Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is issued in response to Patent Board Decision dated 3/25/2026 and RCE filed 5/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claim is added and none cancelled.
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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0250327) in view of Huffner (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0267119), further in view of Prakash (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0195688).
Regarding Claim 1, Nguyen discloses a system for categorizing and visualizing web domain details, comprising:
instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (par [0017], Nguyen – non-transitory computer-readable medium which stores computer instructions);
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (par [0017], [0033], Nguyen – instructions that are executable by a processor… domain processing system includes a processor) to:
automatically determine a plurality of domain variants, using a provided seed domain, based on a level of similarity with the seed domain (par [0037], [0041-0045], Nguyen – domain filter is operable to review candidate domains against one or more seed domains and filter down the number of candidate domains that might be considered similar or close); and
automatically categorize the domain variants into a plurality of categories (par [0028-0029], Nguyen – there is a need to process (i.e., classify and/or categorize) domains… par [0037-0038] – candidate domains are classified and filtered based on an n-gram distance); and
one or more servers communicatively coupled with one or more computing devices and configured to provide one or more user interfaces for display on the one or more computing devices (Fig.7; par [0096-0097], Nguyen), the one or more user interfaces comprising:
for each of the categories, an indicator indicating a total number of the domain variants within that category (par [0051-0061], Nguyen – candidate domains are classified based on the n-gram distances, such as 0 n-gram distance, 1 n-gram distance, etc.; wherein a number is associated with each classification of n-gram distance and that information is passed to a computing facility with a UI of domain processing system that is generated by an interface module and presented on a user device).
While Nguyen teaches the use of displays and monitors, as well as the n-gram classifications being generated on a user interface and presented on a user device to the user (see par [0061] and [0096]). However, Nguyen is not as detailed as the examiner would like with respect to a visual display of the categories.
On the other hand, Huffner discloses categorize the domain variants into a plurality of categories and a visual display of the categories (par [0012], [0097], [0099], Huffner - the processed results are provided to a GUI, wherein the GUI provides a display of a list of domain names with classification of the domain names and other information related to the domain names). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huffner’s teachings into Nguyen’s domain name processing system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to provide a system for classifying domain names using language models and determining whether the particular domain names are relevant to a brand or not. This is used as a way to provide sufficient protection from potential spoofing or phishing.
However, Nguyen is not as detailed with respect to train one or more machine learning (ML) modules.
On the other hand, Prakash discloses training one or more machine learning (ML) modules (par [0034], Prakash – the model is a trained object representing mathematical relationships, wherein the model can be trained using components of webpages; any of a variety of machine learning techniques can be applied to the labeled webpage components to generate the model… par [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Prakash’s teachings into Nguyen and Huffner system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to swiftly and accurately detect and block access to malicious websites while ensuring the system is learning throughout the process.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the domain variants are associated with a plurality of top-level domains (TLDs) (par [0006], [0064], Nguyen – first-level set of domain names are the top-level domains including the generic TLDs).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a registration status of registered or unregistered, for each of the domain variants, and wherein the one or more user interfaces includes a visual display of the registration status of at least some of the domain variants (par [0062], Nguyen – candidate domains stored in a database can include registered domains and unregistered domains… obvious to allow such information to be displayed/visible to a user).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine, for each of the domain variants, a score related to a potential maliciousness of the domain variant (par [0041], Huffner – relevance is determined based on lexicons that covers topics such as phishing terms; wherein the terms relevance to the brand name is determined and scored… [0096-0098], Huffner).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 4 wherein, if the domain variant is registered, the score is based on one or more of: a determined intended use for the domain variant (par [0072], Huffner – a score is computed that indicates how relevant the particular word is to the domain and to the brand); a number of malicious sites previously accessible using the domain variant; a number of malicious pages previously accessible using the domain variant; a number of malicious sites previously hosted on an internet protocol (IP) address of the domain variant; a number of malicious pages previously hosted on the IP address of the domain variant; Security Sockets Layer (SSL) certificate details associated with the domain variant; a determined score for a top-level domain (TLD) of the domain variant; and a determination of likely deception related to a known brand name.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 4 wherein, if the domain variant is unregistered, the score is based on one or more of: an average domain registration price associated with a top-level domain (TLD); a price for registration of the domain variant; a determined TLD maliciousness; one or more terms in the domain variant determined to be suspicious; and the level of similarity with the seed domain (par [0072], [0078-0079], [0096], Huffner).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on the score, determine whether the domain variant should be recommended for acquisition and, if so, initiate display of an acquisition recommendation on the one or more user interfaces (par [0088-0090], Huffner).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, for each of the domain variants which is registered, whether a website associated with the domain variant includes malicious content (par [0096-0098], Huffner – determination is made of what type of website is associated with the questionable domain, such as whether the website is associated with phishing or include a negative page).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to determining that the website includes malicious content (par [0096-0098], Huffner), initiate display of a takedown recommendation on the one or more user interfaces (par [0100], [0103], Prakash – counterfeit website domain takedown is utilized and involves requesting/notifying the owner to take down the website).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to monitor content of the website after a takedown and, in response to determining that the website again includes malicious content, initiate display of another takedown recommendation on the one or more user interfaces (par [0105-0107], Prakash – the system periodically checks to see if the counterfeit website is still live, after one or more requests have been made, then the system sends out another request again to take down the domain).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the categories include at least: a category for unregistered domains recommended for acquisition; a category for registered domains recommended for monitoring (par [0062], Nguyen); and a category for registered domains recommended for takedown (par [0106-0107], Prakash).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the category for registered domains recommended for monitoring comprises a plurality of subcategories, including at least one subcategory for parked domains (par [0047], [0105], Prakash – parked domain page).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Nguyen in view of Huffner, further in view of Prakash, disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the visual display of the categories includes, for each category, a displayed container (par [0099], Huffner – displaying a list of the domain names with classifications of the domain names and other information related to the domain names… examiner notes the particulars about how the category is “displayed” is deemed to be non-functional descriptive language which does not carry any weight).
Claim 14 contains similar subject matter as claims 1 and 3 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 contains similar subject matter as claim 5 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 contains similar subject matter as claim 11 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 contains similar subject matter as claim 9 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 contains similar subject matter as claims 1 and 11, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 contains similar subject matter as claim 5 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 contains similar subject matter as claim 9 above; and is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Based on the Patent Board Decision dated 3/25/2026; the 101 rejection for claim eligibility has been withdrawn.
Applicant indicated to “Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed on 7/28/2025”.
Per applicants request, the examiner is using the affirmed 103 grounds of rejection from the Board Decision which are the “law of the case” and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application and we must follow (see MPEP 706.07(h)(XI)(A)).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELCIE L DAYE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3891. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00pm. 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Chelcie Daye
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
June 2, 2026
/CHELCIE L DAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights