DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on June 24, 2026, for the application with serial number 17/400,204.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 20, 23, 32, and 35 are amended.
Claim 22 is canceled
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present amendments overcome the rejection. See Remarks p. 9. For the reasons set forth in the rejection, below, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection has been updated and maintained.
35 USC §102 and §103 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further consideration of the prior art. The independent claims now stand rejected as being obvious over Gonzalez in view of Argoety.
The rejection of the dependent claims stands or falls with the rejection of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1, 2, 4-13, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: identifying accounts for modification and remediation (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1: “compute respective account identities and usage contexts for the online accounts, wherein the usage contexts account for how frequently and/or recently an account has been used; send the account identities and usage contexts to a cloud-based analysis service for identification of accounts to modify; receive, from the cloud-based analysis service, one or more automated account actions to take for the account identities; and autonomously execute at least one of the account actions”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “provide two or more network activity scanners;” “operate the two or more network activity scanners;” “compute . . . account identities and usage contexts for [ ] online accounts;” “send the account identities and usage contexts to a [ ] service;” “receive . . . one or more automated account actions to take for the account[s];” and “autonomously execute at least one of the account actions.”. The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of identifying accounts for modification and remediation that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of identifying accounts for modification and remediation. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of identifying accounts for modification and remediation. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes identifying spam and unused accounts for termination or deletion.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computing apparatus, processor, and memory in independent claim 1; a computer readable medium and endpoint device in independent claim 20; and a method with an endpoint device in independent claim 32). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 13, 20, 23, 32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200015 A1 to Gonzalez (hereinafter ‘GONZALEZ’) in view of US 20210157907 A1 to Argoety et al. (hereinafter ‘ARGOETY’).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses an end-user computing apparatus, comprising: an end-user hardware platform (see ¶[0020], [0038], and Fig. 1; a user of an email account and a computer. End nodes, such as personal computers), comprising a processor circuit (see ¶[0036]; the implementation is in hardware. A software computer and memory storage device); a memory (see again ¶[0036]; the implementation is in hardware. A software computer and memory storage device), and a network interface (see ¶[0057]; device 200 may also communicate with one or more external devices 214 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 224, etc.; one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computing device 200; and/or any devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.) that enable computing device 200 to communicate with one or more other computing devices. Such communication can occur via Input/Output (I/O) interfaces 222); and
instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor circuit (see abstract; a server with programmable instructions) to:
communicatively couple, via the network interface, to a cloud-based analysis service for identifying stale online accounts (see ¶[0002]; online activities including email communication and network-based services, and more particularly, to a system and method using a history of email account usage to reduce inappropriate email and online behavior, such as email spam, online bullying and/or stalking, and online impersonation. See also ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval):
locally operate two or more network activity scanners to analyze a human end user's network activity, wherein the two or more network activity scanners are configured to analyze the end user's historical network activity to discover, from the network activity, a plurality of online accounts for the end user (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; an individual person can obtain multiple email accounts from various hosts. See also ¶[0016]-[0018] and [0084], [0086]-[0087], [0096], and [0121]; verify the identity of the individual. A plurality of programmable instructions to perform operations. Collect data from multiple servers), and compute, from the end user's network activity, respective derived account identities and usage contexts for the plurality of online accounts (see abstract; determine whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model);, wherein the usage contexts account for how frequently and/or recently an account has been used by the end user (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval);
preprocess the derived account identities and usage contexts to prevent transmitting the end user's full network activity while sending the derived account identities and usage contexts to the cloud-based analysis service (see again abstract; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model. Examiner Note: transmission of full network activity is not disclosed in GONZALEZ, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the negative claim limitation);
receive, from the cloud-based analysis service, a list of one or more stale accounts that have not been used frequently and/or recently by the end user (see again abstract and ¶[0071]; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model).
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, including automated remedial actions to take for the one or more stale accounts on behalf of the end user (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer); and
autonomously execute at least one of the automated remedial actions (see again ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim 4 (Previously Presented)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, wherein the instructions are further to receive, from the cloud-based analysis service, a remedial action for an account, and autonomously implement the remedial action (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim 9 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
GONZALEZ does not specifically disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, wherein at least one of the network activity scanners is a scanner for a network activity other than email (see ¶[0001] and [0023]; users access resources from accounts, including email programs and messaging applications. Resources include applications, files, and data).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts access enterprise resources including messaging applications. It would have been obvious to include the messaging applications as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to identify and remove inactive accounts.
Claim 13 (Currently Amended)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
GONZALEZ further discloses wherein the end-user computing apparatus is selected from a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a workstation, a netbook, and a convertible tablet (see ¶[0038]; smart phone devices, tablets, personal computers, and workstations).
Claim 20 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions (see abstract; a server with programmable instructions) to:
communicatively couple, via a network interface, to a cloud-based analysis service for identifying stale online accounts (see ¶[0002]; online activities including email communication and network-based services, and more particularly, to a system and method using a history of email account usage to reduce inappropriate email and online behavior, such as email spam, online bullying and/or stalking, and online impersonation. See also ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval):
locally use, on a consumer endpoint device for an individual user, at least two device-local network activity scanners to analyze a human end user's network activity, wherein the at least two device-local network activity scanners are configured to analyze the end user's historical network activity (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; an individual person can obtain multiple email accounts from various hosts. See also ¶[0016]-[0018] and [0084], [0086]-[0087], [0096], and [0121]; verify the identity of the individual. A plurality of programmable instructions to perform operations. Collect data from multiple servers); discover, from the network activity, a plurality of online accounts for the end user (see again ¶[0004]-[0005]; an individual person can obtain multiple email accounts from various hosts. See also ¶[0016], [0086]-[0087], and [0121]; verify the identity of the individual);
compute, from the user's network activity, respective derived account identities and usage contexts for the plurality of online accounts (see abstract; determine whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model), wherein the usage contexts account for how frequently and/or recently an account has been used by the end user (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval); and
preprocess the derived account identities and usage contexts to prevent transmitting the end user's full network activity while sending the derived account identities and usage contexts to the cloud-based analysis service (see again abstract; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model. Examiner Note: transmission of full network activity is not disclosed in GONZALEZ, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the negative claim limitation);
receive, from the cloud-based analysis service, a list of one or more stale accounts that have not been used frequently and/or recently by the end user (see again abstract and ¶[0071]; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model).
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, including automated remedial actions to take for the one or more stale accounts on behalf of the end user (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer); and
autonomously execute at least one of the account automated remedial actions (see again ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim 23 (Currently Amended)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media as set forth in claim 20,
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, wherein the instructions are further to receive from the cloud-based analysis service a remedial action for an account, and implement the remedial action (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim 32 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses a computer-implemented method (see ¶[0036]; the implementation is in hardware. A software computer and memory storage device), comprising: communicatively coupling, via a network interface (see ¶[0057]; device 200 may also communicate with one or more external devices 214 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 224, etc.; one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computing device 200; and/or any devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.) that enable computing device 200 to communicate with one or more other computing devices. Such communication can occur via Input/Output (I/O) interfaces 222), to a cloud-based analysis service for identifying stale online accounts (see ¶[0002]; online activities including email communication and network-based services, and more particularly, to a system and method using a history of email account usage to reduce inappropriate email and online behavior, such as email spam, online bullying and/or stalking, and online impersonation. See also ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval):
locally using, on an endpoint device for an individual user, at least two device- local network activity scanners, analyzing a human end user's network activity, wherein the at least two device-local network activity scanners are configured to analyze the end user's historical network activity (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; an individual person can obtain multiple email accounts from various hosts. See also ¶[0016]-[0018] and [0084], [0086]-[0087], [0096], and [0121]; verify the identity of the individual. A plurality of programmable instructions to perform operations. Collect data from multiple servers);
discovering, from the network activity, a plurality of online accounts for the end user (see again ¶[0004]-[0005]; an individual person can obtain multiple email accounts from various hosts. See also ¶[0016], [0086]-[0087], and [0121]; verify the identity of the individual);
computing, from the user's network activity, respective derived account identities and usage contexts for the plurality of online accounts (see abstract; determine whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model), wherein the usage contexts account for how frequently and/or recently an account has been used by the end user (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval);
preprocessing the derived account identities and usage contexts to prevent transmitting the end user's full network activity while sending the derived account identities and usage contexts to the cloud-based analysis service (see again abstract; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model. Examiner Note: transmission of full network activity is not disclosed in GONZALEZ, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the negative claim limitation);
receiving, from the cloud-based analysis service, a list of one or more stale accounts that have not been used frequently and/or recently by the end user (see again abstract and ¶[0071]; provide a usage report in association with usage data and a determination as to whether the usage data is consistent with a primary email account model).
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, including automated remedial actions to take for the one or more stale accounts on behalf of the end user (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer); and
autonomously executing, on the endpoint device, at least one of the automated remedial actions (see again ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim 35 (Currently Amended)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the method as set forth in claim 32.
GONZALEZ does not explicitly disclose, but ARGOETY discloses, further comprising receiving, from the cloud-based analysis service, a remedial action for an account, and implementing the remedial action (see ¶[0026]; identify dormant accounts and remove dormant accounts).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. It would have been obvious to remove dormant accounts as taught by ARGOETY in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to cull inactive accounts.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200015 A1 to GONZALEZ in view of US 20210157907 A1 to ARGOETY et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7555523 B1 to Hartmann (hereinafter ‘HARTMANN’).
Claim 2 (Currently Amended)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but HARTMANN discloses, wherein the usage contexts include message header and/or metadata for messages, and omit message content (see col 1, ln 30-50; examine header field. Newer forms of spam, such as phone message spam, blog comment spam, or instant message spam lack significant content body).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]) that includes analyzing e-mail content (see claims 16 and 18). HARTMANN discloses analyzing header fields of e-mails to determine if the e-mail is sent by a spam sender (see col 1, ln 29-63), where specific spam messages lack content body. It would have been obvious to scan e-mail headers as taught by HARTMANN in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to efficiently determine if email or messages are inappropriate.
Claim 10 (Currently Amended)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but HARTMANN discloses, wherein at least one of the network activity scanners is selected from the group consisting of email header scanner, short messaging service scanner, chat service scanner, stored passwords scanner, autofill data scanner, internet history scanner, installed applications scanner, and phone logs scanner (see col 1, ln 29-63; conduct quick header analysis of e-mail as part of a preliminary analysis).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]) that includes analyzing e-mail content (see claims 16 and 18). HARTMANN discloses analyzing header fields of e-mails to determine if the e-mail is sent by a spam sender (see col 1, ln 29-63). It would have been obvious to scan e-mail headers as taught by HARTMANN in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to determine if email is inappropriate.
Claim 11 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but HARTMANN discloses, wherein at least one of the network activity scanners is an email scanner that scans email headers and not email bodies (see col 1, ln 29-63; conduct quick header analysis of e-mail as part of a preliminary analysis).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]) that includes analyzing e-mail content (see claims 16 and 18). HARTMANN discloses analyzing header fields of e-mails to determine if the e-mail is sent by a spam sender (see col 1, ln 29-63). It would have been obvious to scan e-mail headers as taught by HARTMANN in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to determine if email is inappropriate.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200015 A1 to GONZALEZ in view of US 20210157907 A1 to ARGOETY et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US 20210096938 A1 to Dev et al. (hereinafter ‘DEV’).
Claim 5 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 4.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but DEV discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises sending a message from the end-user computing apparatus to delete the account (see ¶[0018]; provisioning request messages include requests to delete an account).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. DEV discloses an API hub architecture that includes message requests to delete accounts. It would have been obvious to include the message to delete an account as taught by DEV in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to remove dormant accounts.
Claim 6 (Previously Presented)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 4.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but DEV discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises providing, to the end user, instructions to delete the account (see ¶[0018]; provisioning request messages include requests to delete an account.).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. DEV discloses an API hub architecture that includes message requests to delete accounts. It would have been obvious to include the message to delete an account as taught by DEV in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to remove dormant accounts.
Claim 8 (Previously Presented)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 4.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but DEV discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises querying the end user for confirmation to delete the account (see ¶[0018]; provisioning request messages include requests to delete an account).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. DEV discloses an API hub architecture that includes message requests to delete accounts. It would have been obvious to include the message to delete an account as taught by DEV in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to remove dormant accounts.
Claim 25 (Previously Presented)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media as set forth in claim 23,
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but DEV discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises providing, to the user, instructions to delete the account (see ¶[0018]; provisioning request messages include requests to delete an account).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. DEV discloses an API hub architecture that includes message requests to delete accounts. It would have been obvious to include the message to delete an account as taught by DEV in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to remove dormant accounts.
Claim(s) 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200015 A1 to GONZALEZ in view of US 20210157907 A1 to ARGOETY et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US 20070192493 A1 to Manolache et al. (hereinafter ‘MANOLACHE’).
Claim 7 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 4.
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but MANOLACHE discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises providing a user interface for a one-click account reclamation (see ¶[0073]; an administrator can restore the account by clicking the account revival link).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. MANOLACHE discloses restoring deleted accounts by clicking a revival link. It would have been obvious to include the revival link as taught by MANOLACHE in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to restore deleted or culled accounts upon request (see MANOLACHE ¶[0063]).
Claim 26 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media as set forth in claim 23,
The combination of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY does not specifically disclose, but MANOLACHE discloses, wherein implementing the remedial action comprises providing a user interface for a one-click account reclamation (see ¶[0073]; an administrator can restore the account by clicking the account revival link).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]). ARGOETY discloses dormant account identification, where dormant accounts are removed. MANOLACHE discloses restoring deleted accounts by clicking a revival link. It would have been obvious to include the revival link as taught by MANOLACHE in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ and ARGOETY with the motivation to restore deleted or culled accounts upon request (see MANOLACHE ¶[0063]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170200015 A1 to GONZALEZ in view of US 20210157907 A1 to ARGOETY et al. and US 7555523 B1 to HARTMANN as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20210176272 A1 to Maha et al. (hereinafter ‘MAHA’)..
Claim 12 (Original)
The combination of GONZALEZ, ARGOETY, and HARTMANN discloses the end-user computing apparatus as set forth in claim 11.
The combination of GONZALEZ, ARGOETY, and HARTMANN does not specifically disclose, btu MAHA discloses, wherein the instructions are further to access a cloud-based uniform resource locator (URL) reputation service to identify potential account activity from email headers (see ¶[0032] and [0173]; if the e-mail uses the header of a well-known banking website, this may be an indication that the e-mail is a phishing e-mail. Querying the cloud phishing reputation service comprises querying a uniform resource locator reputation service for link reputations).
GONZALEZ discloses reducing inappropriate email by culling abandoned or unused accounts (see abstract and ¶[0131]) that includes analyzing e-mail content (see claims 16 and 18). MAHA discloses finding e-mail associated with phishing attempts that include malicious content (see ¶[0031]), where a reputation service is used to associate e-mails with malicious URLs (see ¶[0033]). It would have been obvious to include the reputation service as taught by MAHA in the system executing the method of GONZALEZ with the motivation to find and remove inappropriate e-mail accounts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights