of webpages, the method comprising: obtaining, at a server, rendered code generated using source code of a webpage obtained in response to a request to a web server that hosts the webpage and using remotely called code referenced in the source code, the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage and the rendered code including elements not represented in the remotely called code and the source code without parsing and/or executing the remotely called code and the source code; obtaining, at the server, previous rendered code of the webpage, the previous rendered code generated before the request is sent to the webserver for the source code used to generate the rendered code; determining, at the server, a difference between the rendered code and the previous rendered code of the webpage; analyzing, at the server, the difference between the rendered code and the previous rendered code to determine a change in integrity of security of the webpage; and in response to a change in the integrity of security of the webpage, generating an alert regarding the integrity of security of the webpage.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 10 and 11 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 10; claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 recites “[a] computer-readable media”. Under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “computer-readable media” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer readable media to non-transitory forms (see specification [0096]). See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 35 U.S.C. 101 since it encompassed transitory media). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to either “A non-transitory computer-readable media” or “a computer-readable storage device” to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartik et al. (US 2019/0068638 A1) in view of Kovatch (US 2013/0212465 A1) and Hill et al. (US 9,479,519 B1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Bartik discloses a method to monitor integrity of webpages (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining rendered code generated using source code of a webpage obtained in response to a request to a server that hosts the webpage ... the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage ... ([0028] - The present embodiment may use a bot (i.e., a headless browser, an internet bot or a web robot) to perform automated tasks over the internet. A bot may be a software application that performs simple and repetitive tasks over the internet. The bot may be programmed to make hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) requests to access suspicious URLs, download and render URL content and produce a screenshot of the final rendered webpage... the phishing identification program may compare the similarity of the two pages based on the downloaded content (e.g., HyperText Markup Language Document Object Model (HTML DOM), images scripts, etc.) and the rendered screenshots using page similarity algorithms, for example a Gaussian based algorithm, for keypoint extraction and a histogram-based algorithm);
selecting a portion of the rendered code in response to the portion of the rendered code being configured to remain the same for different renderings of the webpage ([0030] - One score produced by the phishing identification program may include keypoint extraction and may be applied to the boundaries of the screenshots, such as the top, left, right and bottom of the screenshot pages. ... The outer boundaries of the domain landing URL pages typically maintain a similar look and feel or may even maintain the exact look and feel of a webpage while the content in the middle may be dynamic and may not maintain a general scheme);
obtaining [other] rendered code of the webpage that corresponds to the selected portion of the rendered code ([0028] - Then the bot may use the same process (i.e., download and render URL content and produce a screenshot of the final rendered webpage) for the domain landing page URL).
determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage based on a comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the [other] rendered code of the webpage (FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0029]-[0030] - One score produced by the phishing identification program may include keypoint extraction and may be applied to the boundaries of the screenshots, such as the top, left, right and bottom of the screenshot pages. The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature); and
in response to a change in the integrity of security of the webpage, generating an alert regarding the integrity of security of the webpage (FIG. 2 – Suspicious URL has Indicators of Phishing Attack 212 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website.).
Bartik fails to explicitly disclose
obtaining rendered code generated using source code of a webpage obtained in response to a request to a server that hosts the webpage and using remotely called code referenced in the source code, the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage and the rendered code including elements not represented in the remotely called code and the source code without parsing and/or executing the remotely called code and the source code;
...
obtaining prior rendered code of the webpage that corresponds to the selected portion of the rendered code;
determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage based on a comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the prior rendered code of the webpage.
However, in an analogous art, Kovatch teaches obtaining rendered code generated using source code of a webpage obtained in response to a request to a server that hosts the webpage and using remotely called code referenced in the source code, the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage and the rendered code including elements not represented in the remotely called code and the source code without parsing and/or executing the remotely called code and the source code (FIG. 1B and [0033] - The foregoing disclosure details a method and system to enhance web browser performance and/or increase user privacy by optimizing the page that is selectively loading and rendering only the necessary parts of the page as required by the user. Furthermore, the embodiments provide a method and system so that the optimized page can retain all of the functionality, look and feel of the original page and [0035] - For example, consider how the Facebook `Like` button works in the system described herein. The script that loads and displays the `Like` button would not exist in the page, would not run, would not share information about the user with the Facebook server, and would not even exist in the browser's memory until the user clicked the placeholder for the `Like` button. Stated a different way, with the embodiments taught herein, data is only shared when the user makes a specific action to enable parts of the web page which might share personal information about the user, unlike the default behavior which can begin sharing personal information as soon as the page loads and renders).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kovatch to the rendered code of Bartik to include obtaining rendered code generated using source code of a webpage obtained in response to a request to a server that hosts the webpage and using remotely called code referenced in the source code, the rendered code being finalized instructions to layout presentation of the webpage and the rendered code including elements not represented in the remotely called code and the source code without parsing and/or executing the remotely called code and the source code.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kovatch to Bartik to do so as it provides / allows improved user control over loading of webpage elements resulting in increased browser performance and more control over user privacy (Kovatch, [0010]).
Further, in an analogous art, Hill teaches
obtaining prior rendered code of the webpage that corresponds to the selected portion of the rendered code (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.);
determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage based on a comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the prior rendered code of the webpage (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hill to the rendered code of Bartik in view of Kovatch to include obtaining prior rendered code of the webpage that corresponds to the selected portion of the rendered code; determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage based on a comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the prior rendered code of the webpage.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch to do so as it provides / allows to identify potential problems with web pages (Hill, col. 2, line 60).
Regarding Claim 2;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Hill further teaches wherein the prior rendered code is generated before the request is sent to the server for the source code used to generate the rendered code (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 3;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Bartik further discloses wherein the different renderings of the webpage occur when different information is used during browsing sessions to navigate to the webpage and the different rendering reflect the different information ([0030] - The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature. The outer boundaries of the domain landing URL pages typically maintain a similar look and feel or may even maintain the exact look and feel of a webpage while the content in the middle may be dynamic and may not maintain a general scheme).
Regarding Claim 4;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Bartik further discloses further comprising analyzing the rendered code to identify indicators that the integrity of security of the webpage is compromised, wherein a change in integrity of security of the webpage is determined based on the comparison and/or the identified indicators ([0030] - One score produced by the phishing identification program may include keypoint extraction and may be applied to the boundaries of the screenshots, such as the top, left, right and bottom of the screenshot pages. The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature. The outer boundaries of the domain landing URL pages typically maintain a similar look and feel or may even maintain the exact look and feel of a webpage while the content in the middle may be dynamic and may not maintain a general scheme).
Regarding Claim 5;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Bartik further discloses further comprising: obtaining second [other] rendered code of the webpage that corresponds to an unselected portion of the rendered code ([0030] - The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature); determining a difference between the unselected portion of the rendered code and the second [other] rendered code (FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0030] - The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature); and determining a change in integrity of security of the webpage based on the difference (FIG. 2 and [0027] and [0030]). As noted, “may be lower” is conditional, thus, the weight of the center can have the same affect.
Hill further teaches ... prior rendered code ... (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.);
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 6;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 5.
Bartik further discloses wherein the change in integrity of security of the webpage is determined in response to the difference between the unselected portion of the rendered code and the second [other] rendered code satisfying a difference threshold (FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0030] - The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature and [0034] - The scoring may be tunable to accommodate various thresholds). As noted “may be lower” is conditional, thus, the weight of the center can have the same affect.
Hill further teaches ... prior rendered code ... (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.);
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 7;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 6.
Bartik further discloses wherein the difference threshold is selected based on operations performed by the unselected portion of the rendered code FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0030] - The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature and [0034] - The scoring may be tunable to accommodate various thresholds and [0044] - The center of a web site may not maintain a general scheme and have, for example, a company's products displayed in the center and each different webpage within a domain landing page may have different products in the center of the screen for each different webpage). As noted “may be lower” is conditional, thus, the weight of the center can have the same affect further different products depicted is noted to be of an operation performed by the unselected portion of the rendered code.
Regarding Claim 8;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Bartik further wherein the comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the [other] rendered code of the webpage includes a difference between the rendered code and the [other] rendered code based on an altering of the rendered code (FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0029]-[0030] - One score produced by the phishing identification program may include keypoint extraction and may be applied to the boundaries of the screenshots, such as the top, left, right and bottom of the screenshot pages. The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature);
Kovatch further teaches ...rendered code due to the remotely called code (FIG. 1B and [0033] and[0035]).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Kovatch to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Hill further teaches ... prior rendered code ... (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.);
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 9;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the method to Claim 1.
Bartik further discloses wherein a change in integrity of security of the webpage is determined in response to any difference determined by the comparison between the portion of the rendered code and the [other] rendered code of the webpage (FIG. 2 and [0027] - The phishing identification program may then run an algorithm to decide if the website is a phishing website and [0029]-[0030] - One score produced by the phishing identification program may include keypoint extraction and may be applied to the boundaries of the screenshots, such as the top, left, right and bottom of the screenshot pages. The weight of the score may be higher (i.e., have a greater affect) when associated with the outer boundaries of the screenshots and the weight of the score may be lower when associated with the center of the screenshots since the center of the screenshots may be more dynamic in nature).
Hill further teaches ... prior rendered code ... (FIG. 4 and col. 2, lines 60-64 - In order to identify potential problems with web pages, web page statistics that are generated from a currently retrieved or loaded web page can be compared with a statistical model representing the web page (e.g., representing a known good state of the web page and col. 3, lines 8-11- The statistical model can include ...structure statistics (e.g., HTML element structure, div element structure, etc.) and col. 3, lines 31-35 - FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example environment 100 for detecting potential web page problems during web page loading. For example, potential problems can be detected when a web page is retrieved (e.g., from the HTML, JavaScript, images, and/or other received resources related to the web page) and/or when a web page is rendered (e.g., based on DOM information, processed layers, etc.);
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hill to Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 10; claim(s) 10 is/are directed to a/an media associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 10 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-20; claim(s) 11-13 and 15-20 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1-9. Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-9, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 14;
Bartik in view of Kovatch and Hill disclose the system to Claim 11.
Bartik further discloses wherein the system performs a process that generates the rendered code to obtain the rendered code ([0028] - The present embodiment may use a bot (i.e., a headless browser, an internet bot or a web robot) to perform automated tasks over the internet. A bot may be a software application that performs simple and repetitive tasks over the internet. The bot may be programmed to make hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) requests to access suspicious URLs, download and render URL content and produce a screenshot of the final rendered webpage. Then the bot may use the same process (i.e., download and render URL content and produce a screenshot of the final rendered webpage) for the domain landing page URL).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439