DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 12/18/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/18/2023 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-7, 11, and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “using a communication protocol for mail engine encrypted based on the Transport Layer Security Protocol (TLS) as the communication protocol”, is not clear whether communication protocol refers to the communication protocol of claim 1 or the communication protocol of claim 2. It is not clear whether the communication protocol is the same in claims 1 and 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-7 recite “identification information of communication protocol for mail engine”, is not clear whether communication protocol refers to the communication protocol of claim 1 or is a different communication protocol.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11, and 13-16 are objected for the same reasons above.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each limitation using the language “unit for” (e.g., “security inspection unit”, “mail processing unit”, “communication unit”, “mail server access request information processing unit”, “blocking determination unit”, and “access blocking processing unit”) in claims 10-18. The corresponding structure can be found in Para. [0057], “Referring to FIGS. 2 to 4, first, the inbound mail security device 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a control unit 110, a collection unit 120, a security threat inspection unit 130, a relationship analysis unit 140, a mail processing unit 150, a user information management unit 160, a record management unit 170, a vulnerability test unit 180, a communication unit 125, and a mail server access security authentication processing unit 190”, Para. [0060], “The communication unit 125 may include one or more communication modules for communicating with a network where the user terminal 10 or the mail server 300 is located, or with the external mail access device 400”, Para. [0120], “when mail server access request information is received from the external mail access device 400 through the communication unit 125 on the basis of access path information based on the mail communication protocol previously distributed to the outside of the security network of the mail access security system, the mail server access security authentication processing unit 190 performs an authentication process of acquiring one or more pieces of detailed access information included in the mail server access request information by inputting the mail server access request information into a communication protocol processing module for mail engine used by the security threat inspection unit 130 and the mail processing unit 150, and determining whether or not to block the access using the one or more pieces of detailed access information”. In Para. [0123], “the mail server access request information processing unit 191 may configure access path information based on a preset mail communication protocol in correspondence to the inbound mail security device 100, and distribute the access path information based on a preset mail communication protocol to the external mail access device 400”. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recite “the method comprising the steps of: ……” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 1, recite “receiving mail server access request information from an external mail access device on the basis of access path information” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 1, recite “a mail communication protocol previously distributed to the outside of the security network” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2, recite “using a communication protocol for mail engine encrypted based on the Transport Layer Security Protocol (TLS) as the communication protocol” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 5 and 7, recite “wherein the step of determining whether or not to block the access includes the step of ……” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7, recite “inquiring the user terminal”, “block the access according to response data received from the user terminal” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 8 and 9, recite “further comprising the steps of: …..” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8, recite “transferring authentication inquiry information including the mail user identification information and the encrypted mail user password information to the mail server on the basis of the mail server access request information” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10, recite “a communication unit for receiving mail server access request information from an external mail access device on the basis of access path information” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10, recite “a mail communication protocol previously distributed to the outside of the security network” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 11, recite “using a communication protocol for mail engine encrypted based on the Transport Layer Security Protocol (TLS) as the communication protocol” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16, recite “inquiring the user terminal”, “block the access according to response data received from the user terminal” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 17, recite “transferring authentication inquiry information including the mail user identification information and the encrypted mail user password information to the mail server on the basis of the mail server access request information” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naccarato (US 2019/0222608).
Regarding claims 1, Naccarato teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
An operation method of a mail security device that configures a security network of a mail access security system and includes a security threat inspection unit for performing a security threat inspection corresponding to an inbound mail, and a mail processing unit for transferring the mail for which the security threat inspection has been completed to a mail server in the security network, the method comprising the steps of: receiving mail server access request information from an external mail access device on the basis of access path information based on a mail communication protocol previously distributed to the outside of the security network of the mail access security system, by the mail security device; (Naccarato, Paras. [0029]-[0037], [0045]-[0047], and Fig. 1, a system for analyzing an inbound mail, via spoofed Email detection system 118 or 440. The system transfers safe mails to the recipient’s email server 306. The organization’s mail server 306 receives the access/request through a mail communication protocol such as SMTP, and the data associated with the request such as sender and recipient address information used to decide whether to allow or deny the access. SMTP type mail transport which operates between external and internal servers, and the detection system 118/440 inspects inbound messages after external transmission).
acquiring one or more pieces of detailed access information included in the mail server access request information by inputting the mail server access request information into a communication protocol processing module for mail engine used by the security threat inspection unit and the mail processing unit, by the mail security device; (Naccarato, Paras. [0024], [0029]-[0037], [0040]-[0047], and Fig. 1, email message envelope contains the header 222 and the sender/recipient’s addresses 206/208 (i.e., access request information). The envelope is received by the server 306 and input into the detection system 118/440. SPF and DNS queries are the protocol processing functions of a mail engine, performed by the spoofed email detection system, showing the access request information in input to a protocol processing module that the security device uses to make decision).
determining whether or not to block the access using the one or more pieces of detailed access information, by the mail security device; (Naccarato, Paras. [0024], [0034]-[0038], [0040]-[0047], and Fig. 1, the detection system 118/ detection service 440 (i.e., the mail security device), uses the sender/recipient’s addresses/domains from the message envelope, SPF and DNS authorization results, and stored policy data to decide whether to permit or block access to the message).
blocking transfer of the mail server access request information to the mail server according to the determination of whether or not to block the access, by the mail security device. (Naccarato, Paras. [0024], [0034]-[0038], [0040]-[0047], and Fig. 1, when the domain of the sender/recipient is not valid, the email message is identified as an unauthorized email message (i.e., according to the determination), and unauthorized email messages are quarantined in a repository of quarantined email message 444 (i.e., blocking transfer)).
As per claim 10, claim 10 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
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 2-3, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Naccarato (US 2019/0222608), in view of El-Moussa (US 2020/0050760).
Regarding claim 2, Naccarato teaches the limitations of claim 1. El-Moussa teaches the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the mail server access request information is configured using a communication protocol for mail engine encrypted based on the Transport Layer Security Protocol (TLS) as the communication protocol. (El-Moussa, Paras. [0066]-[0067], a secure SSl or TLS session is stablished between the client 402 and the server 404. An application protocol is used for exchanging data between the two at the transport layer).
El-Moussa is combinable with Naccarato, because both are from the same field of message and communication security. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize secure communication protocols like SSL, TLS, SSh in spoof detection systems, as taught by El-Moussa with Naccarato’s method in order to ensure that the transmitted data cannot be altered.
As per claim 11, claim 11 encompass same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Naccarato modified by El-Moussa teach the limitations of claim 2. El-Moussa teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the communication protocol for mail engine includes at least one among a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) standard protocol, a Post Office Protocol 3 (POP3) standard protocol, an Internet Message Access Protocol (TMAP) standard protocol, and a Message Application Programming Interface (MAPI) standard protocol. (El-Moussa, Paras. [0066]-[0067], SMTP is used for sending email, IMAP is used for accessing mail on a server, POP is used for mail retrieval (i.e., at least one among ….. )).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 13, claim 13 encompass same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
Claims 4-9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Naccarato (US 2019/0222608), in view of Golan (US 2005/0097320).
Regarding claim 4, Naccarato teaches the limitations of claim 1. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more pieces of detailed access information includes at least one among mail user identification information, encrypted mail user password information, device identification information, access IP information, access location information, access time information, and identification information of communication protocol for mail engine. (Golan, Paras. [0025]-[0032], authentication based on user ID, device info, IP address, time of login, and location).
Golan is combinable with Naccarato, because both are from the same field of message and communication security between systems and users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize access location and time corresponding to the user ID, as taught by Golan with Naccarato’s method in order to detect abnormal pattern, preventing at attack.
As per claim 13, claim 13 encompass same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Naccarato modified by Golan teach the limitations of claim 4. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the step of determining whether or not to block the access includes the step of determining to block the access when blocking policy information previously configured in correspondence to the mail user identification information matches at least one among the device identification information, the access IP information, the access location information, the access time information, and the identification information of communication protocol for mail engine. (Golan, Paras. [0025]-[0032], blocking or allowing based on risk score. Assessing risk before allowing an access using device info, IP address, time of login, and location).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 4 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompass same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Naccarato modified by Golan teach the limitations of claim 4. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method according to claim 5, wherein the blocking policy information includes learning-based blocking policy information variably configured according to learning data of activity information previously collected in correspondence to the mail user identification information, and the activity information includes at least one among the device identification information, the access IP information, the access location information, the access time information, and the identification information of communication protocol for mail engine corresponding to the mail user identification information. (Golan, Paras. [0033]-[0034], adaptive learning and rule updating of policies based on activity information).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 4 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 15, claim 15 encompass same or similar scope as claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Naccarato modified by Golan teach the limitations of claim 4. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the step of determining whether or not to block the access includes the steps of: inquiring the user terminal, which is set in advance in correspondence to the mail user identification information, whether or not to block the mail server access request information, when the identification information of communication protocol for mail engine set in advance in correspondence to the mail user identification information is different from the identification information of communication protocol for mail engine; and determining to block the access according to response data received from the user terminal in response to the inquiry. (Golan, Paras. [0030]-[0034], [0039]-[0043], [0050]-[0053], discloses interactive communication with user terminal (browser, phone , etc.) for adaptive authentication decision. The risk engine uses stored user identification information, device fingerprints, and communication channels to deny or allow the access).
Golan is combinable with Naccarato, because both are from the same field of message and communication security between systems and users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to adjust security levels, as taught by Golan with Naccarato’s method in order to provide a strong authentication process.
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompass same or similar scope as claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Naccarato modified by Golan teach the limitations of claim 4. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method according to claim 4, further comprising the steps of: transferring authentication inquiry information including the mail user identification information and the encrypted mail user password information to the mail server on the basis of the mail server access request information that is not blocked according to the determination of whether or not to block the access; and transferring the mail server access request information to the mail server according to an authentication response of the mail server corresponding to the authentication inquiry information. (Golan, Paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0039], [0047]-[0050], the system performs a two-stage exchange between user, server, and transactions before granting access. Operations 201-208, shows sending authentication data to a verification module, wait for the response, and then allowing the access when the response confirms validity of the user).
Golan is combinable with Naccarato, because both are from the same field of message and communication security between systems and users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use a response in the authentication process, as taught by Golan with Naccarato’s method in order to apply a multi-factor authentication process.
As per claim 17, claim 17 encompass same or similar scope as claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Naccarato modified by Golan teach the limitations of claim 4. Golan teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method according to claim 8, further comprising the steps of: acquiring mail server access response information corresponding to the mail server access request information from the mail server; and transmitting the mail server access response information to the external mail access device. (Golan, Paras. [0032]-[0034], returning the result of authentication from server to the client/user (external access device)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 18, claim 18 encompass same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Ota (US 2005/0044225) teaches a system of mediating between a server and a user terminal on an internet.
Rittermann (US 2008/0276319) discloses a system for comparing user identification information with the user’s past activity, whether is abnormal.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438