US 10574721

Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,574,721

Washington, D.C. - An analysis of United States Patent 10,574,721, titled "Systems and methods for an automatic fresh browser instance for accessing internet content," reveals a system designed to enhance web browsing security by isolating sensitive online activities.

The patent, issued on February 25, 2020, was filed on December 8, 2014. It lists Rida A. Bazzi and Mohsen Zohrevandi as inventors. The current assignee is Skysong Innovations LLC, following an assignment from the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University.

The core of the invention, as detailed in the abstract, is a system that automatically creates a "Fresh Browser Instance" (FBI) for accessing sensitive content. This prevents potentially malicious web content from interacting with sensitive sessions, such as online banking. The system can be pre-configured for novice users with a list of sensitive sites or customized by experienced users who can define their own "conflict of interest" (COI) classes, allowing certain websites to share a browser instance while being isolated from others.

Independent Claims Overview

The patent asserts three independent claims, which define the core scope of the invention in different categories: a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium.

Claim 1 describes a system comprising a processor configured to manage web browsing sessions based on content classes. The system receives data defining at least two classes of web content, with one class designated for sensitive information. When a user in a browser instance associated with a non-sensitive class attempts to access a URL from the sensitive class, the system intercepts the request. A key component is a "daemon," a program running outside the browser, that tracks all active browser instances. This daemon, in conjunction with a browser extension and a native application, confirms that the requested sensitive content is not already open in an appropriate, separate browser instance. If it is not, the system launches a new, separate browser to handle the request, thereby isolating the sensitive session.

Claim 7 outlines a method for achieving this secure browsing. It involves a processor executing instructions from a non-transitory storage medium. The method includes:

• Accessing predefined rules that delegate web access for different content classes to different browser types.
• Identifying a request from a first browser instance to access an IP address.
• Determining that the IP address belongs to a different, sensitive content class.
• Utilizing a daemon, which communicates with a browser extension via domain sockets, to confirm that no other appropriate browser instance is already running for that sensitive class.
• Generating a second, separate browser instance of the appropriate type to access the requested IP address.

Claim 12 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium (such as a hard drive or flash memory) encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform the security functions. The instructions cause the processor to:

• Access data that associates different web content classes with different browser types.
• Receive a request to access web content from a first browser instance.
• Compare the requested content's class with the classes accessible by the first instance.
• This comparison and management process is handled by a daemon operating outside the browser, which communicates with a browser extension to track active instances and launch new ones as needed according to the defined rules.

Litigation Status

According to the information available from the patent source, this patent is subject to litigation. A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2025-01400, was filed but was not instituted for procedural reasons. Additionally, a lawsuit has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (Case 2:25-cv-00098). No further updates on these proceedings for 2026 are available in the provided documentation. A more comprehensive search of court dockets would be required to determine the current status of these legal actions.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["US patent 10574721 litigation", "IPR2025-01400 status", "Texas Eastern District Court 2:25-cv-00098 status", "US10574721 PTAB IPR2025-01400", "Unified Patents 10574721 litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for known litigation involving US patent 10574721. I need to search for this patent number on litigation tracking sites.

Based on the previously generated section, I already know about two specific cases:

1. PTAB case IPR2025-01400
2. US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court, 2:25-cv-00098

I need to find more details about these cases, specifically:

• Plaintiff(s)
• Defendant(s)
• Jurisdiction (already known for these two)
• Case number (already known for these two)
• Filing date
• Outcome or current status

I will use the provided search results to gather this information. The current date is April 26, 2026, so I need to look for the most up-to-date status.

From the provided context:

• "PTAB case IPR2025-01400 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural)"
• "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00098"

The Unified Patents links seem to be a good starting point for more details.

Let's execute the search queries.### Known Litigation Involving US Patent 10,574,721

As of April 26, 2026, United States Patent 10,574,721 is involved in at least two known litigation proceedings: one before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and one in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Here are the details for each known case:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

   • Case Number: IPR2025-01400
   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided patent document, typically the Petitioner challenging the patent. The provided text indicates "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data' by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."
   • Defendant(s): The patent owner, Skysong Innovations LLC (current assignee).
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: The case was filed, but a specific filing date within 2025 is not provided in the readily available patent information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural". This means the PTAB decided not to proceed with a full review of the patent's claims based on a procedural issue.

2. U.S. District Court Litigation

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00098
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent document, but usually the patent owner (Skysong Innovations LLC) is the plaintiff in district court infringement cases.
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent document.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court.
   • Filing Date: The case was filed in 2025, but a specific filing date is not provided in the readily available patent information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: The status is listed as "litigation". No further outcome or current status for 2026 is available in the provided documentation, and a comprehensive search of court dockets (e.g., PACER) would be required for an update.

Proceedings overview

There is one PTAB proceeding on file for US Patent 10,574,721, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent's claims remain untested and unhardened by PTAB review.

IPR2025-01400 — CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-12
• Status: Discretionary Denial - The PTAB declined to institute the IPR on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Denied - 2026-02-19. The petition was denied institution for procedural reasons.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as no claims were challenged on the merits or invalidated. The patent claims remain as originally issued.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10574721 remain UNTESTED by PTAB review, as the sole IPR filed (IPR2025-01400) was denied institution on procedural grounds. This means there is no narrowing of the patent's scope through PTAB proceedings, and all claims are still available for assertion.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01400 was denied institution, the petitioner (CrowdStrike, Inc. et al.) is not subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel for any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in that petition. Therefore, any prior-art grounds are still available for potential future challenges by other parties.

There are some pattern signals to note: Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in the general litigation information, which indicates a defensive aggregator's involvement. The IPR itself lists "CrowdStrike, Inc. et al." as petitioners, which may suggest a joint effort or multiple parties interested in challenging the patent.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01400 was denied institution and no claims were invalidated, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim cancellation. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the claims remain valid as issued.

There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending that have reached the trial stage. However, the presence of an IPR filing, even one denied institution, indicates that parties perceive potential vulnerabilities in the patent. It would be advisable to monitor any future filings or challenges.## Proceedings overview

There is one PTAB proceeding on file for US Patent 10,574,721, IPR2025-01400, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent's claims remain untested by PTAB review, and the patent is not hardened or weakened by this particular proceeding.

IPR2025-01400 — CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-12
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR for procedural reasons, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information. (While some PTAB judge panels are publicly listed, the specific panel for IPR2025-01400 is not immediately discernible from the provided data).
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided information. (The specific claims challenged and prior art asserted were not included in the provided snippets).
• Institution decision: Denied - 2026-02-19. The petition was denied institution for procedural reasons. PTAB discretionary denials can occur for various reasons, including the status of parallel litigation or other policy considerations.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal as institution was denied. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), institution decisions are generally not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as no claims were challenged on the merits or invalidated. The patent claims remain as originally issued, meaning an IPR-based defense would need to start anew with a new petition.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US105747721 remain UNTESTED by PTAB review, as the sole IPR filed (IPR2025-01400) was denied institution on procedural grounds. This means there is no narrowing of the patent's scope through PTAB proceedings, and all claims are still available for assertion.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01400 was denied institution, the petitioner (CrowdStrike, Inc. et al.) is not subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel for any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in that petition. Therefore, any prior-art grounds are still available for potential future challenges by other parties.

There are some pattern signals to note: Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in the general litigation information, which indicates a defensive aggregator's involvement. The IPR itself lists "CrowdStrike, Inc. et al." as petitioners, which may suggest a joint effort or multiple parties interested in challenging the patent. The denial of institution for procedural reasons, rather than on the merits, suggests the PTAB's decision was likely based on internal policy or factors such as parallel district court litigation, which are often considered in discretionary denials.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01400 was denied institution and no claims were invalidated, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim cancellation. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the claims remain valid as issued.

No active PTAB proceedings are currently pending for US10574721. The absence of an instituted IPR or a final written decision means that the patent has not been subjected to the full scrutiny of an AIA trial. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs, and the fact that an IPR was filed, even if denied institution, suggests that potential prior art against this patent may exist.

Inventors

• Rida A. Bazzi (Arizona State University)
• Mohsen Zohrevandi (Arizona State University)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix campus, is part of Arizona State University, a public research university system. Their primary line of business is education and research. Arizona State University operates various campuses, including the Downtown Phoenix campus which focuses on programs in healthcare, nursing, law, public service, arts, sciences, journalism, and global management. They do not ship products embodying the claims in a commercial sense, but rather conduct research and develop innovations, often leading to licensing opportunities or spin-off companies through entities like Skysong Innovations. The Arizona Board of Regents is the governing body for Arizona's public university system, including Arizona State University. The Arizona Board of Regents is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-03-24 (executed) / recorded 2015-04-27 — Reel 035506/0049

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: BAZZI, RIDA A.; ZOHREVANDI, MOHSEN
  • Assignee: ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
  • Correspondent: MCDONALD, WILLIAM K., MCDONALD PATENT LAW, 15302 N. 78TH STREET, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85260
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventors to the university system's governing body.

• 2016-07-22 (executed) / recorded 2016-07-28 — Reel 039496/0029

  • Conveyance: CONFIRMATORY LICENSE
  • Assignor: ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE
  • Assignee: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
  • Correspondent: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 4201 WILSON BLVD., ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230
  • Context: Confirmatory license granted to a government funding agency that supported the invention.

• 2025-02-20 (executed) / recorded 2025-02-21 — Reel 070292/0315

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
  • Assignee: SKYSONG INNOVATIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: O'BANNON, GREGORY E., HAYES AND SIMPSON, LLP, 17220 N. REEDSDALE WAY, SURPRISE, AZ 85374
  • Context: Transfer of interest from the university's governing body to its technology transfer arm.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10574721
    2014 : Filed by Arizona State University
    2015 : Assigned to AZ Board of Regents
    2016 : Licensed to National Science Foundation
    2020 : Issued
    2025 : Assigned to Skysong Innovations LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While Skysong Innovations, LLC is described as a "separate and independent private nonprofit" focused on "rapid and wide dissemination of ASU discoveries and inventions into the marketplace" and supporting startups, it does not fit the typical profile of a pure licensing-only shell entity that does not engage in product development or commercialization activities through its ecosystem of companies. Skysong Innovations works to license technologies and launch companies that do develop products.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Arizona Board of Regents, National Science Foundation, Skysong Innovations LLC) are listed on common public NPE lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents are listed for each assignment record: MCDONALD, WILLIAM K. for the 2015 assignment, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL for the 2016 license, and O'BANNON, GREGORY E. for the 2025 assignment.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are three assignments recorded over a period of about 10 years (from filing to the latest assignment), which does not indicate rapid, consecutive transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was assigned to Skysong Innovations, LLC on February 20, 2025. Litigation was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (Case 2:25-cv-00098) in 2025. Without a more precise filing date for the lawsuit, it's unclear if this assignment falls within 6 months prior to the first infringement suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the provided information that the original assignee or any subsequent assignee has filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While Skysong Innovations facilitates the commercialization of ASU inventions, it is primarily engaged in technology transfer and startup creation. There is no explicit evidence of them acting on behalf of a specific operating company to assert against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment)
The current assignee, Skysong Innovations, LLC, is a technology transfer arm of Arizona State University, focused on commercializing university inventions and launching startups, rather than solely asserting patents. While litigation exists (Texas Eastern District Court Case 2:25-cv-00098), there isn't enough information to definitively classify Skysong Innovations as an NPE, particularly without details on their assertion patterns or the specific nature of the lawsuit. The pre-litigation transfer signal is also unclear without a precise lawsuit filing date. (USPTO Assignment Center search for US10574721).

The USPTO database shows the following patent citations as prior art for US Patent 10,574,721:

1. US5974549A

   • Full Citation: US5974549A, "Security monitor," Soliton Ltd. (1999-10-26)
   • Publication Date: October 26, 1999
   • Filing Date: March 27, 1997
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a security monitor that restricts access to resources based on security policies. It can intercept requests for resources and determine if the request is permitted, potentially using user identification and security level.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent potentially anticipates aspects of claims 1, 7, and 12, particularly regarding the concept of intercepting requests and enforcing access policies to resources. The "enforcer" component in US10574721, which intercepts system calls to restrict connections, aligns with the general concept of a security monitor.

2. US9055048B2

   • Full Citation: US9055048B2, "Secure browser," Questionmark Computing Limited (2015-06-09)
   • Publication Date: June 9, 2015
   • Filing Date: May 16, 2003
   • Brief Description: This patent details a secure browser designed to prevent unauthorized access to computer resources and to control the environment in which web content is displayed. It often focuses on maintaining the integrity of an examination environment.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference could potentially anticipate elements of claims 1, 7, and 12 that relate to providing secure access to content and controlling the browser environment, especially concerning the isolation of content to prevent security risks.

3. US8095967B2

   • Full Citation: US8095967B2, "Secure web site authentication using web site characteristics, secure user credentials and private browser," White Sky, Inc. (2012-01-10)
   • Publication Date: January 10, 2012
   • Filing Date: July 27, 2006
   • Brief Description: This patent describes methods for secure website authentication, including the use of a "private browser" or secure browsing mode. It focuses on authenticating users and protecting credentials.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent may anticipate the general concept of a "fresh browser instance" for sensitive content as described in claims 1, 7, and 12, particularly the isolation aspect for security reasons related to user credentials and sensitive information. The idea of a "private browser" aligns with the objective of compartmentalization.

4. US20080250159A1

   • Full Citation: US20080250159A1, "Cybersquatter Patrol," Microsoft Corporation (2008-10-09)
   • Publication Date: October 9, 2008
   • Filing Date: April 4, 2007
   • Brief Description: This publication relates to systems and methods for identifying and responding to cybersquatting, which involves malicious domain registrations. While not directly about browser isolation, it deals with identifying and managing potentially malicious web domains.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: While less directly related to the core browser instance isolation, this patent could be seen to anticipate, in a very broad sense, the identification of "sensitive" or "risky" URLs, as part of the data defining web content classes in claims 1, 7, and 12.

5. US8359402B2

   • Full Citation: US8359402B2, "Intercept device for providing content," Seachange International, Inc. (2013-01-22)
   • Publication Date: January 22, 2013
   • Filing Date: November 19, 2008
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an intercept device that can intervene in communication streams to provide or modify content. This could be relevant in controlling what a browser receives.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent could be considered prior art for the "enforcer" component described in claims 1, 7, and 12, specifically its ability to "intercept a request" or "intercept a system call" and potentially modify DNS responses or redirect traffic, as described in the detailed description of US10574721.

6. US20110167492A1

   • Full Citation: US20110167492A1, "Virtual Browsing Environment," Ghosh Anup K (2011-07-07)
   • Publication Date: July 7, 2011
   • Filing Date: June 30, 2009
   • Brief Description: This publication discloses a system for providing a virtual browsing environment, which offers isolation from the host operating system, often for security purposes.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it describes a "virtual browsing environment," which directly relates to the concept of isolating browsing sessions. It potentially anticipates the core idea of launching separate, isolated browser instances for different types of content, as detailed in claims 1, 7, and 12, particularly the aspect of preventing information leakage and active attacks through compartmentalization.

7. US20130239231A1

   • Full Citation: US20130239231A1, "Communication Between Web Applications," Jacek Korycki (2013-09-12)
   • Publication Date: September 12, 2013
   • Filing Date: March 7, 2012
   • Brief Description: This publication focuses on methods for secure communication between different web applications, which can involve isolating their contexts.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This could be considered prior art for aspects of claims 1, 7, and 12 that involve communication between browser components (e.g., browser extension and daemon) for managing web access and content classification, albeit from the perspective of inter-application communication rather than full browser instance isolation.

8. US9418243B2

   • Full Citation: US9418243B2, "Invoking a private browsing mode by selection of a visual control element within a browser tab," Google Inc. (2016-08-16)
   • Publication Date: August 16, 2016
   • Filing Date: June 25, 2012
   • Brief Description: This patent describes how to initiate a private browsing mode (like "Incognito" mode) within a browser through user interface elements. Private browsing modes typically offer a degree of session isolation by not saving browsing history, cookies, etc.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent is relevant to claims 1, 7, and 12, particularly the concept of a "fresh browser instance" or isolated browsing session. While standard private browsing might not achieve the same level of system-call interception and content class enforcement as US10574721, it establishes the concept of user-initiated, isolated browsing contexts to prevent information leakage.

9. US20150278311A1

   • Full Citation: US20150278311A1, "Content class for object storage indexing system," Hitachi Data Systems Corporation (2015-10-01)
   • Publication Date: October 1, 2015
   • Filing Date: February 27, 2013
   • Brief Description: This publication discusses defining and managing "content classes" within an object storage indexing system, used for categorizing and organizing data.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This prior art may anticipate the concept of defining "web content classes" as described in claims 1, 7, and 12, particularly the idea of categorizing content based on certain rules or attributes. While the application is different (object storage vs. web browsing), the underlying principle of content classification for management purposes is similar.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,574,721 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of U.S. Patent 10,574,721, "Systems and methods for an automatic fresh browser instance for accessing internet content," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, by identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The independent claims 1, 7, and 12 define the core scope of the invention.

The central inventive concept of US10574721 is the automatic launching of a fresh, isolated browser instance for accessing sensitive content, managed by an external daemon that communicates with browser extensions and intercepts system calls.

Key Prior Art References

The patent's citation list includes highly relevant prior art, particularly a non-patent literature (NPL) reference by the same inventors:

1. Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013): "Auto-FBI: A User-friendly Approach for Secure Access to Sensitive Content on the Web." This NPL is exceptionally relevant as it shares inventors with US10574721 and describes the "Auto-FBI" system, which forms the conceptual basis of the patent.
2. US5974549A (Soliton Ltd.): "Security monitor." This patent discloses the concept of a security monitor that intercepts system calls and network connections to enforce security policies.
3. Jackson et al. (2009): "Protecting browsers from dns rebinding attacks." This NPL addresses methods for protecting browsers from DNS-based attacks, including manipulating DNS responses for security.
4. Garfinkel (2003): "Traps and pitfalls: Practical problems in system call interposition based security tools." This NPL discusses the practicalities and challenges of system call interposition for security.
5. Iverson (2012): "Two Web Browsers can be More Secure than One." This NPL explicitly suggests using multiple web browsers for enhanced security.

Obviousness Combinations and Rationale

Combination 1: Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) + General Knowledge in Browser Security and OS Process Control

The NPL "Auto-FBI: A User-friendly Approach for Secure Access to Sensitive Content on the Web" by Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) describes the fundamental system and method that the patent claims to embody. The patent's abstract states that its "aspects... involve an automatic fresh browser instance ("FBI") system ("FBI system") for implementing a process that automates compartmentalization practices for accessing different kinds of Internet content with different browser instances." This directly aligns with the title and content of the 2013 paper.

A PHOSITA, seeking to implement the "Auto-FBI" system as described in Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013), would find the core elements of independent claims 1, 7, and 12 to be obvious or directly taught:

• Content Classification and Separate Browser Instances: The paper inherently teaches categorizing content (e.g., "sensitive sites" vs. "every other type of site" for novice users, or "COI classes" for experienced users) and automatically creating "Fresh Browser Instances" for secure access.
• External Daemon for Management: The patent explicitly describes a "daemon outside the browser" that "keeps track of active instances and launches new instances as needed." This architectural choice for managing browser processes from an external, more privileged entity is a logical and often necessary design for system-level security solutions.
• Browser Extension and Native Application Communication: The patent details that "browser extensions" obtain URLs and "an intermediate process forwards messages between the browser extension and the daemon." This is a known method for a browser-side component to interact with an external, privileged process. The use of "Unix Domain Sockets" for this communication, as specified in claims 7 and 12, is a standard inter-process communication mechanism in Linux environments.
• Confirming No Existing Instance: The patent describes a feature for both novice and experienced users where, if an "existing active instance for the site" or "different browser instance, instance Y that is associated with the class of the URL" is already available, it is reused to process the request. This is a natural optimization for a system managing multiple instances, preventing redundant launches and improving user experience.
• Launching a New Browser: This is the foundational action of the "Auto-FBI" system.

Motivation: Given that Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) is a publication by the same inventors describing the "Auto-FBI" system, a PHOSITA would be directly motivated to implement the system as generally described in the paper. Any specific details in the claims not explicitly enumerated in the 2013 paper would likely be considered routine engineering choices for implementing such a system.

Combination 2: Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) in view of US5974549A, Jackson et al. (2009), and Garfinkel (2003)

While Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) likely covers the high-level design, specific technical enforcement mechanisms found in the patent's claims could be rendered obvious by combining it with other prior art:

• System Call Interception (Claim 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15): The patent details an "enforcer" component that intercepts system calls using the ptrace API in Linux. US5974549A teaches a "security monitor" that "intercepts system calls" to enforce security policies. Garfinkel (2003) provides a detailed discussion of system call interposition, confirming this was a known and studied technique.
• DNS Query Rewriting and IP Whitelisting (Claim 11): The patent describes the "tracer" component redirecting DNS queries by "changing the IP addresses in the DNS response to a predefined IP address" to block access, and maintaining an "IP white-list" for allowed connections. Jackson et al. (2009) discusses protecting browsers from DNS rebinding attacks, indicating that manipulating DNS responses for security was known in the art. Employing an IP whitelist is a standard security practice to control network access.

Motivation: A PHOSITA tasked with implementing the "Auto-FBI" system's enforcement mechanism (as outlined in Zohrevandi & Bazzi, 2013) would naturally look to well-known techniques for controlling program behavior and network access at the operating system level.

• The general concept of intercepting system calls for security (taught by US5974549A and Garfinkel (2003)) would provide a clear motivation for the "enforcer" component operating outside the browser.
• Using DNS query rewriting (as exemplified by Jackson et al. (2009) for DNS attack protection) to prevent connections to restricted websites and redirect them would be a logical application of existing knowledge to achieve the "Auto-FBI" system's goal of isolating sensitive content.
• The inclusion of an IP whitelist would be a standard and obvious security measure to ensure the enforcement mechanism cannot be circumvented by hard-coded or cached IP addresses.

Consideration of Different Browser Types (Claims 7 and 12)

The patent further specifies associating content classes with different "browser types" (e.g., Firefox for banking, Chrome for e-commerce), with rules for launching the same or a different type. The NPL by Iverson (2012), titled "Two Web Browsers can be More Secure than One," explicitly suggests the security benefits of using multiple browsers.

Motivation: Given the general concept of compartmentalization and using separate browser instances (from Zohrevandi & Bazzi, 2013), a PHOSITA would be motivated to extend this by utilizing different types of browsers for various sensitive categories to further enhance isolation, leverage specific browser features, or accommodate user preferences, as generally suggested by Iverson (2012). This would be a straightforward design choice given the daemon's role in launching new instances.

In conclusion, the independent claims of US10574721 would be rendered obvious by the combination of the Zohrevandi & Bazzi (2013) paper, which provides the overarching system and method of "Auto-FBI," with well-known techniques for system call interception, DNS manipulation for security, and general principles of secure browser management already present in the cited prior art.

To provide a comprehensive overview of US Patent 10,574,721, I need to access the official USPTO records for this specific patent. The provided search results offer general information on patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), and different types of continuing applications (continuation, divisional, continuation-in-part), but do not contain the specific details for patent 10,574,721.

The USPTO website's Patent Public Search tool or Patent Center would be the authoritative source for this information. I cannot directly access the live USPTO database or Patent Center through these tools. However, I can infer some information from the patent's metadata provided in the initial prompt and the general rules about patent terms.

Here's a breakdown of what can be determined or inferred, and what would require direct USPTO record access:

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA):

• What it is: PTA extends the term of a patent to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during the patent examination process. These delays can include the USPTO failing to: issue a first office action within 14 months, respond to an applicant's reply within 4 months, act on an application after a PTAB decision or court decision within 4 months, or issue a patent within 4 months of issue fee payment. Additionally, if the patent doesn't issue within three years of its actual filing date, PTA can be granted. Applicant delays can reduce any awarded PTA.
• For US10574721: The patent was filed on December 8, 2014, and issued on February 25, 2020. This indicates a prosecution period of over five years. It is highly probable that this patent received some PTA due to the length of prosecution exceeding the three-year target for issuance. The specific number of days would be stated on the face of the patent or in the Issue Notification Letter. Without direct access to the patent document or its file wrapper, the exact PTA cannot be determined.

Patent Term Extension (PTE):

• What it is: PTE is available under the Hatch-Waxman Act for patents claiming products (like human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food additives, color additives, and medical devices) that require regulatory approval from agencies such as the FDA prior to commercial marketing or use. PTE aims to restore a portion of the patent term lost during this regulatory review period and is capped at five years.
• For US10574721: The patent is titled "Systems and methods for an automatic fresh browser instance for accessing internet content." This technology does not appear to fall into the categories of products (drugs, medical devices, food additives, etc.) that typically qualify for PTE. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that US10574721 received any PTE.

Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members:

• What they are:
  • Continuation Application (CON): Shares the exact same disclosure as its parent but pursues different claims. No new subject matter can be added.
  • Divisional Application (DIV): Arises when the USPTO issues a restriction requirement, determining that a single application contains two or more independent and distinct inventions. A divisional application claims the benefit of the filing date of the original application.
  • Continuation-in-Part Application (CIP): Incorporates all or part of the parent disclosure and adds new subject matter. Claims supported by the original disclosure get the parent's priority date; claims covering new material get the CIP's filing date.
  • Related Family Members: Include all patent documents that cover the same invention and have at least one common inventor, potentially spanning multiple countries.
• For US10574721:
  • The patent claims benefit to U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 61/912,716, filed on December 6, 2013.
  • The filing date of US10574721 is December 8, 2014, and its application number is US14/563,712.
  • The provided "Other versions" and "Publications" sections on the Google Patents page for US10574721 indicate related publications: US20160164946A1 (published 2016-06-09) and US20170048298A9 (published 2017-02-16). These are likely earlier publications of the same application or continuations.
  • The "Priority Applications" list shows US14/563,712 with the priority date of 2013-12-06.
  • The "Applications Claiming Priority" list includes US201361912716P and US201361192716P (both 2013-12-06) and US14/563,712 (2013-12-06 priority, 2014-12-08 filing). The "P" suffix usually denotes a provisional application.
  • The information states: "Priority to US14/563,712". This patent (US10574721) itself is the granted version of application US14/563,712.
  • Based on the provided data, US10574721B2 is the granted patent from application US14/563,712. US20160164946A1 and US20170048298A9 appear to be pre-grant publications of this same application, possibly with different publication numbers due to reissue or amendment during prosecution. To confirm if there are any other continuation or divisional applications, a detailed search of the USPTO's Patent Center for "Child applications" or "Continuity data" for application US14/563,712 would be required.

Projected Expiration Date:

• General Rule: For utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application, subject to any PTA or PTE.
• For US10574721: The earliest priority date is December 6, 2013 (from provisional application Ser. No. 61/912,716). The filing date of the non-provisional application US14/563,712 is December 8, 2014. The 20-year term is typically calculated from the earliest non-provisional filing date, or the earliest priority date if it claims benefit from an earlier-filed non-provisional application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c). Since US10574721 is the granted patent from application US14/563,712, and this application claims priority to a provisional application, the 20-year term typically runs from the filing date of the non-provisional application, December 8, 2014.
  • Therefore, the base expiration date would be December 8, 2034.
  • The provided Google Patents summary lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2034-12-08. This aligns with the 20-year term from the filing date of the non-provisional application. Any PTA would extend this date further, but the Google Patents listing does not include a specific PTA amount in this field.

Summary of available information:

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): Likely awarded due to the prosecution period of over five years (from December 8, 2014, to February 25, 2020). The exact number of days for PTA is not available in the provided snippets and would require accessing the patent document or its file wrapper.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): Not applicable, as the patent does not cover products subject to regulatory review (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices).
• Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members:
  • The patent claims priority to U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 61/912,716, filed on December 6, 2013.
  • US10574721 is the granted patent from application US14/563,712.
  • Related pre-grant publications are US20160164946A1 and US20170048298A9.
  • No other continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional applications are explicitly mentioned in the provided data. Further investigation using USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search would be needed to confirm any such applications.
• Projected Expiration Date: The anticipated expiration date is December 8, 2034. This date is calculated as 20 years from the filing date of the non-provisional application (December 8, 2014). This date does not appear to incorporate any potential Patent Term Adjustment, which would extend it further.