Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 390-15 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`Exhibit L
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 390-15 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`Attorney's Docket No.: FIN0008-DIV1
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Patent Application of:
`
`David Gruzman
`Yuval Ben-Itzhak
`
`2435
`
`Application No: 12/814,584
`
`Filed:
`
`June 14, 2010
`
`For:
`
`)
`) Examiner: Ponnoreay Pich
`)
`) Art Unit:
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR)
`INSPECTING DYNAMICALLY )
`GENERATED EXECUTABLE
`)
`CODE
`)
`_______________________________ )
`Mail Stop AMENDMENT
`Commissioner for Patents
`P. 0. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.111
`
`Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action dated June 28, 2011,
`
`applicants respectfully request that the above-identified application be
`
`amended as follows.
`
`Atty. Docket No. FIN0008-DIV1
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 390-15 Filed 03/14/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`"a transmitter for transmitting the input to the security
`
`computer for inspection, when the first function is invoked", and
`
`"a receiver for receiving an indicator from the security
`
`computer whether it is safe to invoke the second function with the
`
`input"
`
`are neither shown nor suggested in Albrecht.
`
`In rejecting claim 1 on page 3 of the Office Action, the
`
`Examiner has cited Albrecht, paragraphs [0047] -
`
`[0049] as disclosing all
`
`of the above features. Applicants respectfully submit that none of the
`
`emphasized features are shown or suggested in Albrecht, as evidenced by
`
`the following arguments. MPEP 2143.03 states that
`
`"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
`1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CPA 1970).
`
`I.
`
`Albrecht does not show or suggest the claimed
`
`invocation of a first function.
`
`Indeed, invocation of the electronic files, as interpreted
`
`in the framework of Albrecht, is performed at clients 2 of FIG. 1, whereas
`
`paragraphs [0047] -
`
`[0049] of Albrecht relate to protected systems 4 and
`
`virus scanning server 7 of FIG. 1. Neither of these latter computers
`
`actually invokes the electronic files.
`
`In distinction, the claimed content processor invokes
`
`the first function.
`
`II.
`
`Albrecht does not show or suggest the claimed
`
`transmitting an input of a first function to a security
`
`computer.
`
`Atty. Docket No. FIN0008-DIV1
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 390-15 Filed 03/14/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`Notice of Allowability
`
`12/814,584
`Examiner
`
`GRUZMAN ET AL.
`Art Unit
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`PONNOREAY PICH
`
`2435
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address-(cid:173)
`All claims being allowable, PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS (OR REMAINS) CLOSED in this application. If not included
`herewith (or previously mailed), a Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) or other appropriate communication will be mailed in due course. THIS
`NOTICE OF ALLOW ABILITY IS NOT A GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS. This application is subject to withdrawal from issue at the initiative
`of the Office or upon petition by the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.313 and MPEP 1308.
`1. [8] This communication is responsive to 10/5111.
`2. D An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on __ ; the restriction
`requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`3. [8] The allowed claim(s) is/are 1-12.
`4. D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a) D All
`b) D Some*
`c) D None
`of the:
`1. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`3. D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the
`International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* Certified copies not received: __ .
`
`Applicant has THREE MONTHS FROM THE "MAILING DATE" of this communication to file a reply complying with the requirements
`noted below. Failure to timely comply will result in ABANDONMENT of this application.
`THIS THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS NOT EXTENDABLE.
`5. 0 A SUBSTITUTE OATH OR DECLARATION must be submitted. Note the attached EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT or NOTICE OF
`INFORMAL PATENT APPLICATION (PT0-152) which gives reason(s) why the oath or declaration is deficient.
`6. D CORRECTED DRAWINGS (as "replacement sheets") must be submitted.
`(a) D including changes required by the Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review ( PT0-948) attached
`1) D hereto or 2) D to Paper No./Mail Date __ .
`(b) D including changes required by the attached Examiner's Amendment I Comment or in the Office action of
`Paper No./Mail Date __ .
`Identifying indicia such as the application number {see 37 CFR 1.84{c)) should be written on the drawings in the front {not the back) of
`each sheet. Replacement sheet{s) should be labeled as such in the header according to 37 CFR 1.121{d).
`7. 0 DEPOSIT OF and/or INFORMATION about the deposit of BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL must be submitted. Note the
`attached Examiner's comment regarding REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEPOSIT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1. D Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`2. D Notice of Draftperson's Patent Drawing Review (PT0-948)
`3. D Information Disclosure Statements (PTO/SB/08),
`Paper No./Mail Date __
`4. D Examiner's Comment Regarding Requirement for Deposit
`of Biological Material
`
`/Ponnoreay Piehl
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
`
`5. D Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6. D Interview Summary (PT0-413),
`Paper No./Mail Date __ .
`7. [8] Examiner's Amendment/Comment
`
`8. [8] Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
`9. D Other __ .
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Off1ce
`PTOL-37 (Rev. 03·11)
`
`Notice of Allowability
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20111025
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 390-15 Filed 03/14/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`Application/Control Number: 12/814,584
`Art Unit: 2435
`
`Page 4
`
`11. (currently amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim
`
`10 wherein the program code causes the computer device to dynamically generate the
`
`input variable prior to transmitting the input variable for inspection.
`
`12. (currently amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim
`
`10 wherein the input variable includes a call to an additional function, and wherein the
`
`modified input variable includes a call to a modified additional function instead of the call
`
`to the additional function.
`
`The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1 and
`
`3 are allowed over the prior art because applicant's arguments submitted on 10/5/11
`
`were persuasive. Claim 6 is allowed over the prior art because the prior art does not
`
`teach modification of the input variable after the security computer determines calling a
`
`function with the input variable may not be safe and the modified input variable being
`
`used to call a second function. In a typical prior art anti-virus system and method, if an
`
`input variable is determined to not be safe, the input variable is either deleted or
`
`quarantined rather than be used to call another function after some sort of modification
`
`to the input variable. Claim 10 is allowed for similar reasons as claim 6. The remaining
`
`claims are allowed over the prior art due to dependency.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
`
`than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
`
`