DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants Application filed on March 13, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the status of the related applications in paragraph 0001 needs to be updated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym for URL must be spelled out before use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym for HTML must be spelled out before use. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 14 of the present application are broader in scope and thus encompass the subject matter already claimed in allowed U.S. Patent No. 12,278,876.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odendahl (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0182424) in view of Johnson (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0272551).
As per claims 1, 8 and 14, Odendahl discloses a method, a device and one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
receiving, response data from the target (i.e. server), based on a request from the client to the target (paragraph 0045 discloses receiving from a scriptable proxy server a response based on a request from a client);
receiving a subsequent request from the client associated with the resource locator (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 discloses the scriptable proxy server receiving another request from the client); and
processing the subsequent request without forwarding the subsequent request to the target (paragraphs 0045 disclose the scriptable proxy server examining the client request to determine if it includes a script request or not and if it does not process the request by the scriptable proxy server).
However, Odendahl does not explicitly disclose:
modifying, to obtain modified response data, the response data to include a resource locator that reference the target; and
transmitting the modified response data to the client.
Johnson discloses determining whether to redirect a request originally destined for a server based on uniform resource locator comprising:
modifying, to obtain modified response data, the response data to include a resource locator that reference the target (paragraphs 0038-0039 discloses modifying a URL in response to a client request); and
transmitting the modified response data to the client (paragraph 0039 discloses transmitting modified URL in response to a client request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Odendahl by incorporating or implementing modifying URLs and associated messages in order to create flags and markers a timely and efficient manner.
As per claim 2, Odendahl discloses:
configuring the resource locator as a one-time use endpoint (paragraph 0040); and
invalidating the resource locator after processing the subsequent request (paragraph 0045)
As per claim 3, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the resource locator is valid only for a duration of a session between the target and the intermediary (paragraph 0040).
As per claim 4, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the resource locator comprises a relative URL interpretable by the client as being addressed to the target (paragraph 0038).
As per claim 5, Odendahl discloses the invention substantially.
However, Odendahl does not explicitly disclose:
determining whether the response data is modifiable based on a content type of the response data.
Johnson discloses determining whether to redirect a request originally destined for a server based on uniform resource locator comprising:
determining whether the response data is modifiable based on a content type of the response data (paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Odendahl by incorporating or implementing modifying URL based on HTML content for purpose of displaying the modified URL on the client display in a timely and efficient manner.
As per claims 6, Odendahl discloses the invention substantially.
However, Odendahl does not explicitly disclose:
identifying whether the content type indicates HTML content.
Johnson discloses determining whether to redirect a request originally destined for a server based on uniform resource locator comprising:
identifying whether the content type indicates HTML content (paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Odendahl by incorporating or implementing modifying URL based on HTML content for purpose of displaying the modified URL on the client display in a timely and efficient manner.
As per claim 7, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the subsequent request comprises performing at least one of advertisement blocking, threat protection or content customization (paragraph 0054).
As per claim 9, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the intermediary is implemented as a transparent proxy that operates without explicitly knowledge of either the client or the target (paragraphs 0045).
As per claim 12, Odendahl discloses:
generate a random endpoint that uniquely identifies the resource locator prior to modifying the response data, wherein the resource locator includes the random endpoint (paragraphs 0045 and 0046).
As per claim 13, Odendahl discloses:
validate the subsequent request by validating the random endpoint against a list of endpoints previously generated by the intermediary in association with the client (paragraphs 0045 and 0046).
As per claim 15, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the intermediary is implemented as a web browser extension executing at a computing device that implements the client (paragraph 0012).
As per claim 16, Odendahl discloses:
maintaining a list of endpoints generated by the intermediary (paragraph 0045); and validating the subsequent request by verifying the resource locator against the list of endpoints (paragraph 0046).
As per claim 17, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the resource locator includes a prefix followed by a unique identifier, wherein the prefix indicates to the intermediary that the subsequent request is to be processed by the intermediary (paragraph 0046).
As per claim 18, Odendahl discloses:
wherein the intermediary is configured to provide a well-known endpoint that includes configuration information regarding functions enabled by the intermediary (paragraph 0045).
As per claim 19, Odendahl discloses:
receiving a third request from the client directed to the target; and determining, based on absence of a proxy-handling indication in the third request, to forward the third request to the target without processing by the intermediary (paragraph 0046).
As per claim 20, Odendahl discloses:
wherein processing the subsequent request comprises redirecting the client to a warning page hosted by the intermediary when the subsequent request is associated with potentially malicious content (paragraph 0045).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odendahl (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0182424) in view of Johnson (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0272551) and in further view of Flurry et al (hereinafter, “Flurry”, U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0144277).
As per claim 10, Odendahl in view of Johnson discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Odendahl in view of Johnson do not explicitly disclose:
inject a script that includes the resource locator, wherein the script is configured to monitor for events triggered within the client.
Flurry discloses an enhanced port type agnostic proxy support for web services intermediaries comprising:
inject a script that includes the resource locator, wherein the script is configured to monitor for events triggered within the client (paragraphs 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Odendahl in view of Johnson by incorporating or implementing creating an endpoint to include in the message response for the purpose of processing the request from the client in a timely and efficient manner.
As per claim 11, Odendahl discloses the invention substantially.
However, Odendahl does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the script is configured to listen for at least one of: a submit event or a click event on HTML elements.
Johnson discloses determining whether to redirect a request originally destined for a server based on uniform resource locator comprising:
wherein the script is configured to listen for at least one of: a submit event or a click event on HTML elements (paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Odendahl by incorporating or implementing modifying URL based on HTML content for purpose of displaying the modified URL on the client display in a timely and efficient manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LASHONDA T JACOBS-BURTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4004. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LASHONDA JACOBS-BURTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
ljb
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights