DETAILED ACTION
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 01/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand; Christiaan Johannes Petrus 20160080326 (hereinafter Brand) in view of Kiehtreiber; Peter et al. US 20150347749 (hereinafter Kiehtreiber) and further in view of WANG, NING CN 112100613 (hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 1, Brand teaches: A method to provide continuous and autonomous security protection from unauthorized access to privileged and sensitive system and user data in a runtime environment, the method comprising:
running, on a client device, a software development kit (SDK) in a first application sandbox with a first unique identifier (UID) (banking application (120) running in a first sandbox (Brand: para. 19, 40 and fig. 2), Also, see para. 46 and 53 wherein the banking application receives and stores an identifier (GUID) in sandbox 121 and the banking application;
running, on a client device, an application [comprising an SDK interface] in a second application sandbox with a second UID the authentication application running the second sandbox (authentication application (130) Brand: para. 11 and 19 and 40);
Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber teach; communicating between the application and the SDK [via the SDK interface] on a runtime service (Kiehtreiber: para. 31 and claim 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to secure execution of code within isolated memory spaces.
The combination of Brand and Kiehtreiber does not teach; however, Wang discloses that the communication between fist sandbox and the second sandbox is via the SDK interface (“taking the target application as game APP running in sandbox environment for example, after the game APP is accessed to the SDK, invoking the login interface of the SDK, so it can directly start the game APP process, actively calling the login interface, automatically initiating login, generating a login request; and sending the login request to the sandbox host application through the communication component.” Page 19, para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Brand and Kiehtreiber with the teachings Wang to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance the security of in a predictable manner to implement compact code execution.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand teaches: the first UID and the second UID are associated with separate resources, wherein each of the separate resources includes at least one file, key, or registry (Brand: para. 53-55 and fig. 2).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: preventing, by the first application sandbox, access to SDK resources contained in the first application sandbox by applications without the first UID (“In particular, a sandboxed process is restricted from accessing memory outside of its process space and is further prohibited from spawning a non-sandboxed process. For example, a security profile of a sandboxed process may include a rule or policy that denies the sandboxed process from using certain system calls, which may be a mechanism that allows processes to alter each other's address spaces.” Kiehtreiber: para.51 also, see para. 53); and
preventing, by the second application sandbox, access to application resources contained in the second application sandbox by applications without the second UID (Kiehtreiber: para.51 also, see para. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to set a rule to access the restricted memory area.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: permitting, by the second application sandbox, the SDK access to application resources associated with the second UID (Kiehtreiber: para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authorized assess to restricted memory.
The combination of Brand and Kiehtreiber does not teach; however, Wang discloses: receiving, by the second application sandbox, an access request from the SDK wherein the access request is transmitted by the SDK interface (Wang: Page 19, para. 6).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: preventing, by an operating system, access to SDK resources associated with the first UID by requests without the first UID (Kiehtreiber: para. 52-53); and
preventing, by the operating system, access to application resources associated with the second UID by requests without the second UID (Kiehtreiber: para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authorized assess to restricted memory.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: the SDK provides at least one functionality for the application (Kiehtreiber: para.83, fig. 5B) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance resource management.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: the communicating between the application and the SDK comprises: transmitting instructions from the application to the SDK to execute the at least one functionality ((Kiehtreiber: para.83).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Brand does not explicitly teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: executing the communicating between the application and the SDK by using at least one of a data blob exchange mechanism, a call back object, or an inter process communication call (launching the selected extension in the second sandboxed environment comprises facilitating, via the first extension point using an inter-process call (IPC) framework, communications between the first application running within the first sandboxed environment and the selected extension running within the second sandboxed environment. Kiehtreiber: claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brand with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to facilitate efficient and reliable concurrent execution.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 18, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a client device that corresponds to method of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA HIROYUKI (hereinafter HIROYUKI) in view of Wang).
As per claim 9, HIROYUKI teaches: A method to secure a digital environment in a client device, the method comprising:
assigning, by the client device, a first unique identifier (UID) to a software development kit (SDK) newly installed from an SDK installation package (HIROYUKI: page 8, para. 1);
assigning, by the client device, a second UID to an application newly installed on the client device from an application installation package (HIROYUKI: page 9, para. 2), the application comprising an SDK interface (“The SDK platform 123 provides an execution environment for the SDK application 122. Each SDK application 122 is developed using an API (Application Program Interface) provided by the SDK platform 123. The API of the SDK platform 123 is open to the public, and the SDK application 122 can be developed by a third vendor or the like.” HIROYUKI: page 4, para. 4);
executing the application newly installed on the client device (HIROYUKI: page 12, para. 5 through page 13, para. 2);
HIROYUKI does not explicitly teach; however, Wang discloses: initiating the SDK interface in a common application sandbox containing the application
newly installed on the client device and the SDK interface (“taking the target application as game APP running in sandbox environment for example, after the game APP is accessed to the SDK, invoking the login interface of the SDK, so it can directly start the game APP process, actively calling the login interface, automatically initiating login, generating a login request; and sending the login request to the sandbox host application through the communication component.” Wang: Page 19, para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIROYUKI with the teachings Wang to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to secure execution of code in a secure environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI in view of Wang and further in view of Venkatakrishnan; Poornima et al. US 20170316400 (hereinafter Venkatakrishnan).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. The combination of HIROYUKI and Wang does not teach; however, Venkatakrishnan discloses: sending a request from the client device to an application distribution server, to download the application (Venkatakrishnan: para. 49);
detecting a dependency between the application and the SDK installation package in the application distribution server (an icon indicates the dependency. Venkatakrishnan: para. 49);
downloading, into the client device, an application installation package associated with the application (Venkatakrishnan: para. 49); and
downloading, into the client device, the detected SDK installation package without a separate request (Venkatakrishnan: para. 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of HIROYUKI and Wang with the teachings Venkatakrishnan to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform a specific function.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROYUKI in view of Wang and further in view Kiehtreiber.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. The combination of HIROYUKT and Wang does not teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: executing, on the client device, the SDK in an SDK sandbox (Kiehtreiber: claim 7); and
communicating between the SDK and the application via the SDK interface on a
runtime service (Kiehtreiber: claim 7).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. The combination of HIROYUKT and Wang does not teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: executing the communicating between the application and the SDK by using at least one of a data blob exchange mechanism, a call back object, or an inter process communication call (Kiehtreiber: claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of HIROYUKI and Wang with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to facilitate efficient and reliable concurrent execution.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. The combination of HIROYUKT and Wang does not teach; however, Kiehtreiber discloses: preventing, by the SDK sandbox, access to SDK resources contained in the SDK sandbox by applications without the first UID (Kiehtreiber: para. 51 and 55) ; and
preventing, by the common application sandbox, access to application resources
contained in the common application sandbox by applications without the second UID (Kiehtreiber: para. 51 and 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of HIROYUKI and Wang with the teachings of Kiehtreiber to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to prevent execution of unauthorized code.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
