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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention I in the reply filed on February 05, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Upon reviewing the claims, the Examiner found that the restriction requirement incorrectly grouped claims 16-18 and 23 in group II (Invention II). Claims 16-18 and 23 should have been grouped with group I (Invention I). Claims 1-12, and 16-23 will be examined in this office action. Invention II now corresponding to Claims 13-15 are non-elected.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are non-elected, therefore, they must be marked as “withdrawn.” Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 19, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drake et
al. (US 2021/0266338, “Drake”).
Regarding claim 1, Drake teaches a method for filtering a uniform resource identifier (“URI”) associated with an SMS message (FIG. 2, [0041] “messages may be formatted for communication by a plurality of electronic messaging client platforms (e.g.,… text messaging platforms” teaches claimed SMS message), the method implemented within an electronic communications network (“the network”), the network comprising an intermediary system (FIG. 1, enterprise computing system 130 including web content scanning system 120 and electronic messaging system 130) and an addressee system (FIG. 1, remote computing devices 152, 154, 156 of the external network 118 and user computing devices of enterprise networks 114. [0043] “the generated electronic message may be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130 via the enterprise network 114 and/or external network 118”), the method comprising:
the intermediary system examining the URI associated with the SMS message (“the message”) prior to access of the message by the addressee system (FIG. 2, [0041] “At 210, an electronic message may be received by the electronic messaging system, where delivery of the electronic message may be delayed until contents of the electronic message may be scanned for weblinks and/or until contents accessed via one or more weblinks included in the electronic message may be analyzed… at 215, the weblink content scanning system 120 may determine whether the electronic message contains at least one weblink within the body of the electronic message and/or within an attachment to the electronic message. An included weblink may be a uniform resource locator (URL) contained directly in the body of the electronic message or may be embedded in an image, as a hyperlink, and/or the like.”);
the intermediary system applying an authorization logic to the URI ([0041] “If at least one weblink is found, the content accessible via each weblink may be analyzed at 300” [0042] “After analysis of the one or more weblinks at 300, the weblink content scanning system 120, at 225, may determine that content that is potentially and/or known to be malicious”);
when the authorization logic does not authorize the URI for access, the intermediary system disabling selection by the addressee system of the URI ([0042] “After analysis of the one or more weblinks at 300, the weblink content scanning system 120, at 225, may determine that content that is potentially and/or known to be malicious may be accessible via at least one of the weblinks found in the electronic message… If, however, the accessed content is determined to potentially and/or known to be malicious, a modified electronic message may be generated, such as by the weblink content scanning system 120, at 240. For example, the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original electronic message by removing and/or disabling each weblink of the one or more weblinks of the original electronic message found to access malicious content”); and
transmitting the message to the addressee system ([0042] “If, however, the accessed content is determined to potentially and/or known to be malicious, a modified electronic message may be generated, such as by the weblink content scanning system 120, at 240. For example, the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original electronic message by removing and/or disabling each weblink of the one or more weblinks of the original electronic message found to access malicious content.” [0043] “At 250, the generated electronic message may be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130 via the enterprise network 114 and/or external network 118”).
Regarding claim 2, Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches the network comprises at least a portion of a cellular telephone wireless communications network (FIG. 10, [0065] workstations 1001 may be, for example, … a smartphone).
Regarding claim 3, Drake teaches claim 2 and further teaches wherein the addressee system comprises a cellular telephone (FIG. 10, [0065] workstations 1001 may be, for example, … a smartphone).
Regarding claim 4, Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches the intermediary system delivering a caution indication in association with a disabled representation of the URI to the addressee system ([0043]” In some cases, weblink content scanning system 120 may include a notification in the electronic message, where the notification may include information regarding each removed or disabled weblink and/or associated analytics information corresponding to the original electronic message (e.g., sender information, recipient information, time/date information, number of times a particular weblink categorized as being malicious has been received or sent, and/or the like). In some cases, notification may include a description of each removed and/or disabled weblink.”)
Regarding claim 5 , Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein the authorization logic includes an archive of access-permitted URI'S ([0045] At 325, each generated hash of the content accessible via the one or more weblinks may be compared to hashes in the hash data store 128. This comparison may be used to determine whether each hash is known to and/or was previously analyzed by the weblink content scanning system 120. For example, the hash data store 128 may include hashes of the content accessible via previously scanned weblinks. The hashes stored in the hash data store 128 may be assigned a categorization. The categorization may be malicious (e.g., potentially and/or known to be malicious) or non-malicious (e.g., safe to access). If a generated hash matches a stored hash in the hash data store 128, at 335, the analysis engine 124 may determine if the matching stored hash is categorized as malicious or non-malicious. If the stored hash of the hash data store 128 is categorized as malicious, at 338, the event sequence may return a malicious response for the generated hash of the content accessible via the weblink. If the matching stored hash of the hash data store 128 is categorized as non-malicious, at 336, the event sequence may return a non-malicious response for the generated hash of the content accessible via the weblink.).
Regarding claim 6 , Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein the archive is located in an archive server of the network (FIG. 1, hash data store is part of web content scanning system which is a server see [0065]).
Regarding claim 7 , Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein at least a portion of the archive is located in a memory accessible by the intermediary system (FIG. 1, hash data store is part of web content scanning system).
Regarding claim 19 , Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches implemented as part of a firewall for screening data traffic ([0007] “the weblink content scanning system may isolate testing of each weblink encountered in electronic communications received via each network communicatively coupled to an enterprise computing network. For example, the weblink content scanning system may scan the content of an electronic message to identify weblinks”).
Regarding claim 20 , Drake teaches claim 1 and further teaches implemented by an operating system for screening local data ([0060] Software may be stored within the memory 915 and/or other digital storage to provide instructions to the processor 903 for enabling the weblink content scanning computing device 901 to perform various functions as discussed herein. For example, the memory 915 may store software used by the weblink content scanning computing device 901, such as an operating system 917).
Regarding claim 23 , Drake teaches a method for authenticating the safe access of a uniform resource identifier (“URI”) included in an SMS message prior to access (FIG. 2, [0041] “messages may be formatted for communication by a plurality of electronic messaging client platforms (e.g.,… text messaging platforms” teaches claimed SMS message), the method implemented within an electronic communications network (“the network”), the network comprising an intermediary system (FIG. 1, enterprise computing system 130 including web content scanning system 120 and electronic messaging system 130) and an accessing system, the method comprising:
the intermediary system looking up the URI in an archive of URI's known to be valid; and if the URI is not present in the archive, the intermediary system preventing the access ([0041] “the weblink content scanning system 120 may determine whether the electronic message contains at least one weblink within the body of the electronic message and/or within an attachment to the electronic message.” [0044] “At 320, hashes of one or more weblinks and of the content accessible via the one or more weblinks may be generated by a hash function of the analysis engine 124.” [0045] “At 325, each generated hash of the content accessible via the one or more weblinks may be compared to hashes in the hash data store 128. This comparison may be used to determine whether each hash is known to and/or was previously analyzed by the weblink content scanning system 120. For example, the hash data store 128 may include hashes of the content accessible via previously scanned weblinks. The hashes stored in the hash data store 128 may be assigned a categorization. The categorization may be malicious (e.g., potentially and/or known to be malicious) or non-malicious (e.g., safe to access). If a generated hash matches a stored hash in the hash data store 128, at 335, the analysis engine 124 may determine if the matching stored hash is categorized as malicious or non-malicious. If the stored hash of the hash data store 128 is categorized as malicious, at 338, the event sequence may return a malicious response for the generated hash of the content accessible via the weblink.” [0042] “If, however, the accessed content is determined to potentially and/or known to be malicious, a modified electronic message may be generated, such as by the weblink content scanning system 120, at 240. For example, the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original electronic message by removing and/or disabling each weblink of the one or more weblinks of the original electronic message found to access malicious content”).
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.
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 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham (US 2022/0394052).
Regarding claim 8, Drake teaches claim 1 and but fails to teach the intermediary system notifying a sentinel server via the network of a receipt of the URI.
Grossman-Avraham teaches the intermediary system notifying a sentinel server via the network of a receipt of the URI ([0137] “the cloud server 135 links to the management server 100, and, for example transmits reports as to malicious or suspicious web pages, for every predetermined number of instances the web page is determined to be suspicious or malicious.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature the intermediary system notifying a sentinel server via the network of a receipt of the URI, as taught by Grossman-Avraham, in Drake to allow actions to be taken accordingly thereby reducing security risk.
Regarding claim 9, Drake un view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 8 and Drake further teaches wherein the intermediary server is informed via the network that access to the URI is permitted ([0042] “If not, (e.g., accessed content was found to be safe to access), the weblink content scanning system 120 may release the original electronic message to be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130, at 230.”)
Regarding claim 10, Drake un view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 9 and Drake further teaches wherein the intermediary server is informed via the network that access to the URI is permitted ([0042] “If not, (e.g., accessed content was found to be safe to access), the weblink content scanning system 120 may release the original electronic message to be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130, at 230.”)
Regarding claim 16, Drake un view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 9 and Drake further teaches wherein the archive is located in an archive server of the network (FIG. 1, hash data store is part of web content scanning system which is a server see [0065]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham and further in view of Dhanabalan et al. (US 2022/0210146, “Dhanabalan”).
Regarding claim 11, Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 10 but fails to teach modifying the text to visually indicate that the URI is enabled for access.
Dhanabalan teaches modifying the text to visually indicate that the URI is enabled for access. ([0016] “a URL validated using the disclosed techniques can be displayed to the recipient user in a unique color (such as green), which indicates that the URL is valid, whereas unvalidated or invalid URLs are displayed in another color (such as red). Other visual indications can be used to highlight validated URLs in accordance with various examples.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature modifying the text to visually indicate that the URI is enabled for access, as taught by Dhanabalan, in Drake so that the recipients know that the URL can be accessed without having to separately analyze the security risks.
Regarding claim 12, Drake un view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 10 but does not teach modifying the text by replacing the URI with a visually branded URI that enables access to the resource pointed to by the URI, wherein the system indicates that the visually branded URI is enabled for access and approved for use.
Dhanabalan teaches modifying the text by replacing the URI with a visually branded URI that enables access to the resource pointed to by the URI, wherein the system indicates that the visually branded URI is enabled for access and approved for use ([0016] “a URL validated using the disclosed techniques can be displayed to the recipient user in a unique color (such as green), which indicates that the URL is valid, whereas unvalidated or invalid URLs are displayed in another color (such as red). Other visual indications can be used to highlight validated URLs in accordance with various examples.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature modifying the text by replacing the URI with a visually branded URI that enables access to the resource pointed to by the URI, wherein the system indicates that the visually branded URI is enabled for access and approved for use, as taught by Dhanabalan, in Drake so that the recipients know that the URL can be accessed without having to separately analyze the security risks.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham and further in view of Soryal et al. (US 2023/0010945, “Soryal”)
Regarding claim 17, Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham teaches claim 10, but fails to teach the addressee system notifying a sentinel server of the URI via the network.
Soryal teaches the addressee system notifying a sentinel server of the URI via the network ([0043] “The backend server 204 may communicate with the user device 200 and other subscribers 206. In some embodiments, the backend server 204 cooperates with the user device 200 and other subscribers 206 to implement a service for detecting and protecting against phishing emails and malicious executable hyperlinks. When a link or attachment is detected, it is reported to the remote server 204.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature the addressee system notifying a sentinel server of the URI via the network, as taught by Soryal, in Drake to prevent damage or loss of data.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham and further in view of Ushida et al. (US 2016/0241575, “Ushida”).
Regarding claim 18, Drake in view of Grossman-Avraham but does not teach wherein the addressee server is informed via the network that access to the URI is permitted.
Ushida teaches wherein the addressee server is informed via the network that access to the URI is permitted ([0073] “When the inspection server 107 determines the URL is safe (S507). The inspection server 107 transmits an inspection result indicating “safe” to the proxy server 101 (S509).”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the addressee server is informed via the network that access to the URI is permitted, as taught by Soryal, in Drake so that access to the pernicious resource may be avoided.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Velthuis et al. (US 2016/0036971, “Velthuis”).
Regarding claim 21, Drake teaches a method for filtering a uniform resource identifier (“URI”) associated with an SMS message (FIG. 2, [0041] “messages may be formatted for communication by a plurality of electronic messaging client platforms (e.g.,… text messaging platforms” teaches claimed SMS message), the method implemented within an electronic communications network (“the network”), the network comprising an intermediary system (FIG. 1, enterprise computing system 130 including web content scanning system 120 and electronic messaging system 130) and an addressee system (FIG. 1, remote computing devices 152, 154, 156 of the external network 118 and user computing devices of enterprise networks 114. [0043] “the generated electronic message may be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130 via the enterprise network 114 and/or external network 118”), the method comprising:
the intermediary system examining a reference URI associated with the SMS message (“the message”) prior to access of the message by the addressee system (FIG. 2, [0041] “At 210, an electronic message may be received by the electronic messaging system, where delivery of the electronic message may be delayed until contents of the electronic message may be scanned for weblinks and/or until contents accessed via one or more weblinks included in the electronic message may be analyzed… at 215, the weblink content scanning system 120 may determine whether the electronic message contains at least one weblink within the body of the electronic message and/or within an attachment to the electronic message. An included weblink may be a uniform resource locator (URL) contained directly in the body of the electronic message or may be embedded in an image, as a hyperlink, and/or the like.”);
the intermediary system applying an authorization logic to the reference URI ([0041] “If at least one weblink is found, the content accessible via each weblink may be analyzed at 300” [0042] “After analysis of the one or more weblinks at 300, the weblink content scanning system 120, at 225, may determine that content that is potentially and/or known to be malicious”);
when the authorization logic does not authorize the reference URI for access, the intermediary system replacing the reference URI with a redirection {URI, and enabling the redirection URI for selection by means of the addressee system} ([0042] “After analysis of the one or more weblinks at 300, the weblink content scanning system 120, at 225, may determine that content that is potentially and/or known to be malicious may be accessible via at least one of the weblinks found in the electronic message… If, however, the accessed content is determined to potentially and/or known to be malicious, a modified electronic message may be generated, such as by the weblink content scanning system 120, at 240. For example, the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original electronic message by removing and/or disabling each weblink of the one or more weblinks of the original electronic message found to access malicious content” [0039] “if the analysis engine determines that the generated hash matches a stored hash categorized as being malicious (or potentially malicious), the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original message by replacing the weblink in the original electronic message”); and
transmitting the message to the addressee system with the redirection URI ([0042] “If, however, the accessed content is determined to potentially and/or known to be malicious, a modified electronic message may be generated, such as by the weblink content scanning system 120, at 240. For example, the weblink content scanning system 120 may modify the original electronic message by removing and/or disabling each weblink of the one or more weblinks of the original electronic message found to access malicious content.” [0043] “At 250, the generated electronic message may be sent to the recipient (e.g., user computing device 102) by the electronic messaging system 130 via the enterprise network 114 and/or external network 118”).
Drake does not teach replacing the reference URI with a redirection URI, and enabling the redirection URI for selection by means of the addressee system.
Velthuis teaches replacing the reference URI with a redirection URI, and enabling the redirection URI for selection by means of the addressee system ([0039] “In some implementations of the invention, original URL 220 is evaluated to determine whether to permit access to original URL 220, to automatically prevent access to original URL 220 (e.g., in the event of known malicious content, etc.), or to prevent access to original URL 220 in some circumstances (e.g., prevent access by minors to adult content, etc.)”. [0040] “In some implementations of the invention, in addition to replacing original URL 220 with replacement URL 320 in text message 110, the originating address may also be replaced with a replacement originating address or code to obscure the originating address from the user of mobile device 150.)” [0032] “In some implementations of the invention, the content to which replacement URL 320 points includes a number of user selectable actions (e.g., options, links, etc.) that may be taken by the user.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature replacing the reference URI with a redirection URI, and enabling the redirection URI for selection by means of the addressee system, as taught by Velthuis, in Drake to prevent access to unwanted, inappropriate or malicious content.
Regarding claim 22, Drake teaches in view of Velthuis, teaches claim 21 and further teaches wherein a disabled representation of the reference URI is transmitted to the addressee system ([0043] “weblink content scanning system 120 may include a notification in the electronic message, where the notification may include information regarding each removed or disabled weblink and/or associated… In some cases, notification may include a description of each removed and/or disabled weblink… this notification may be sent to the intended recipient of the original message”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642