Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-17-
`
`Remarks
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Uponentry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65, and
`
`67-70 are pendingin the application, with claims 1, 14, 18, 22, 32, 36, 49, 53, 57, and 67
`
`being the independent claims. Claims 13, 31, 48, and 66 are sought to be cancelled
`
`without prejudice to or disclaimer of the subject matter therein. No new claims are
`
`sought to be added. Claims 1-12, 14-30, 32-47, 49-65, and 67-70 are sought to be
`
`amended. Applicant reserves the right to prosecute similar or broader claims, with
`
`respect to the amended and cancelled claims, in the future. These changesare believed
`
`to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the
`
`following remarks, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that
`
`the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and
`
`rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Statement ofSubstance ofExaminer Interview
`
`The Examiner, Le V. Nguyen,
`
`is thanked for her time during a telephonic
`
`interview with Applicant's representatives Glenn J. Perry and Amirali Sharifi on July 13,
`
`2010. Applicant's representatives discussed proposed claim amendments similar to
`
`amendments presented in this reply, applied reference Salahshour, and distinguishing
`
`claim features. The Examiner provided some guidance as to her interpretation of the
`
`claims and reference, and some suggested direction for claim amendments. No final
`
`agreement was reached.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222, 540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 18 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Claim Amendments and Statement ofSupport under 37 CFR. § 1.173
`
`Originally issued claims 1-12, 14-30, and 31-35 are amended.
`
`Support for
`
`features recited in these amended claimsis stated below. Also, claims 36-47, 49-65, and
`
`67-70, which were added in the Preliminary Amendment filed August 15, 2007, are
`
`amended. Annotated amendments for these claims are shownin the attached Appendix.
`
`Support for features recited in these amended claimsis stated below.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 1, 22, 36, and 57 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 10,
`
`lines 13-58 and in Figure 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 2, 23, 37, and 58 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 10,
`
`lines 21-32 and in Figure 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,931,597,
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 3, 24, 38, and 59 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 9, lines 7-37 and in Figures 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 4 and 39 may be found, for
`
`example, at column 8, lines 37-56 and in Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 5 and 40 may be found, for
`
`example, at column 8, lines 37-56 and in Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 6, 25, 41, and 60 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 9,lines 7-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 7 and 42 may be found, for
`
`example, at column 9, lines 7-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-19-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 8, 26, 43, and 61 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 10, lines 3-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 9, 27, 44, and 62 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 9, line 50 to column 10, line 3 and Figures 4A-4E of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 10, 28, 45, and 63 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 9, line 50 to column 10, line 3, column 10, lines 32-47,
`
`and Figures 4A-4E and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 11, 29, 46, and 64 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 9, line 50 to column 10, line 3, column 10, lines 32-47,
`
`and Figures 4A-4E and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 12, 30, 47, and 65 may be
`
`found, for example, at column 10, lines 3-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 14, 18, 32, 49, 53, and 67 may
`
`be found, for example, at column 10, lines 13-58 and in Figure 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 15, 19, 33, 50, 54, and 68 may
`
`be found, for example, at column 10, lines 32-47 and in Figure 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,931,597.
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 16, 20, 34, 51, 55, and 69 may
`
`be found, for example, at column 9, line 50 to column 10,line 3 and Figures 4A-4E of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`~ 20 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Support for the features recited in amended claims 17, 21, 35, 52, 56, and 70 may
`
`be found, for example, at column 9, line 50 to column 10, line 3, column 10, lines 32-47,
`
`and Figures 4A-4E and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,597.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 2, 12, and 60!
`
`On page 2 of the Office Action, the Examiner objected to claims 2, 12, and 60
`
`due to informalities. Applicant respectfully traverses this objection.
`
`While not conceding the basis for the Examiner's objections and solely to
`
`expedite prosecution, Applicant hereby amends claims 2, 12, and 60 to address the
`
`Examiner's concerns. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of
`
`the objections to claims 2, 12, and 60.
`
`Claims 37, 39, and 40
`
`On page 2 of the Office Action, the Examiner objected to claims 37, 39, and 40
`
`under 37 CFR 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent for failing to further limit the
`
`subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant respectfully traverses this objection.
`
`The Examiner, on page 2 of the Office Action,states:
`
`Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the
`claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or
`rewrite the claim(s)
`in independent
`form.
