`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`12/720, 147
`
`03/09/2010
`
`Allen F. Rozman
`
`ARC-O1RE1
`
`8473
`
`25962
`
`7590
`
`08/26/2011
`
`SLATER & MATSIL, LLP.
`17950 PRESTON RD, SUITE 1000
`DALLAS, TX 75252-5793
`
`LAFORGIA, CHRISTIAN A
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2439
`
`
`
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/26/2011
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`docketing @slater-matsil.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`
`
`
` . we . 12/720,147 ROZMAN ET AL.
`
`Applicant-initiated Interview Summary
`_
`_
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`
`
`Christian LaForgia 2439
`
`
`
`
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) Christian LaForgia.
`
`(2) Glenn Boisbrun.
`
`Date of Interview: 22 August 2011.
`
`(3)Allen F. Rozman.
`
`(4)
`
`.
`
`Type:
`
`[] Video Conference
`[X] Telephonic
`[-] Personal [copy given to: [J applicant
`
`(J applicant’s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[] Yes
`
`[IX] No.
`
`[J101 [1112 Kl102 [103 (XoOthers
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 7 and 21.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: US 2002/0002673 (NARIN).
`
`Substanceof Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied referencesetc...)
`
`See Continuation Sheet.
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already beenfiled, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examinerrecordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcomeofthe interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached onthe issuesraised.
`
`X] Attachment
`
`/Christian LaForgia/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20110822
`
`

`

`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substanceof Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be madeof record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached atthe interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must befiled by the applicant. An interview does not removethe necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Businessto be transactedin writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendanceof applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substanceof interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substanceof an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so.
`It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes andfilling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion ofthe file, and listed on the
`“Contents” section ofthe file wrapper.
`In a personalinterview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview.
`In the case of a telephone or video-conferenceinterview, the copy is mailed to the applicant’s correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondencefrom the examineris not likely before an allowanceorif other
`circumstancesdictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`— Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`—
`Nameof applicant
`— Name of examiner
`— Date of interview
`— Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`—
`Nameof participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`—_
`Anindication whetheror not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`— Anidentification of the specific prior art discussed
`— An indication whether an agreement was reachedandif so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachmentof a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreementasto allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`— The signature of the examiner who conductedthe interview (if Form is not an attachmentto a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examinerorally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substanceofthe interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unlessit includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examinerto include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substanceofthe interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`8) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendmentsof a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the argumentsis not
`required. The identification of the argumentsis sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments madeto the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which heor she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcomeofthe interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant’s record of the substance of an interview.
`accurate, the examinerwill give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`If the record is not complete and
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner’s version of the
`statementattributed to him or her.
`If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should placethe indication, “Interview Record OK” on the
`paper recording the substanceof the interview along with the date and the examiner'sinitials.
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-413)
`
`Application No. 12/720,147
`
`Continuation of Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreedtoif an
`agreement was reached, or any other comments: The Applicant discussed differences between the cited prior art and
`the claimed invention. First the Applicant pointed out that prior art does not discloseafirst logical process executing on
`a first processor and a second logical process executing on a second process. The Examiner pointed out that the prior
`art discloses that the invention may be implemented on a multi-processor system (paragraph 0019) and that the prior
`art reasonably suggests that the processes operated on separate processors. The Applicant pointed out that the prior
`art was not specific enough in its disclosure.
`The Applicant also argued that the prior art did not teach a first and second browser process(with respectto claim 21).
`The Applicant pointed out several locations in the prior art where the alleged first process (the secure rendering
`application) did not actually perform any browser functions and instead invoked a second process(the hosting
`application) to perform web browsing functions. The Examiner noted that the prior art reference did not define secure
`rendering application. Furthermore, the prior art's disclosure of secure rendering application is unclear; the prior art
`states at paragraph 0036that the "[secure rendering] application 312 may provide some type of web browsing
`capability to its user, but, rather than performing the actual web browsing itself, application 312 may call upon a
`general-purpose web browsing program to perform the web-browsing." Based on this disclosure it appears that the
`secure rendering application may have some browser functionality, since the prior art states that the application may
`provide some type of web browsing capability and may invoke a general-purpose web browser. There is enough to
`suggestto one of ordinary skill in the art that the application may provide web browsing capabilities, instead of
`optionally invoking one. The Applicant kept pointing to locations where the secure rendering application invoked a
`general-purpose browser. The Examiner and Applicant did not reach an agreementwith respectto this limitation.
`The Examiner will take further action upon receiving a formal response.
`
`