DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 22, 25, 32, and 35 are amended. Note that claim 2 is labeled as ‘Original,’ but claim 2 is marked up. Therefore, claim 2 will be treated as amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further consideration of the subject matter eligibility of the claims. The claims remain ineligible, as set forth in the rejection, below. Essentially, the claims recite a managerial method for identifying malicious and/or inactive accounts for remedial action. The steps could be implemented mentally or on paper, but a general purpose computer is recited for implementation. The present amendments do not significantly alter the scope of the claims and recite a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
35 USC §102/103 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further consideration of the cited prior art. The independent claims remain anticipated by the Gonzalez reference. The use of personal computers, taught in at least ¶[0038] of Gonzalez, discloses an “endpoint device.”
The rejection of the dependent claims for obviousness stands or falls with the rejection of the independent claims as being anticipated by Gonzalez.
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, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35 are 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. Although claims(s) 1, 2, 4-13, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 35 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to computing account identities and usage contexts for accounts (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “compute respective account identities and usage contexts for the online accounts”) and executing account actions (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “autonomously execute at least one of the account actions’); abstract ideas. 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 to . . . compute respective account identities and usage contexts for the online accounts;” “send [ ] account identities and usage contexts to a cloud-based analysis service for identification of accounts to modify;” “receive . . . account actions to take for the account identities;” and “execute at least one of the account actions.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract ideas of computing account identities and usage contexts for accounts and executing account actions that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract ideas of computing account identities and usage contexts for accounts and executing account actions. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of computing account identities and usage contexts for accounts. 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 online accounts engaged in malicious or wasteful behavior and taking remedial action based on the identification.
Under step 2A 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 with a processor and memory in independent claim 1; a computer readable medium in independent claim 20; and a computer 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). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computing apparatus with a processor and memory in independent claim 1; a computer readable medium in independent claim 20; and a computer in independent claim 32) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). 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). 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 20, 22, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20170200015 A1 to Gonzalez (hereinafter ‘GONZALEZ’).
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 and a memory (see ¶[0036]; the implementation is in hardware. A software computer and memory storage device); and instructions encoded within the memory to:
provide two or more network activity scanners for an individual end user's network activity (see abstract and ¶[0002]-[0004]; track usage and statistics related to the first email account and multiple accounts. See also ¶[0084]; third parties can perform the tracking or obtain the tracked data from the device that performed the tracking. The third-party server collects tracked data from a single server or a plurality of servers);
operate the two or more network activity scanners to locally analyze the end user's network activity (see ¶[0051]; program modules may be located in both local and remote computer systems), identify a plurality of online accounts associated with the end user (see ¶[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), and compute respective account identities and usage contexts for the 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 (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval); and whether the account is a valid account (see ¶[0016]; verify the identity of the individual from a network-based server that is configured to provide a network-based service to the individual conditional upon the individual having a verified identity. A usage report including at least one of at least a portion of the usage data accessed and an indication of a result of a determination as to whether the usage data accessed is consistent with a primary email account model) that is not associated with a marketing campaign (see ¶[0088]; for example, the predetermined criteria can indicate whether the user is a genuine person, or a marketing company that provides a service of posting spurious reviews);
send the account identities and usage contexts to a cloud-based analysis service (see ¶[0039] and [0075]; embodiments are shown with reference to a general network cloud) for identification of accounts to modify (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);
receive from the cloud-based analysis service, one or more automated account actions to take for the account identities (see ¶[0076]; the results of the evaluation can be used by the recipient as a determination that influences its actions): and
autonomously execute at least one of the automated online account actions (see again ¶[0076]; block an email, decline access to network services, etc. Perform further investigation and generate warnings. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
Claim 13 (Previously Presented)
GONZALEZ 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 table, 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 ¶[0036]; the implementation is in hardware. A software computer and memory storage device) to: use, on a consumer endpoint device for an individual user (see ¶[0038] and Fig. 1; end nodes, such as personal computers), at least two device-local network activity scanners (see ¶[0051]; program modules may be located in both local and remote computer systems) to analyze a user's online account activity (see abstract and ¶[0002]-[0004]; track usage and statistics related to the first email account and multiple accounts. See also ¶[0084]; third parties can perform the tracking or obtain the tracked data from the device that performed the tracking. The third-party server collects tracked data from a single server or a plurality of servers);
identify a plurality of online accounts associated with the end user (see ¶[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 respective account identities and usage contexts for the 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 (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval); and whether the account is a valid account (see ¶[0016]; verify the identity of the individual from a network-based server that is configured to provide a network-based service to the individual conditional upon the individual having a verified identity. A usage report including at least one of at least a portion of the usage data accessed and an indication of a result of a determination as to whether the usage data accessed is consistent with a primary email account model) that is not associated with a marketing campaign (see ¶[0088]; for example, the predetermined criteria can indicate whether the user is a genuine person, or a marketing company that provides a service of posting spurious reviews);
send the account identities and usage contexts to a cloud-based analysis service for identification of accounts to modify (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).
receive from the cloud-based analysis service automated online account actions to take for the account identities (see ¶[0076]; the results of the evaluation can be used by the recipient as a determination that influences its actions); and
autonomously execute at least one of the automated online account actions (see again ¶[0076]; block an email, decline access to network services, etc. Perform further investigation and generate warnings. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
Claim 22 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media as set forth in claim 20.
GONZALEZ further discloses wherein the cloud-based analysis service is a cloud-based analysis service (see ¶[0039] and [0075]; embodiments are shown with reference to a general network cloud).
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: using, on a [sic] endpoint device for an individual user (see ¶[0038] and Fig. 1; end nodes, such as personal computers), at least two device-local network activity scanners (see ¶[0051]; program modules may be located in both local and remote computer systems), analyzing a user's online account activity (see abstract and ¶[0002]-[0004]; track usage and statistics related to the first email account and multiple accounts. See also ¶[0084]; third parties can perform the tracking or obtain the tracked data from the device that performed the tracking. The third-party server collects tracked data from a single server or a plurality of servers);
identifying a plurality of online accounts associated with the end user (see ¶[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 respective account identities and usage contexts for the 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 (see ¶[0071]; number of days with no account activity within a time interval); and whether the account is a valid account (see ¶[0016]; verify the identity of the individual from a network-based server that is configured to provide a network-based service to the individual conditional upon the individual having a verified identity. A usage report including at least one of at least a portion of the usage data accessed and an indication of a result of a determination as to whether the usage data accessed is consistent with a primary email account model) that is not associated with a marketing campaign (see ¶[0088]; for example, the predetermined criteria can indicate whether the user is a genuine person, or a marketing company that provides a service of posting spurious reviews);
sending the account identities and usage contexts to a cloud-based analysis service for identification of accounts to modify (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. See also ¶[0039] and [0075]; embodiments are shown with reference to a general network cloud),
receiving from the cloud-based analysis service automated online account actions to take for the account identities (see ¶[0076]; the results of the evaluation can be used by the recipient as a determination that influences its actions); and
autonomously executing, on the endpoint device, at least one of the account actions (see again ¶[0076]; block an email, decline access to network services, etc. Perform further investigation and generate warnings. See also ¶[0042]; computer code executed by a computer).
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) 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 7555523 B1 to Hartmann (hereinafter ‘HARTMANN’).
Claim 2 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
GONZALEZ does not specifically disclose, but HARTMANN discloses, wherein the usage contexts include message header and/or metadata for messages, and omits 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)
GONZALEZ discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
GONZALEZ does not specifically disclose, but HARTMANN discloses, wherein at least one of the network activity scanners is selected from the group consisting of email headers, short messaging service, chat service, stored passwords, autofill data, internet history, installed applications and phone logs (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)
GONZALEZ discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 1.
GONZALEZ 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) 4, 9, 23, and 35 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. (hereinafter ‘ARGOETY’).
Claim 4 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ discloses the end-user computing apparatus of 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)
GONZALEZ 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 23 (Original)
GONZALEZ discloses the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media as set forth in claim 22.
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 35 (Currently Amended)
GONZALEZ 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 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(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 (Currently Amended)
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 (Currently Amended)
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 (Currently Amended)
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 restored 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 restored 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 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 and HARTMANN discloses the end-user computing apparatus of claim 11.
The combination of GONZALEZ and HARTMANN does not specifically disclose, but 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
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