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
1. This Office Action is responsive to the communication filed 1/22/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wing et al (US 2022/0342981) in view of Borkar et al (US 2020/0089898).
Regarding claim 1, Wing et al teaches a method, comprising:
providing, from a first device to a second device, a request to access a webpage (par [0009], lines 1-4, which discloses a client device request to launch a website);
receiving, in response to the request, a link to a secure browser (par [0133], lines 1-3, which discloses providing a URL to a secure browser) hosted on a remote virtual machine (fig. 6, ‘358, which discloses the secure browser being hosted on a VM); and
upon an activation of the link, loading at the first device, the secure browser from the remote virtual machine embedded in a local browser of the first device, the secure browser displaying the webpage (fig. 7, ‘412-‘428, which discloses launching the secure browser from the virtual machine onto the client’s local browser upon the remote browser URL being initialized).
Wing et al does not explicitly teach upon submitting a match request to the webpage, receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files, the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device.
However, Borkar et al teaches upon submitting a match request to the webpage (par [0102], lines 1-10, “which application or other component of the client device is requesting access”), receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files (par [0109], lines 4-12, which discloses providing a response to the client device containing a list of network applications that match the client’s profile), the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device (fig. 5, ‘422/’406 & par [0109], lines 8-11, which disclose the list of network applications being stored on remote cloud storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Borkar et al within the disclosure of Wing et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security related to accessing data hosted on a secure browser by implementing browser redirection enabling requested network applications being accessed by a corresponding hosted secure browser instead of having all traffic redirected through a single hosted secure browser (as disclosed in par [0136] of Borkar et al).
Regarding claim 4, Wing et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more commands include one or more of: copy command, paste command, cut command, and save command.
However, Borkar et al teaches wherein the one or more commands include one or more of: copy command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”), paste command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”), cut command, and save command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Borkar et al within the disclosure of Wing et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine corresponds to a preconfigured directory established according to a security policy (fig. 1 & fig. 6, ‘356), wherein the preconfigured directory is configured to prevent access by the first device (par [0005], “isolation may prevent the website from directly transferring any browsing data to or from the client device”).
Regarding claim 8, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the one or more files saved in the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine are saved automatically (par [0074], lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 9, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the second device determines that the webpage requires the secure browser (par [0034], lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 10, Wing et al teaches a system, comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (fig. 2, ‘30); and
one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the at least one memory (fig. 2, ‘22) and configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising:
providing, from a first device to a second device, a request to access a webpage (par [0009], lines 1-4, which discloses a client device request to launch a website);
receiving, in response to the request, a link to a secure browser (par [0133], lines 1-3, which discloses providing a URL to a secure browser) hosted on a remote virtual machine (fig. 6, ‘358, which discloses the secure browser being hosted on a VM); and
upon an activation of the link, loading at the first device, the secure browser from the remote virtual machine embedded in a local browser of the first device, the secure browser displaying the webpage (fig. 7, ‘412-‘428, which discloses launching the secure browser from the virtual machine onto the client’s local browser upon the remote browser URL being initialized).
Wing et al does not explicitly teach upon submitting a match request to the webpage, receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files, the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device.
However, Borkar et al teaches upon submitting a match request to the webpage (par [0102], lines 1-10, “which application or other component of the client device is requesting access”), receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files (par [0109], lines 4-12, which discloses providing a response to the client device containing a list of network applications that match the client’s profile), the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device (fig. 5, ‘422/’406 & par [0109], lines 8-11, which disclose the list of network applications being stored on remote cloud storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Borkar et al within the disclosure of Wing et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security related to accessing data hosted on a secure browser by implementing browser redirection enabling requested network applications being accessed by a corresponding hosted secure browser instead of having all traffic redirected through a single hosted secure browser (as disclosed in par [0136] of Borkar et al).
Regarding claim 13, Wing et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more commands include one or more of: copy command, paste command, cut command, and save command.
However, Borkar et al teaches wherein the one or more commands include one or more of: copy command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”), paste command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”), cut command, and save command (par [0106], line 13-14, “prevent such copy/paste and local save operations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Borkar et al within the disclosure of Wing et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 10.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine corresponds to a preconfigured directory established according to a security policy (fig. 1 & fig. 6, ‘356), wherein the preconfigured directory is configured to prevent access by the first device (par [0005], “isolation may prevent the website from directly transferring any browsing data to or from the client device”).
Regarding claim 17, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 10.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the one or more files saved in the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine are saved automatically (par [0074], lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 18, Wing et al and Borkar et al teach the limitations of claim 10.
Wing et al further teaches wherein the second device determines that the webpage requires the secure browser (par [0034], lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 19, Wing et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (par [0161], lines 3-5) comprising instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor of a device (par [0159]), cause the device to perform operations comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (fig. 2, ‘30); and
one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the at least one memory (fig. 2, ‘22) and configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising:
providing, from a first device to a second device, a request to access a webpage (par [0009], lines 1-4, which discloses a client device request to launch a website);
receiving, in response to the request, a link to a secure browser (par [0133], lines 1-3, which discloses providing a URL to a secure browser) hosted on a remote virtual machine (fig. 6, ‘358, which discloses the secure browser being hosted on a VM); and
upon an activation of the link, loading at the first device, the secure browser from the remote virtual machine embedded in a local browser of the first device, the secure browser displaying the webpage (fig. 7, ‘412-‘428, which discloses launching the secure browser from the virtual machine onto the client’s local browser upon the remote browser URL being initialized).
Wing et al does not explicitly teach upon submitting a match request to the webpage, receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files, the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device.
However, Borkar et al teaches upon submitting a match request to the webpage (par [0102], lines 1-10, “which application or other component of the client device is requesting access”), receiving a match response in the secure browser including one or more files (par [0109], lines 4-12, which discloses providing a response to the client device containing a list of network applications that match the client’s profile), the one or more files being saved in a memory controlled by the remote virtual machine and not saved in a memory of the first device (fig. 5, ‘422/’406 & par [0109], lines 8-11, which disclose the list of network applications being stored on remote cloud storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Borkar et al within the disclosure of Wing et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security related to accessing data hosted on a secure browser by implementing browser redirection enabling requested network applications being accessed by a corresponding hosted secure browser instead of having all traffic redirected through a single hosted secure browser (as disclosed in par [0136] of Borkar et al).
5. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wing et al (US 2022/0342981) in view of Borkar et al (US 2020/0089898), further in view of Amiga et al (US 2022/0360607).
Regarding claim 2, Wing et al and Borkar et al do not explicitly teach while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser.
However, Amiga et al teaches while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser (par [0080], lines 20-30, which discloses browsing policy conditions being implemented to block portions of a webpage, when a user is viewing the webpage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al in order to provide the predictive result of further ensuring secure access to content on a secure browser by implementing a predefined policy that contains a security policy that prevents access to websites matching patterns of suspicious characteristics (as disclosed in par [0136] of Amiga et al).
Regarding claim 3, Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach wherein the security policy disables one or more commands on the remote virtual machine to prevent at least the portion of the data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device.
However, Amiga et al teaches while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser (par [0020] & par [0080], lines 20-30, which disclose website retrieval-based browsing policies conditions being implemented to block portions of a webpage from being accessed by a client and disabling elements of the website from being accessed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Wing et al teaches wherein the security policy enables access to one or more webpages, including the webpage (fig. 10 & par [0024]).
Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach wherein the security policy prevents access to other webpages.
However, Amiga et al teaches prevents access to other webpages (par [0080], line 27-29, “determine if the webpage or any of its elements should be blocked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach instructing the secure browser to upload a second file to the webpage, the secure browser providing the second file to the webpage from the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine.
However, Amiga et al teaches instructing the secure browser to upload a second file to the webpage (par [0080], lines 1-5), the secure browser providing the second file to the webpage from the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine (fig. 3H-3I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Wing et al and Borkar et al do not explicitly teach while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser.
However, Amiga et al teaches while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser (par [0080], lines 20-30, which discloses browsing policy conditions being implemented to block portions of a webpage, when a user is viewing the webpage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al in order to provide the predictive result of further ensuring secure access to content on a secure browser by implementing a predefined policy that contains a security policy that prevents access to websites matching patterns of suspicious characteristics (as disclosed in par [0136] of Amiga et al).
Regarding claim 12, Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach wherein the security policy disables one or more commands on the remote virtual machine to prevent at least the portion of the data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device.
However, Amiga et al teaches while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser (par [0020] & par [0080], lines 20-30, which disclose website retrieval-based browsing policies conditions being implemented to block portions of a webpage from being accessed by a client and disabling elements of the website from being accessed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Wing et al teaches wherein the security policy enables access to one or more webpages, including the webpage (fig. 10 & par [0024]).
Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach wherein the security policy prevents access to other webpages.
However, Amiga et al teaches prevents access to other webpages (par [0080], line 27-29, “determine if the webpage or any of its elements should be blocked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Wing et al and Borkar et al does not explicitly teach instructing the secure browser to upload a second file to the webpage, the secure browser providing the second file to the webpage from the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine.
However, Amiga et al teaches instructing the secure browser to upload a second file to the webpage (par [0080], lines 1-5), the secure browser providing the second file to the webpage from the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine (fig. 3H-3I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, Wing et al further teaches wherein the memory controlled by the remote virtual machine corresponds to a preconfigured directory established according to a security policy (fig. 1 & fig. 6, ‘356), wherein the preconfigured directory is configured to prevent access by the first device (par [0005], “isolation may prevent the website from directly transferring any browsing data to or from the client device”).
Wing et al and Borkar et al do not explicitly teach while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser.
However, Amiga et al teaches while displaying the webpage in the secure browser, preventing at least a portion of data associated with the webpage from being accessed by the first device according to a security policy associated with the secure browser (par [0080], lines 20-30, which discloses browsing policy conditions being implemented to block portions of a webpage, when a user is viewing the webpage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Amiga et al within the teachings of Wing et al and Borkar et al in order to provide the predictive result of further ensuring secure access to content on a secure browser by implementing a predefined policy that contains a security policy that prevents access to websites matching patterns of suspicious characteristics (as disclosed in par [0136] of Amiga et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
20260528
Prosecution Insights