`They are
`identical to claims 2, 4 and 5. Appropriate correction is
`required.
`
`
`
`The statement of the objections, on page 2 of the Office Action, indicates that claims |, 2, and 60 are
`objected. However, detailed content of the objections, on page 2 of the Office Action, indicates claims 2, 12, and 60.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REI0
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-21-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, while not conceding the basis for the
`
`Examiner's objections and solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant submits herewith
`
`amended claims 37, 39, and 40 that address the Examiner's concerns. Applicant
`
`therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objections to claims
`
`37, 39, and 40.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 1-13, 19-21, 48, 54-56, and 66 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as the invention.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
`
`Claims 1, 19, and 54
`
`While not conceding the basis
`
`for
`
`the rejection and solely to expedite
`
`prosecution, claims 1, 19, and 54 are sought to be amended.
`
`Independent claim 1 now
`
`recites, inter alia: "for graphically displaying the secured items, superimposing for each
`
`secured item a security icon corresponding to the security level of that item over a
`
`default icon for graphically displaying each of the secured items, wherein the default
`
`icon represents a corresponding non-secured item from which the respective secured
`
`item was derived." Dependent claim 19 now recites,
`
`inter alia: "superimposing the
`
`security icon over a default icon, wherein the default icon is configured to represent a
`
`non-secured item from which the at
`
`least one secured item was derived." Also,
`
`dependent claim 54 nowrecites, inter alia: "superimposing the security icon over a
`
`default icon, wherein the default icon is configured to represent a non-secured item from
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 22 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`which the secured item was derived." Applicant
`
`therefore respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawalofthe rejection of claims 1-12, 19-21, and 54-56.
`
`Claims 13, 48, and 66
`
`The Examiner, on page 3 of the Office Action, states: "[w]ith regards to claims
`
`13, 48, and 66, it is noted that the terms "resizing", "size" and its derivatives are not
`
`supported in the specification."
`
`While not conceding the basis
`
`for
`
`the rejection and solely to expedite
`
`prosecution, claims 13, 48, and 66 are sought to be cancelled, rendering their rejection
`
`moot. Applicantreservesthe right to prosecute similar or broader claims, with respect to
`
`the cancelled claims,in the future.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 1, 8, 13, 18, 19, 22, 26, 31, 36, 43, 48, 53, 54, 57, 61, and 66, were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,577,125 to Salahshour et al. ("Salahshour"). Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`While not conceding the basis
`
`for
`
`the rejection and solely to expedite
`
`prosecution, claims 13, 31, 48, and 66 are sought
`
`to be cancelled, rendering their
`
`rejection moot.
`
`Independent claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57 recite features that distinguish over
`
`the applied reference. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia:
`
`determining a security level of each of the secured items;
`
`and
`
`Atty. Dkt. No, 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 23 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`for graphically displaying the secured items, superimposing
`for each secured item a security icon corresponding to the security
`level of that item over a default icon, wherein the default
`icon
`represents a corresponding non-secured item from which the
`respective secured item wasderived.
`
`For example, claim 18 recites, inter alia:
`
`in response to a determination that at least one of the items
`is secured, determining a security level of the at least one secured
`item; and
`generating a superimposed icon based, at least in part, on
`the determined security level to graphically display the at least one
`secured item.
`
`For example, claim 22 recites, inter alia:
`
`instructions to determine a security level of each ofsecured
`items; and
`for graphically displaying the secured items, instructions to
`superimpose for each secured item a security icon corresponding
`to the security level of that item over a default icon, wherein the
`default
`icon represents a corresponding non-secured item from
`which the respective secured items wasderived.
`
`For example, claim 36 recites, inter alia:
`
`determining a security level ofa secured item; and
`for graphically displaying the secured item, superimposing
`a security icon corresponding to the security level of the secured
`item over a default icon, wherein the default icon represents a non-
`secured item from which the secured item is derived.
`
`For example, claim 53 recites, inter alia:
`
`the item is secured,
`in response to a determination that
`determining a security level of the secured item; and
`generating a superimposed icon based, at least in part, on
`the determined security level to graphically display the secured
`item,
`
`For example, claim 57 recites, inter alia:
`
`instructions to determine a security level of a secured item,
`
`and
`
`for graphically displaying the secured item, instructions to
`superimpose a security icon corresponding to the security level of
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-24-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`icon
`icon, wherein the default
`the secured item over a default
`represents a non-secured item from which the secured item was
`derived.
`
`Salahshour teaches a method and an apparatus for graphical manipulation of an
`
`encryption process (Salahshour, Abstract).
`
`The Salahshour method provides
`
`an
`
`encryption work area window within a graphical user interface such that a user can
`
`encrypt an unencrypted object by dropping an icon associated with the unencrypted
`
`object on the encryption work area (Salahshour, Abstract).
`
`Salahshour's FIG. 2
`
`illustrates a desktop of the graphical user interface used for graphical manipulation of
`
`encryption, which includes two encryption work stations 202 and 204. Each of the
`
`encryption work areas can include a unique encryption key (Salahshour, column2, lines
`
`66-67). A user can drag a folder icon into the encryption work station in order to cause
`
`the object represented by the folder icon to be encrypted using the encryption key of the
`
`encryption workstation (Salahshour, column 3, lines 50-56). The encrypted folder icons
`
`are visually represented by an encryption key overlay appearing on each of the folder
`
`icons (Salahshour, column3, lines 23-28).
`
`Salahshour does not teach or suggest determining a security level of (each of) a
`
`secured item (secured items), as recited in independent claims1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57,
`
`using respective language.
`
`In the Salahshour method, an unsecured item is dragged to an
`
`encryption work area and is encrypted using the key of that work area. This is not the
`
`same as determining a security level of a secured item, as recited in independentclaims
`
`1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57, using respective language.
`
`Further, Salahshour discloses that encrypted folders (such as folders 212 and 214
`
`of FIG.2) are visually indicated as encrypted by the encryption key overlay appearing on
`
`their icons. Therefore, at most, Salahshour's method can only display that an item (a
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 25 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`folder) is secured (encrypted) or not. However, Salahshour's method does not teach or
`
`suggest generating a superimposed icon based, at least in part, on the determined
`
`security level as recited in claims 18 and 53, using respective language or superimpose a
`
`security icon correspondingto the security level, as recited in claims 1, 22, 36, and 57,
`
`using respective language.
`
`In fact,
`
`since Salahshour's method does not disclose or
`
`suggest determining the security level of the secured items,
`
`the claimed features of
`
`generating a superimposedicon based,at least in part, on the determined security level or
`
`superimposing a security icon corresponding to the security level is simply irrelevant
`
`within Salahshour, and therefore, not disclosed or inherent.
`
`Therefore, Salahshour does not anticipate the claims.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57, and find these claims
`
`allowable over
`
`the applied reference.
`
`Also, at
`
`least based on their
`
`respective
`
`dependencies to claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57, claims 8, 19, 26, 43, 54, and 61 should
`
`be found allowable over
`
`the applied reference, as well
`
`as
`
`for
`
`their additional
`
`distinguishing features.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 2-7, 14, 15, 23-25, 32, 33, 37-42, 58-60, 67, and 68
`
`Claims 2-7, 14, 15, 23-25, 32, 33, 37-42, 58-60, 67, and 68 were rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Salahshour in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,035,330 to Astiz et al. ("Astiz"). Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 26 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Claims 2-7, 23-25, 37-42, and 58-60
`
`Dependent claims 2-7, 23-25, 37-42, and 58-60 include all of the features of
`
`independent claims 1, 22, 36, and 57. As disclosed above, Salahshour fails to disclose
`
`all of the features of claims 1, 22, 36, and 57.
`
`Further, on pages 7-9 of the Office Action the Examiner states that Astiz
`
`allegedly teaches, which Applicant does not acquiesce to, "intercepting a transmission of
`
`a file from, for example, a server for display"; "contents are intercepted on the way to the
`
`browserfor display in a display/browser window"; "utility tool for users to view contents
`
`such as Netscape"; "password protected icon is generated and displayed next
`
`to
`
`document icon"; and "secured versus non-secured". However, Astiz is not used to teach
`
`or suggest, nor does Astiz teach or suggest, at
`
`least the above-noted distinguishing
`
`features of claims 1, 22, 36, and 57.
`
`Morespecifically, Astiz is directed to an Internet World Wide Web navigational
`
`mapping system (Astiz, column 7,
`
`lines 10-11 and column 9,
`
`lines 45-47).
`
`The
`
`navigational map,as illustrated in FIG. 6 of Astiz, is structured as a table of contents or
`
`an outline "tree" with a top level named as "The Unfinished Book” that includes three
`
`main branches "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", and "References" (Astiz, FIG. 6, column 9,
`
`lines 47-54). Each main branch has two or more sub-branches and each entry in the
`
`hierarchy includes a descriptive text and/or an icon to the user understand the content of
`
`that entry in the map (Astiz, FIG. 6, column 9, lines 54-57). Further, Astiz discloses that
`
`a security key icon is provided next to an entry that is password protected to indicate that
`
`a correct password is required to access that entry (Astiz, FIG. 6, column 10, lines 22-
`
`26). Therefore, Astiz, at most, displays that an entry in a map is password protected by
`
`using a security key icon next to that entry. There is no teaching or suggestion in Astiz
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-27-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`regarding determining a security level of (each of) a secured item (secured items), as
`
`recited in independentclaims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57, using respective language.
`
`Also, since Astiz's method does not disclose or suggest determining the security
`
`level of the secured items, the claimed features of generating a superimposed icon based,
`
`at
`
`least
`
`in part, on the determined security level or superimposing a security icon
`
`corresponding to the security level is simply irrelevant within Astiz, and therefore, not
`
`disclosed or inherent. As discussed above, Astiz merely displays a password protected
`
`entry by a security icon next to it. However, Astiz's method does not teach or suggest
`
`generating a superimposed iconbased,at least in part, on the determinedsecurity level
`
`as recited in claims 18 and 53, using respective language or superimpose a security icon
`
`corresponding to the security level, as recited in claims 1, 22, 36, and 57, using
`
`respective language.
`
`Thus Astiz fails to cure the deficiencies of Salahshour as noted above. Therefore,
`
`claims 2-7, 23-25, 37-42, and 58-60 are patentable over Salahshour and Astiz taken
`
`alone or in combination forat least the reasons provided above.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 2-7, 23-25, 37-42, and 58-60, and find the claims
`
`allowable over the applied references
`
`Claims 14, 15, 32, 33, 49, 50, 67, and 68°
`
`Independent claims 14, 32, 49, and 67 recite features that distinguish over the
`
`applied references. For example, claim 14 recites, inter alia:
`
`
`
`2 The statement of the rejection, on page 6 of the Office Action, does not include claims 49 and 50.
`However, detailed content ofthe rejection, on page 10 of the Office Action, includes claims 49 and 50.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REI0
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 28 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`in response to a determination that at least one of the items
`is secured, determining a security level of the least one secured
`item; and
`generating a superimposed icon based, at least in part, on
`the determined security level for graphically displaying the at least
`one secured item.
`
`For example, claim 32 recites, inter alia:
`
`in response to a determination that at least one of the items
`is secured, instructions to determine a security level of the at least
`one secured item; and
`instructions to generate a superimposed icon based,at least
`in part, on the determinedsecurity level for graphically displaying
`the at least one secured item.
`
`For example, claim 49 recites, inter alia:
`
`in response to a determination that the item is secured,
`determining a security level ofthe secured item; and
`generating a superimposed icon based, at least in part, on
`the determined security level for graphically displaying the secured
`item.
`
`For example, claim 67 recites, inter alia:
`
`in response to a determination that the item is secured,
`instructions to determine a security level ofthe secured item; and
`instructions to generate a superimposed icon based, at
`in part, on the determined security level for graphically
`least
`displaying the secured item.
`
`As disclosed above, with respect to independent claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57,
`
`Salahshourfails to disclose all of the features of claims 14, 32, 49, and 67.
`
`Further, on page 9 of the Office Action the Examinerrelies on alleged rejection
`
`of claim 3 that states that Astiz allegedly teaches, which Applicant does not acquiesceto,
`
`"intercepting a transmission of a file from, for example, a server for display" and
`
`"contents are intercepted on the way to the browser for display in a display/browser
`
`window". However, Astiz is not used to teach or suggest, nor does Astiz teach or
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 29 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`suggest, at least the above-noted distinguishing features of claims 14, 32, 49, and 67.
`
`Thus Astiz fails to cure the deficiencies of Salahshour as noted above. Therefore, claims
`
`14, 32, 49, and 67 are patentable over Salahshour and Astiz taken alone or
`
`in
`
`combination for at least the reasons provided above.
`
`Further, on page 9 of the Office Action the Examinerstates:
`
`Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore
`rejected under similar rationale except for utilizing meta-
`data; however information about content is meta-data and
`use of meta-data to describe content is a commonpractice.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`It appears that the Examiner used Official
`
`Notice in alleged rejection of claim 14. Applicant respectfully points out that pursuantto
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143.01(A), the Examiner cannot remedy the deficiency as noted above in
`
`the teaching of the Salahshour and/or Astiz references merely by asserting what
`
`is
`
`"common" in the art; rather, the Patent Office must demonstrate all claim limitations
`
`based on substantial evidentiary support. See Jn re Zurko, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1693, 1697
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, this section of the M.P.E.P. states (emphasis added):
`
`[T]he facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common
`knowledge
`in the
`art are capable of
`instant_and
`unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As
`noted by the court in Jn re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165
`USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970), the notice of facts beyond
`the record which may be taken by the examiner must be
`"capable
`of
`such
`instant
`_and
`unquestionable
`demonstration as to defy dispute" (citing /n re Knapp
`Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961)).
`
`Applicant submits that this proof is not found in the conclusory rejection made by
`
`the Examiner, and thus the Examiner's use of Official Notice is improper. Applicant
`
`reminds
`
`the Examiner
`
`that
`
`the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`requires
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Examiner’s rejections employ "reasoned decision making" based on evidence from a
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 30 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`fully developed administrative record. See In re Lee, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Patentability determinations which are based on what the Examinerbelieves
`
`is "basic knowledge” and "common", and that otherwise lack substantial evidentiary
`
`support, are impermissible. See Jn re Zurko, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 14, 32, 49, and 67, andfind the claims allowable over
`
`the applied references. Also, at least based on their respective dependenciesto claims
`
`14, 32, 49, and 67, claims 15, 33, 50, and 68 should be found allowable over the applied
`
`references, as well as for their additional distinguishing features.
`
`Claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56, and_62-65
`
`Claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56, and 62-65 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Salahshourin view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,638,501 to Gough et al. ("Gough"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Dependent claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56, and 62-65 includeall of the
`
`features of independentclaims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57. As disclosed above, Salahshour
`
`fails to discloseall of the features of claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57.
`
`Further, on pages 10-13 of the Office Action the Examiner states that Gough
`
`allegedly teaches, which Applicant does not acquiesce to, "an icon that includes a visual
`
`object and a clear/transparent background". However, Gough is not used to teach or
`
`suggest, nor does Gough teach or suggest, at
`
`least
`
`the above-noted distinguishing
`
`features of claims 1, 18, 22, 36, 53, and 57. Thus Gough fails to cure the deficiencies of
`
`Salahshour as noted above. Therefore, claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56, and 62-
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222.540REI0
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-31-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`65 are patentable over Salahshour and Gough taken alone or in combination forat least
`
`the reasons provided above.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 9-12, 20, 21, 27-30, 44-47, 55, 56, and 62-65, and find
`
`the claims allowable over the applied references.
`
`Claims 16, 17, 34, 35,51, 52, 69, and 70
`
`Claims 16, 17, 34, 35, 51, 52, 69, and 70 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as allegedly being unpatentable over Salahshour in view of Astiz and further in view of
`
`Gough. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Dependent claims 16, 17, 34, 35, 51, 52, 69, and 70 includeall of the features of
`
`independent claims 14, 32, 49, and 67. As disclosed above,
`
`the combination of
`
`Salahshour and Astiz fails to disclose all of the features of claims 14, 32, 49, and 67.
`
`Further, on pages 13-15 of the Office Action the Examiner states that Gough
`
`allegedly teaches, which Applicant does not acquiesceto, "an icon that includes a visual
`
`object and a clear/transparent background". However, Gough is not used to teach or
`
`suggest, nor does Gough teach or suggest, at
`
`least
`
`the above-noted distinguishing
`
`features of claims 14, 32, 49, and 67. Thus Gough fails to cure the deficiencies of the
`
`combination of Salahshour and Astiz as noted above. Therefore, claims 16, 17, 34, 35,
`
`51, 52, 69, and 70 are patentable over Salahshour, Astiz, and Gough taken alone or in
`
`combination for at least the reasons provided above.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 16, 17, 34, 35, 51, 52, 69, and 70, and find the claims
`
`allowable over the applied references.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`~ 32 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant
`
`therefore respectfully requests that the
`
`Examiner reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be
`
`withdrawn. Applicant believes that a fidl and cempicte reply bas been made to the
`
`outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for
`
`allowance,
`
`if the Examiner believes, for any reason, that personal commianication will
`
`expedite prosecution of this application,
`
`the Examiner is invited to telephone the
`
`undersigned at the numberprovided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendmentand Replyis respectfully
`
`requested,
`
`Respectfally submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN &FOX P.L.L.C,
`syvy3
`
`ie aang3
`
`:
`Glenn Perry
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 28,458
`
`Date: August 31, 2010
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005-3936
`(202) 371-2600
`
`11242301. D0C
`
`Atty. Dkr. No. 2222. S40RE10
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 33 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`CLAIM APPENDIX
`
`This is an informal appendix to show what changes were madeto the new claims,
`
`the formatting of the amendments are not pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.173. All actually
`
`amendments madeto the claims above are made pursuantto this rule.
`
`36. A method [[for graphically indicating a secured item in a program for
`
`displaying contentin a selected place, the method]] comprising:
`
`determining a security level of [[the]] a secured item [[, wherein the
`secured item has a default icon associated with it if the secured item is otherwise not
`
`secured]]; and
`
`for graphically displaying the
`secured item,
`superimposing [fan
`appropriate]] a security icon correspondingto the security level of the secured item over
`[[the]] a default icon [[without losing an original indication of the default icon]] wherein
`the default icon represents a non-secured item from which the secured item was derived.
`
`37. The method as recited in claim [[1]] 36, further comprising:
`
`intercepting [[a file from the selected place whenthefile is selected by the
`program for displaying the content in the selected place]] an item when the item is
`retrieved from a storage device; and
`
`[[checking if the secured]] determining whether the intercepted item is
`
`[[included in the file]] secured.
`
`38. The methodasrecited in claim 37, wherein said determining a security level
`
`[fof the secured item]] comprises activating a client module [[when said checking
`indicates]] in response to_a determination that the [[secured]] item is [[included in the
`
`file]] secured.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REI0
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`-34-
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`39. The method as recited in claim 38, wherein the client module [[operates]] is
`
`configured to operate in [[a]] an operating system supporting [[the]] a program.
`
`40. The method as recited in claim 39, wherein [[the selected place is a folder
`
`and]] the operating system [[is]] comprises a graphic windowsoperating system and the
`program [[is]] comprises a utility [[for a user]] configured to display [[the]] content[[in]]
`
`of the [[folder]] storage device.
`
`41, The method asrecited in claim 38, further comprising:
`
`[[wherein the client module is configured to look into]] determining security
`information associated with the secured item, [[and]] wherein the security information
`
`includes information regarding the security level of the secured item.
`
`42. The methodas recited in claim 41, wherein the security level includes at least
`
`one level of security [[to indicate that the secured item is secured, differentiating from
`
`any unsecuredfile]].
`
`43. The methodas recited in claim 36, wherein the default icon is associated with
`
`an executable program [[, and when the secured item or the default icon thereof is
`clicked, the executable program will be activated] ].
`
`44, The method asrecited in claim 36, wherein the [[appropriate]] security icon
`
`includes a visual object and a transparent background.
`
`45, The method as
`recited in claim 44, wherein said superimposing [[an
`appropriate icon corresponding to the security level over the default icon]] comprises
`overlaying the visual object onto the default icon such that [[without obscuring the rest
`of]] the default iconis at least partially visible.
`
`46. The method as recited in claim 44, wherein said superimposing [[an
`appropriate icon corresponding to the security level over the default icon]] comprises
`generating a superimposed icon including the default
`icon with the visual object
`superimposed thereon such that [[without obscuring the rest of]] the default icon is_at
`
`least partially visible.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2222. 540REIO
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of June 4, 2010
`
`- 35 -
`
`Nalini J. PRAKASH
`Appl. No. 11/889,685
`
`47. The method as recited in claim 45, wherein the default icon is associated with
`
`an executable program [[, and when the secured item or the superimposed icon thereofis
`
`clicked, the executable program will be acti