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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the communications and remarks filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Acknowledgement to Applicant' s amendments to claims 1 and 18 have been noted. The claim has been reviewed, entered and found obviating to previously raised objection for minor informalities. Objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Acknowledgement to Applicant's amendment to independent claims 11 and 18 have been noted. The claim has been reviewed, entered and found obviating to previously raised rejection under 35 USC 112(b). Rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 11 and 18 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 02/02/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: “On page 4 of the Office Action, claims 1-7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,904,286 B1 to Liu (hereinafter, "Liu")…During the Interview, the Examiner agreed that the foregoing amendment would likely overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully asserts that independent claim 1 is patentable over Liu. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully asserts that independent claims 11, and 18 are also patentable over Liu, for at least similar reasons as to claim 1, and further in view of their own respective features…Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-7, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. The Examiner respectfully submits that after conducting an updated search the presented amendments are taught by Liu US Patent 10904286 B1, in view of Kwon et al, hereinafter (“Kwon”), Korean Patent Publication KR 20180003897 A. As such, the current rejection 35 U.S.C. § 102 is now a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection presented below.
Applicant’s arguments: “On page 4 of the Office Action, claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2023/0060464 Al to Ceesay et al. (hereinafter, "Ceesay"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection and requests that it be withdrawn.
As described above, independent claim 1 is patentable over Liu. Upon review of Ceesay, Applicant has determined that Ceesay fails to remedy the deficiencies of Liu with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that independent claim 1 is also patentable over Liu, and Ceesay, taken individually or in any combination. Applicant further asserts that claims 8-10, which depend from claim 1, are likewise patentable over Liu and Ceesay, taken individually or in any combination, for at least the reasons provided for claim 1, and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. The Examiner respectfully submits that due its dependency of claims 8-10 to independent claims 1, 7, and 11; the rationale presented above in a) applies. As such, the current rejection 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection presented below is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu US Patent 10904286 B1, in view of Kwon et al, hereinafter (“Kwon”), Korean Patent Publication KR 20180003897 A, translated English version merged.
Regarding currently amended claims 1, 11, and 18, Liu teaches a device configured to modify images from a first computing device to a display monitor, the device comprising: a processor; [Liu, col 5, line 22 hardware processor] a memory device comprising program code structured to cause the processor to: receive a first image from the first computing device; [Liu, col 5, line 23-28 computer programs executable …memory. col 9, lines 8-10 feature analyzer 160 receives features of object and images where a static analysis logic 105 extracts images A and B from a received object. col 10, lines 32-42 Fig. 2 shows flowchart illustrating a phishing detection and analysis system (PDAS) 100 where PDAS receives via the communication interface 305 an object for analysis.]; generate a security alert in response to detecting the, col 10, lines 14-24 if the object classifier 180 determines object classifier to be a phishing cyber-attack, then it provides the determination to the reporting engine 190 for alerting.]
While Liu teaches the combined image [Liu, col 10, lines 17-30 when the determination of phishiness of the object is provided to the reporting engine 190 for alerting; the image classifier 170 and object classifier 180 may be functionally integrated into a single component. A network administrator and/or an expert network may optionally include phishing object with the alerts.]; however, Liu fails to explicitly teach but Kwon teaches and outputting the combined image to a display [[or]]; [Kwon, Abstract “outputting a warning image”; p. 5, par 3: “ the warning image output unit 250 can overlay the generated watermark image on the electronic document when the mobile terminal 110 attempting to photograph is detected…The second outflow attempt monitoring unit 260 may monitor the second outflow attempt of the electronic document after the warning image is displayed on the screen of the computing device 100.” ]; and in response to the detector detecting counterfeit secure information, combine the first image with the security alert. [Kwon, p. 5, par 3: “ outputting the watermark image to the electronic document, the user can be notified that the electronic document is important content or secret content. Accordingly, the user's awareness of the security of the electronic document can be enhanced.”].
The combination of Liu and Kwon teach all the features of claims 1-7, 11-17, and 18-20 not explicitly outputting the combined image to a display; and in response to the detector detecting counterfeit secure information, combine the first image with the security alert. Kwon teaches monitoring a first leakage attempt of the electronic document when the electronic document is the confidential document; outputting a warning image, when the first leakage attempt of the electronic document is detected. Because both Liu and Kwon teach alerting of monitored and detected counterfeit or confidential information it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the warning output unit functionality which provides analogous feature of combining where Kwon overlays a warning image with the electronic document [Kwon, Abstract].
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 19, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the secure image is received from a second computing device. [Liu, col 8, lines 51-56 feature analyzer 150 receive the monitored and detected features from one or more virtual machine(s) 120 indicating each image associated with the object to be extracted for provision]
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the secure identifier is received from a second computing device. [Liu col 6, lines 14-27 the parsing engine 107 processes the object as part of the static analysis logic 105]
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the secure identifier is received from a user interface. [Liu col 6, lines 1-12 and 20-27 parsing engine 107 processes received content prompted for user input and data submission; using the syntactic analysis to identify use of elements obtained; the identification of features associated with phishing cyberattacks is an important preliminary indicator of a phishing cyber-attack]
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: generate the secure identifier. [Liu, col 9, lines 10-15 feature extractor 150 may generate a set of properties associated with received image]
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: generate the secure image. [Liu, col 7, lines 60-65 one or more virtual machine(s) may process the object which dynamically displays generated content by the monitoring logic 124]
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
Liu teaches wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: display the secure identifier for visual comparison to a display of the combined image. [Liu, col 2, lines 45-52 extracted images of webpage and generated properties therewith include a graphical representation of a subset of displayed webpage. The PDAS may determine height and width of image in comparison to extracted aspect ratio]
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 18 as described above.
Liu teaches the method further comprising: performing at least one of the following: receiving the secure identifier from a user interface; generating the secure identifier; generating the secure image; or displaying the secure identifier for visual comparison to a display of the combined image. [See Liu, col 7, lines 60-65]
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu US Patent 10904286 B1, in view of Kwon et al, hereinafter (“Kwon”), Korean Patent Publication KR 20180003897 A, translated English version merged, in view of Ceesay et al, hereinafter (“Ceesay”), US PG Publication 2023/0060464 A1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
While Liu teaches a secure identifier [Liu col 5, lines 50-55 static analysis logic 105 comprise an indicator with each object; either “benign” or “phishing”]; however, the combination of Liu and Kwon fail to explicitly teach but Ceesay teaches wherein the secure identifier comprises a character string. [Ceesay, ¶¶0047 and 0051 FIG. 1, the check-cashing server 102 includes an image processing module 122, a character recognition module 124, an image identification module 126. The character recognition module 124 recognizes the optical character recognition (OCR) on scanned check/identity document indicated by character strings.]
The combination of Liu and Kwon teach all the features of claims 1-7, 11-17, and 18-20 not explicitly wherein the secure identifier comprises a character string. Ceesay teaches a image processing module 122 may process the user live visual input performing feature extraction as part of the digital image processing. Because both Liu and Ceesay teach prevention of counterfeit or fraudulent transaction of received digital images it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the phishing detection and analysis system (PDAS) to scan, analyze, correlate, and generate alerts to indicate an object as a phishing attack which are analogous to a spoofing or counterfeiting of information of Liu [Ceesay ¶¶0035 and 0050].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
While Liu teaches a secure identifier [Liu col 5, lines 50-55 static analysis logic 105 comprise an indicator with each object; either “benign” or “phishing”]; however, the combination of Liu and Kwon fail to explicitly teach but Ceesay teaches wherein the secure identifier comprises a quick response (QR) code. [Ceesay, ¶0053 identity documents include security-feature objects such as, but not limited to, quick response (QR) codes]
The combination of Liu and Kwon teach all the features of claims 1-7, 11-17, and 18-20 not explicitly wherein the secure identifier comprises a character string. Ceesay teaches a image processing module 122 may process the user live visual input performing feature extraction as part of the digital image processing. Because both Liu and Ceesay teach prevention of counterfeit or fraudulent transaction of received digital images it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the phishing detection and analysis system (PDAS) to scan, analyze, correlate, and generate alerts to indicate an object as a phishing attack which are analogous to a spoofing or counterfeiting of information of Liu [Ceesay ¶¶0035 and 0050].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liu and Kwon teach claim 1 as described above.
While Liu teaches a secure identifier [Liu col 5, lines 50-55 static analysis logic 105 comprise an indicator with each object; either “benign” or “phishing”]; however, the combination of Liu and Kwon fail to explicitly teach but Ceesay teaches wherein the secure identifier comprises a watermark embedded in the second image. [Ceesay, ¶0053 identity documents include security-feature objects such as, but not limited to, watermarks]
The combination of Liu and Kwon teach all the features of claims 1-7, 11-17, and 18-20 not explicitly wherein the secure identifier comprises a character string. Ceesay teaches a image processing module 122 may process the user live visual input performing feature extraction as part of the digital image processing. Because both Liu and Ceesay teach prevention of counterfeit or fraudulent transaction of received digital images it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the phishing detection and analysis system (PDAS) to scan, analyze, correlate, and generate alerts to indicate an object as a phishing attack which are analogous to a spoofing or counterfeiting of information of Liu [Ceesay ¶¶0035 and 0050].
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 SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:45a-6:45p.
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, CATHERINE THIAW can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/Sakinah White-Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407