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 .
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.
This action is in response to the correspondence filed 03/10/2025.
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 2-6, the claims recite “a scenario” “a web page” and “a browser”, wherein it is unclear as to whether these refer to the scenario, web page and browser introduced in claim 1 (in which case it should read “the scenario” “the web page” and “the browser”) or are newly introduced. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 7 and 8, the claims recite:
A determination device comprising: processing circuitry configured to: create a test scenario including access to a web page for requesting, via a browser, an authority to acquire data from equipment provided in a device that executes the browser; cause the browser to execute the scenario; and determine presence or absence of a vulnerability of the web page or the browser on a basis of an execution result of the scenario.
A determination method, comprising: creating a test scenario including access to a web page for requesting, via a browser, an authority to acquire data from equipment provided in a device that executes the browser; causing the browser to execute the scenario; and determining presence or absence of a vulnerability of the web page or the browser on a basis of an execution result of the scenario.
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a determination program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: creating a test scenario including access to a web page for requesting, via a browser, an authority to acquire data from equipment provided in a device that executes the browser; causing the browser to execute the scenario; and determining presence or absence of a vulnerability of the web page or the browser on a basis of an execution result of the scenario.
The limitations of “determine presence or absence of a vulnerability…” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind with logical inference
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (determination of the presence or absence of the vulnerability) into a practical application. As discussed above, the use of the processing circuitry to perform conventional operations that are well-known, routine, and conventional does not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application as the elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
As to claims 2-6, the claims do not cure the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 for their dependency upon claim 1 while not integrating the abstract idea into practical application nor including elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210385245 A1 to Melson et al. (hereinafter Melson) in view of US 10884907 B1 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao).
As to claims 1, 7 and 8, Melson teaches a test scenario including access to a web page for requesting, via a browser, an authority to acquire data from equipment provided in a device that executes the browser (paragraphs 40, 51, 89 test to perform on the website); cause the browser to execute the scenario (paragraphs 43, 82 and 85, browser used to access the website to test); and determine presence or absence of a vulnerability of the web page or the browser on a basis of an execution result of the scenario (paragraphs 40, 43 and 49, detecting the presence of vulnerabilities on the website).
Melson does not explicitly teach creating a test scenario.
However, Zhao teaches creating test scenarios (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions).
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 teachings of Melson to include the method of creating test scenarios as taught by Zhao in order to define specific test scenarios based on the website to be tested, therefore optimizing the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the performed test (Col lines 49-56).
As to claim 2, Zhao teaches creating a scenario (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions) in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again (“in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again” is interpreted as intended use language as this is not a positively recited step which limits the claim to performing a particular function or structure. The Examiner suggests positively recited steps after the execution of the scenario).
As to claim 3, Zhao teaches creating a scenario (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions) in which, after an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser is displayed, the web page is updated (“in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again” is interpreted as intended use language as this is not a positively recited step which limits the claim to performing a particular function or structure. The Examiner suggests positively recited steps after the execution of the scenario).
As to claim 4, Zhao teaches creating a scenario (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions) in which, after an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser is displayed, the web page is updated in a state where the web page is set in a background (“in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again” is interpreted as intended use language as this is not a positively recited step which limits the claim to performing a particular function or structure. The Examiner suggests positively recited steps after the execution of the scenario).
As to claim 5, Zhao teaches creating a scenario (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions) in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser in a first mode, the browser is changed to a second mode and the web page is accessed again (“in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again” is interpreted as intended use language as this is not a positively recited step which limits the claim to performing a particular function or structure. The Examiner suggests positively recited steps after the execution of the scenario).
As to claim 6, Zhao teaches creating a scenario (Col 9, lines 60-64, generating, by the testing extension, a test scenario specifying a testable outcome resulting from the one or more actions) in which a web page accessed by a browser is turned into a background before an authority request from the web page is displayed (“in which, after permission or denial is selected for an authority request from a web page accessed by a browser, the browser is restarted and the web page is accessed again” is interpreted as intended use language as this is not a positively recited step which limits the claim to performing a particular function or structure. The Examiner suggests positively recited steps after the execution of the scenario).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
