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
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 1/27/2026, claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-17 are amended.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 1/27/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Claim(s) is/are directed to method/system comprising retrieving, by one or more processors, a first device, from storage a template to use for creating and communicating a plurality of simulated phishing communications to one or more devices of a user, the template comprising a structure defining an ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications between devices and one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (abstract idea of mental step of identifying an option based on analyzing data); identifying, by the one or more processors within the template, the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications comprising a plurality of different types of electronic communications between devices, the template comprising one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (abstract idea of mental step of identifying an option) creating, by the one or more processors, each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template; and (abstract idea of mental step of generating data from options) communicating, by the one or more processors of the first device to one or more second devices of the user, each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template, in turn, based at least on the one or more time interval parameters of the template between each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications (abstract idea of sending/receiving data based on identified options).
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 1/27/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, Higbee et al combination teaches the claimed invention: Higbee in combination with Belani (US 20140230065 A1) further teaches: retrieving, by one or more processors, a first device, from storage a template to use for creating and communicating a plurality of simulated phishing communications to one or more devices of a user, the template comprising a structure defining an ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications between devices and one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25, i.e., the created templates stored in the database wherein the templates include one or more types of phishing attack and wherein the templates are communicated to users as a phishing attack at a time interval and the response recorded, thus implicitly disclosing an ‘ordered list’. See Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23, i.e., different types of phishing attacks include emails, texts, calls) identifying, by the one or more processors within the template, the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications, the template comprising one or more time interval parameters between each of the types of simulated phishing communications; and (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25, i.e., the created templates stored in the database wherein the templates include one or more types of phishing attack and wherein the templates are communicated to users as a phishing attack at a time interval and the response recorded, thus implicitly disclosing an ‘ordered list’. See Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23, i.e., different types of phishing attacks include emails, texts, calls). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee to include conducting a simulated phishing attack in a sequence over a time interval wherein the phishing attacks include multiple different types of attacks in the forms of email, texts, calls as taught by Belani with the motivation to effectively counter phishing attacks (Belani: ¶5). Higbee et al combination further teaches: creating, by the one or more processors, each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template; and (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25. See also, Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23) communicating, by the one or more processors to one or more devices of the user, each of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template, in turn, based at least on the one or more time interval parameters of the template between each of the types of simulated phishing communications. (Higbee: ¶19-¶21, ¶24-¶25, ¶47-¶49, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’. Belani: ¶7-¶8, ¶32-¶38, ¶48, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’). Although, ‘ordered list’ is implicit in the cited references, it is noted ordered list of templates that include ordered list of algorithms/messages to be executed/communicated is well-known in the art. See e.g., Panda (US 20150356085 A1: Figs. 2-3, 7, ¶17, ¶27-¶28, ¶32, ¶39, i.e., the ordered list templates wherein the templates include ordered list of algorithms including date/time parameters) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee et al combination to explicitly include ‘ordered list’ of templates that include ordered/ranked list of algorithms for execution as taught by Panda with the motivation to predict result of applying the algorithms of templates (Panda: ¶2-¶3)
Double Patenting
1. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of US 10764317 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1 and 11 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 15 of US 10764317 B2.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-28 of US 10764317 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of US 11632387 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1 and 11 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 11 of US 11632387 B2.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-20 of US 11632387 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are directed to a method and system (apparatus). The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) and determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application in the claims (i.e., Step 2A, prongs 1-2), and it must additionally be determined whether the claim contains any additional elements that transform the exception into patent-eligible subject matter. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (i.e., Step 2B). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register on 01/07/2019 and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. i/. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S._ (2014).Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories In the present case, claim(s) is/are directed to method/system comprising retrieving, by one or more processors, a first device, from storage a template to use for creating and communicating a plurality of simulated phishing communications to one or more devices of a user, the template comprising a structure defining an ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications between devices and one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (abstract idea of mental step of identifying an option based on analyzing data); identifying, by the one or more processors within the template, the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications comprising a plurality of different types of electronic communications between devices, the template comprising one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (abstract idea of mental step of identifying an option) creating, by the one or more processors, each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template; and (abstract idea of mental step of generating data from options) communicating, by the one or more processors to one or more devices of the user, each of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template, in turn, based at least on the one or more time interval parameters of the template between each of the types of simulated phishing communications (abstract idea of sending/receiving data based on identified options).– falls into one of the four statutory categories (i.e., method and system). Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 1): Identifying a Judicial Exception
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified abstract ideas in patent claims by making comparisons to concepts found in past decisions to be judicial exceptions to eligibility. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register on 01/07/2019 (“IEG Update”). The Update summarizes concepts the courts have considered to be abstract ideas by associating eligibility decisions with judicial descriptors (e.g., “an idea of itself,” “certain methods of organizing human activities”, “mathematical relationships and formulas”) based on common characteristics. These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of data processing based on certain mental observations.
As such, the claims fall under at least the category of “an idea of itself”. The phrase “an idea of itself is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data is simply being analyzed to identify certain options which was ruled abstract in:
a. Collecting and comparing known information (Classen);
b. Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC);
c. Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning);
d. Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction);
e. Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource);
f. Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group);
g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)
h. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
i. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
j. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than generating data to be sent by analyzing previous data to identify certain options as described in the claims that can be performed mentally. The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group); Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group; and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (Symantec). While the specific facts of the case differ from these cases, the claims are still directed to collecting and analyzing data to make an observation i.e., mental process. Further, each and every step can be performed mentally and with pen and paper. A computer is not necessary to generate a number.
Step 2A (prong 2) Identifying an integrated practical application
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the 101 analysis, claims recite abstract idea of mental process of identifying options and the abstract idea of mental process of performing data processing based on the identified options. Claims do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims (step 2A, prong 2). All the steps pertain to abstract idea of data processing by identifying some options and routine computer steps of sending, receiving, and storing data and rules.
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). Rather, the second step requires determining whether additional substantive limitations narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself. Another way of stating the test is whether the claim language provides “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a generic computing devices, memory, processors when taken in combination with the functional elements claim(s) is/are directed to system and method for performing abstract idea of data processing, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a general purpose device). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the Individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, which fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers – in our common day-to-day interactions. Note: Applicant’s disclosure states a generic computer processor or machine is used to execute the algorithms (¶43-¶45); note also cited art of record also discloses processors; devices, programs (see, e.g., Belani (US 20140230065 A1): ¶25-¶28). Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods / devices lacks an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity, e.g., data processing. Dependent claims are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection of the independent claims because the claims merely recite variations of the data processing without integrating the model into a practical application.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140230061 A1 (hereinafter ‘Higbee’) in view of US 20140230065 A1 (hereinafter ‘Belani’) in view of US 20150356085 A1 (hereinafter ‘Panda’).
As regards claim 1, Higbee (US 20140230061 A1) discloses: A method comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, a first device, from storage a template to use for creating and communicating a plurality of simulated phishing communications to one or more devices of a user, the template comprising a structure defining an ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications between devices and one or more time interval parameters between communicating each of the types of simulated phishing communications; (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25, i.e., the created templates stored in the database wherein the templates include one or more types of phishing attack and wherein the templates are communicated to users as a phishing attack at a time interval and the response recorded, thus implicitly disclosing an ‘ordered list’. See Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23, i.e., different types of phishing attacks include emails, texts, calls)
Higbee in combination with Belani (US 20140230065 A1) further teaches: identifying, by the one or more processors within the template, the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications, the template comprising one or more time interval parameters between each of the types of simulated phishing communications; and (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25, i.e., the created templates stored in the database wherein the templates include one or more types of phishing attack and wherein the templates are communicated to users as a phishing attack at a time interval and the response recorded, thus implicitly disclosing an ‘ordered list’. See Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23, i.e., different types of phishing attacks include emails, texts, calls).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee to include conducting a simulated phishing attack in a sequence over a time interval wherein the phishing attacks include multiple different types of attacks in the forms of email, texts, calls as taught by Belani with the motivation to effectively counter phishing attacks (Belani: ¶5).
Higbee et al combination further teaches: creating, by the one or more processors, each electronic communication of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template; and (Higbee: Figs 2-4, ¶24-¶25. See also, Belani: Fig. 1, ¶23)
communicating, by the one or more processors to one or more devices of the user, each of the types of simulated phishing communications according to the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications within the template, in turn, based at least on the one or more time interval parameters of the template between each of the types of simulated phishing communications. (Higbee: ¶19-¶21, ¶24-¶25, ¶47-¶49, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’. Belani: ¶7-¶8, ¶32-¶38, ¶48, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’).
Although, ‘ordered list’ is implicit in the cited references, it is noted ordered list of templates that include ordered list of algorithms/messages to be executed/communicated is well-known in the art. See e.g., Panda (US 20150356085 A1: Figs. 2-3, 7, ¶17, ¶27-¶28, ¶32, ¶39, i.e., the ordered list templates wherein the templates include ordered list of algorithms including date/time parameters)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee et al combination to explicitly include ‘ordered list’ of templates that include ordered/ranked list of algorithms for execution as taught by Panda with the motivation to predict result of applying the algorithms of templates (Panda: ¶2-¶3)
Claim 11 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising communicating, by the one or more processors, each of the types of simulated phishing communications in the ordered list until the user interacts with one of the types of simulated phishing communications. (Higbee: ¶3, ¶21, ¶24-¶25. Belani: ¶3, ¶23, ¶26)
Claim 12 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 2 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 3, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising communicating, by the one or more processors, each of the types of simulated phishing communications in the ordered list until all of the types of simulated phishing communications in the ordered list have been communicated. (Higbee: ¶19-¶21, ¶24-¶25. See also, Belani: ¶7-¶8, ¶32-¶38, ¶48, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’. See also, Panda: Fig. 7, ¶17, ¶27-¶28, ¶39, i.e., the ordered list templates wherein the templates include ordered list of algorithms)
Claim 13 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, by the one or more processors, the template from a plurality of templates based at least on an attribute of the user. (Higbee: ¶19-¶20, ¶24-¶25, i.e., communicating the phishing attack templates to the user selected)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 4 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 5, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of templates comprises a different ordered list of the plurality of types of simulated phishing communications. (Belani: ¶32-¶38, i.e., sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee to include conducting a simulated phishing attack in a sequence over a time interval as taught by Belani with the motivation to effectively counter phishing attacks (Belani: ¶5)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 5 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 8, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the different types of electronic communications between the devices comprises one or more of an email, a text message, a VoIP communication or an internet based communication. (Higbee: Figs. 2-3, ¶3, ¶31)
Claim 18 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 8 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 9, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications comprises a first type of the types of simulated phishing communications followed by a second type of the types of simulated phishing communications different from the first type. (Higbee: Figs. 2-3, ¶3, ¶21, ¶24-¶25. Belani: ¶3, ¶23, ¶26)
Claim 19 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 9 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 10, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ordered list of types of simulated phishing communications comprises one or more of a same type of the types of simulated phishing communications preceded by or followed by a type of the types of simulated phishing communications different from the same type. (Higbee: ¶19-¶21, ¶24-¶25. See also, Belani: ¶7-¶8, ¶32-¶38, ¶48, i.e., phishing templates include multiple types of phishing attacks wherein sequence of simulated attacks conducted over an interval of time such as first, second day and so forth, thus implicitly teaching an ‘ordered list’. See also, Panda: Fig. 7, ¶17, ¶27-¶28, ¶39, i.e., the ordered list templates wherein the templates include ordered list of algorithms)
Claim 20 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 10 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
Claims 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higbee in view of Belani in view of Panda in view of US 9924040 B1 (hereinafter ‘Jason’).
As regards claim 6, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. Higbee et al in combination with Jason further teaches: wherein a time interval of the one or more time interval parameters is different between a first type of the types of simulated phishing communications and a second type of the types of simulated phishing communication. (Jason, Figs. 9-11, 19, col. 1:55 to col. 2:25, i.e., generating communication templates with different time interval parameter to send communications)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee to include generating communication templates with different time interval parameter to send communications as taught by Jason with the motivation to identify deficiencies in assigning agents to perform communication campaigns (Jason, Figs. 9-11, 19, col. 1:55 to col. 2:25)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 6 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 7, Higbee et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. Higbee et al in combination with Jason further teaches: wherein the one or more time intervals of the one or more time interval parameters varies between each of the types of simulated phishing communications. (Jason, Figs. 9-11, 19, col. 1:55 to col. 2:25, i.e., generating communication templates with different time interval parameter to send communications)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higbee to include generating communication templates with different time interval parameter to send communications as taught by Jason with the motivation to identify deficiencies in assigning agents to perform communication campaigns (Jason, Figs. 9-11, 19, col. 1:55 to col. 2:25)
Claim 17 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 7 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights