DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/29/26 has been entered.
The claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the new ground of rejection below incorporate newly applied prior art, LeVasseur et al. (US Pub No 2018/0367496), for teaching the newly amended limitations from a user interacting with an electronic mail server to a sender interacting with the sender’s electronic mail server.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: amended limitation at claim 5, line 4 “sent by the user” should read “sent by the sender”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8- 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjorn Jakobsson (US Pub No 2017/0230323) in view of LeVasseur et al. (US Pub No 2018/0367496).
With respect to claim 1, Jakobsson teaches a method of securely sending an electronic mail, the method comprising:
receiving, at a [sender’s] electronic mail server, a request from the sender to send the electronic mail, with the sender having an electronic mail account on the sender’s electronic mail server, [and the sender having previously identified himself to the sender’s electronic mail account] (e.g., “At 204, it is determined that an email message purporting to originate from the sender's first email address has been sent to a recipient” ¶ 0078 & Fig. 2A with the sender having mail account with the electronic mail server by “a sender, having a first email address, is associated with a set of secondary contact data items. Examples of secondary contact data items include a (cellular) phone number, a second email address, an instant messaging identifier, or any other appropriate contact data item.” ¶ 0077);
in response to receiving the request, sending, by the [sender’s electronic mail] server, a security test to be completed by the sender to a trusted device associated with the sender via a [encrypted] secure channel (e.g., “At 206, prior to allowing access by the recipient to the email message, it is requested, using at least one secondary contact item in the set of secondary contact data items, that the sender confirm that the email message was indeed originated by the sender. For example second factor authentication is performed to verify or confirm that the sender did originate the email message. In some embodiments, the at least one secondary contact item is associated with a secondary communication channel. For example, the request may be made using SMS and/or email. “ ¶ 0078 and trusted sender is enrolled in a secondary communication channel ¶ 0088);
the [sender’s electronic mail] server receiving the security test, completed by the sender, via the [encrypted] secure channel (e.g., “At 208, in response to receiving a confirmation from the sender” ¶ 0078);
the [sender’s electronic mail] server verifying the security test completed by the sender (e.g., “At 208, in response to receiving a confirmation from the sender that the sender did originate the email message” ¶ 0078); and
the [sender’s electronic mail] server sending the electronic mail to a recipient’s electronic mail server if the test is validated by the sender (e.g., the server releasing “the email message is delivered to the recipient” ¶ 0078).
Jakobsson disclose the claimed subject matter as discussed above with regards to the sender having an account with the mail server but does not explicitly disclose the receiving of the request is with the user having previously identified himself to the electronic mail account and that the interaction is specifically with the sender’s electronic mail server. However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor of email account and usage verifying, LeVasseur teaches the receiving of the request is with the user having previously identified himself to the electronic mail account (e.g., “he sender first selects an e-mail address and a corresponding eMail2 service 110 from the list of services 110 he or she has previously registered with.” ¶ 0316, “The sender then selects an option to create a new e-mail message.” ¶ 0317 ) and that the interaction is specifically with the sender’s electronic mail server (e.g., “Event B: The eMail2 client plug-in 108 sends a request to the eMail2 service 110, asking for permission to compose and send a new eMail2 message using the specified eMail2 service 110.” ¶ 0318 and “Since all eMail2 messages are sent to an eMail2 service (FIG. 1, 110), the eMail2 service 110 acts as a controlled, centralized, and secure message repository (Private E-mail Network)” ¶ 0097 teaching the email2 service performing steps of a sender’s electronic mail server).
Jakobsson further teaches the use of a secure channel by using only known and valid 2FA contact information (¶ 0054) or using industry secured 2FA token (¶ 0057) but does not explicitly disclose the secure channel is an encrypted channel. However, LeVasseur further teaches an encrypted secure channel (e.g., “The e-mail1 address is at least passively registered (for some services, the e-mail1 address may have to be actively registered) and the plug-in is activated with the service 110. The eMail2 user key is valid for the e-mail1 address being supplied. The eMail2 CPGUID is valid for the e-mail1 address. If the user is not authorized, the workflow ends and he or she is unable to send an eMail2 message.” @ ¶ 0320 and content and message may be encrypted over a secure connection ¶ 0091).
Therefore, based on Jakobsson in view of LeVasseur, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of LeVasseur to the system of Jakobsson in order to incorporate “method of providing for secure delivery of an e-mail message sent, via an e-mail client running on a sender computing device, to a recipient e-mail address” and “intercepting the e-mail message with an e-mail client plug-in running on the sender computing device” (@ LeVasseur ¶ 0019) to maintain e-mail compatibility (¶ 0016-0017). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
The limitations of claim 3 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected with Jakobsson further teaching the blocking of email and “In some embodiments, blocking also includes reporting of the message to an admin” (@ Fig. 9 and ¶ 0262). Jakobsson further teaches quarantining a message, requesting the sender to perform a security test, after not receiving a response before a threshold time has elapsed, permanently blocking the message (@ Fig. 10 and ¶ 0263). Therefore, Jakobsson teaches the additional limitations of “the server rejecting the email or sending it to a recipient other than the one specified in the message, if the test is not validated by the user”.
With respect to claim 4, Jakobsson further teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, at the sender’s electronic mail server, another request from the sender to send another electronic mail; checking a predetermined security parameter; sending of the e-mail by the sender’s electronic mail server if the predetermined security parameter is satisfied (e.g., receiving additional emails ¶ 0064 & 0252 and checking the emails against a deception detectors algorithm ¶ 0103-0117).
With respect to claim 5, Jakobsson further teaches the security parameter comprising: an elapsed time between sending the request and the other request, a change of IP address used by the sender and a date on which the request is sent by the sender (e.g., deceptive compare having multiple addresses and domains ¶ 0108, checking for change in reply-to-address ¶ 0257, and using timestamp of multiple emails to establish relationship ¶ 0255).
With respect to claim 6, the references above further teach in which the security test comprises a comparison of a biometric input with biometric data associated with the sender and stored on the trusted device associated with the sender (e.g., the second factor can be a stronger factor including biometric @ Jakobsson ¶ 0054; and performing biometric authentication @ LeVasseur ¶ 0822). The reason to combine LeVasseur to Jakobsson is similar to claim 1 above.
The limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to claim 6 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
With respect to claim 9, Jakobsson further teaches in which the trusted device associated with the user is a mobile telephone or a USB key (e.g., cell phone ¶ 0044).
The limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to claim 9 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
With respect to claim 12, Jakobsson further teaches wherein the trusted device comprises an application for completing the security test (e.g., 2FA confirmation via multiple application ¶ 0047-0050, 0068 & 0078).
The limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to claim 12 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected with Jakobsson further teaching the request is to receive the electronic mail and sending the security test to the user at @ ¶ 0053 & 0061. Jakobsson also teaches requesting the recipient to pass a security test before releasing the email (¶ 0069, 0264 & 0270-0271). Therefore, the prior arts teaches claim 20 as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights