CTNF 19/009,775 CTNF 81751 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1-20 are presented for examination. Double Patenting 08-33 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of patent no. 12,225089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same limitations and are anticipated by the parent application. Instant Application 19/009775 US Patent US 12225089 B2 1 . A method performed by a file system filter of a computing device, the method comprising: intercepting, by the file system filter, a request to read from or write to a file, the request comprising a process identifier identifying a process executing on the computing device; determining, based on the process identifier, that the process is an instance of a web browser application; retrieving a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the request; and performing a data loss prevention (DLP) action based at least on the URL and a content of the file. 1. A method performed by a file system filter of a computing device, the method comprising: intercepting, by the file system filter, a request to read from or write to a file, the request comprising a process identifier identifying a process executing on the computing device; determining, based on the process identifier, that the process is an instance of a web browser application; retrieving a uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to the request; and performing a data loss prevention (DLP) action against the request based at least on the URL and an identifier of the file. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by , the earlier claim. In re Longi , 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg , 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by CHENG et al hereafter CHENG (US Pat. App. Pub. 20190364097) . As per claims 1, 8, and 15, CHENG discloses a method, a system, and a computer-readable storage medium performed by a file system filter of a computing device (paragraphs: 33-34, and 57, wherein it emphasizes an inline proxy act as a file system filter to perform the method), the method comprising: intercepting, by the file system filter, a request to read from or write to a file, the request comprising a process identifier identifying a process executing on the computing device (paragraphs: 46-48, wherein it elaborates that inline proxy (system filter) intercepting a request to obtain the information by domain name/host name, and category identifier to identify a process executing on the computing system to access a cloud-based service); determining, based on the process identifier, that the process is an instance of a web browser application (paragraph: 48, wherein it deliberates that based on the domain name/host name, and category identifier it is determined that the process is a result of web browser’s application (Wordpress™)) ; retrieving a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the request (paragraphs: 46, and 52, wherein it discusses obtaining that request comprises a uniform resource locator (URL)); and performing a data loss prevention (DLP) action based at least on the URL and a content of the file (paragraphs: 46, 53, and 67, wherein it describes that performing a data loss prevention (DLP) action based on the URL and a content of the message). 6. As per claim 3, CHENG discloses the method, wherein said retrieving the URL comprises at least one of: retrieving the URL from a current session file of the web browser application; querying the web browser application for one or more open instances; or reading the URL from an operating system-level metadata file that comprises origin information of download files (paragraphs: 46, and 53). 7. As per claim 4, CHENG discloses the method, further comprising: providing the URL and the content to a policy server configured to evaluate DLP policies; and receiving, from the policy server, an indication of the DLP action to be performed (paragraphs: 46-47 and 67). 8. As per claim 5, CHENG discloses the method, further comprising: receiving, from the policy server, a request for additional information; and providing at least a portion of the file to the policy server (paragraphs: 55, and 71). 9. As per claim 6, CHENG discloses the method, wherein said providing at least a portion of the file comprises: enabling the instance of the web browser application to initiate a download of the file; and buffering the portion of the file during the download for providing to the policy server, while preventing the portion of the file from being saved to a persistent storage at the computing device (paragraphs: 57, 59, and 87). 10. As per claim 7, CHENG discloses the method, wherein the DLP action comprises at least one of: allowing the request to complete; blocking the request from completion; encrypting data of the file; or releasing a buffer that stores at least a portion of the file associated with the request (paragraphs: 34, 53, and 61). 11. Claims 10-14, and 17-20 are listed all the same elements of claims 3-7. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 3-7 apply equally as well to claims 10-14, and 17-20 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim s 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al hereafter CHENG (US Pat. App. Pub. 20190364097) and in view of Paul et al hereafter Paul (US pat. App. pub. 20210329010) . 13. As per claim 2, CHENG discloses the method, wherein said determining, based on the process identifier, that the process is an instance of a web browser application comprises: determining, based on the process identifier, an executable path for the process (paragraphs: 46-48, and 52-53). He does not expressly mention a hash value and a certificate associated with the process. However, in the same field of endeavor, Paul identifying, based at least on the executable path, a hash value and a certificate associated with the process; and comparing the hash value and the certificate associated with the process to a browser certificate and hash value associated with the web browser application (paragraphs: 5, 48, and 105). Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Paul’s teachings of based at least on the executable path, a hash value and a certificate associated with the process; and comparing the hash value and the certificate associated with the process to a browser certificate and hash value associated with the web browser application with the teachings of CHENG, for the purpose of effectively protecting the web browser application from any unauthorized intruders. 14. Claims 9, and 16 are listed all the same elements of claim 2. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claim 2 apply equally as well to claims 9, and 16. Citation of References 07-96 AIA 15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action: Torney (US pat. 8950005): discusses web page running on a client computing device accesses a web application hosted by a remote server. The local application receives data from the web application. The client computing device uses a data loss prevention (DLP) policy to determine whether the web application is a sensitive web application. In response to determining that the web application is a sensitive web application, the client computing device restricts a capability of at least one of the local application or the client computing device to perform one or more operations associated with the data received from the web application. Shinde et al (US pat. 10248797): elaborates that Zero-day Data Loss Protection (DLP) having enhanced file upload processing are provided. One method may include capturing and sending file upload context (e.g. folder name, metadata, an active URL, etc.) associated with the scheduled file or folder upload to a DLP filesystem driver. For example, the method may include detecting whether a single/multi-file upload, a folder upload, or a drag-and-drop operation exists, through interception of the shell dialog API, the browse folder API, or the drop process interface, respectively. Further, the method may include generating a file upload cache including the file upload context, prior classification entries, and a timestamp indicating when the scheduled file or folder upload was last modified; such that, the DLP filesystem driver may intercept and process the file open call based upon the file upload cache. Accordingly, the file may be processed in accordance with a prior file classification, file/domain filter, or DLP policy. Conclusion 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 2 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 3 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 4 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 5 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 6 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 7 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 8 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 9 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 19/009,775 Page 10 Art Unit: 2407
Prosecution Insights