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
This office action is responsive to application filed on 7/21/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending examination.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step One: The claims are directed t the abstract idea of analyzing and categorizing email communications for deliverability assessment. The claims recite collecting data about email delivery and categorization, analyzing relationships between email content and assigned categories, monitoring email deliverability status and providing feedback on the email performance, which are a business practice and mental process category of abstract idea. The concept involves data gathering, analysis, and reporting, which are activities that could conceptually be performed mentally or with pen and paper (even though not very practical). The concept of the claims is similar to those of Fair Warning IP V. Iatric systems.
Step Two, the claims do not recite an inventive a concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The additional elements such as, user computational device, computer network, server gateway, server processor, server memory, are only generic computer components and conventional activities.
The claims do not recite specific algorithms or novel technical processes, or unconventional computer functionality or architecture, nor solutions to technical problems in computer technology. In conclusion, claims 1-12 are directed to the abstract idea of email deliverability analysis without sufficient concrete, technical limitations to provide an inventive concept. The claims merely apply generic computer technology to automate abstract data analysis activities. Therefore, the claims are ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinstein U.S. Patent No. 8,990,316.
As to claim 1, Feinstein teaches a system for email deliverability and security analysis, comprising:
a user computational device;
a computer network;
a server gateway connected to the user computational device through the computer network, the server gateway configured to direct emails to an accessible email server and to determine whether an email recipient inbox has received the email and the categorization of the email (see at least abstract & col. 2 line 59- col. 3, line 6; and & col.11, lines 42-59, Epstein discloses source email server 110, with email transfer module 112 that routes emails through network to recipient email servers; system analyzes which emails made it to which seed accounts and identifies when email contains content that is being blocked as spam);
an analysis engine configured to analyze the assigned category of each email message and the content of that message to determine the connection between the assigned category and the content (see at least col. 11 line 24- col. 12, line 3, and col. 5 lines 46-67, Feinstein discloses deliverability analysis module that uses the logs generated by the nodes… to identify an email deliverability problem); and
a probe sender configured to send one or more probe email messages based on instructions received from the user computational device (see at least col. 1, line 40-52; col. 11, lines 43-59, Feinstein system sends seed (test) emails to seed accounts that have been setup at major ISPs).
As to claim 2, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway is further configured to directly access the email recipient inbox to determine the categorization of the email (see at least col. lines 30-57 and col. 11 lines 43-58, the system can monitor seed accounts where seed accounts can then be monitored to determine how many seed emails have properly passed through the associated spam filters and arrived at which accounts, furthermore the system performs analysis of which emails made it to which seed accounts may enable a business to identify when as ISP has blacklisted its originating address and /or when email contains content that is being blocked as spam).
As to claim 3, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user computational device comprises a user interface for receiving instructions from a user regarding email messages to be sent (see at least col. 4 lines 31-64, the system includes user terminal where a user operating terminal may respond to an email message and interact with the system).
As to claim 4, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway comprises one or more server processors and a server memory (see at least col.12 lines, lines 5-22 and fig. 6, processor circuit 620, and memory circuitry/devices 640).
As to claim 5, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway is in communication with a plurality of email servers, each associated with respective inboxes (see at least col. 3line 55-col.4 line 17, recipient email servers 150-1 to 150-y, where y is an integer).
As to claim 6, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an additional email data server configured to collect information related to email categorization (see at least col. 5 line 17- col.6 line 21, Feinstein discloses, response tracking nodes that are configured to log the received responses (I. e, the image request and /or the content requests), , including recording their identified source IP address and nodes that transmit the requested image data and or content data back to the user email application and collect categorization data and identify an email deliverability problem and collect data about when email contains content that is being blocked) .
As to claim 7, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a cybersecurity data server configured to collect information regarding emails identified as SPAM (see at least col. 2 lines 34-42 and col 3, line 65-col. 4-line 16 spam detected and redirected to recipient ‘s spam folder).
As to claim 8, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway is configured to connect to an IMAP Based Data Source and a JSON Based Mail API (see col. 4, line 46-.col. 5 line 8, Feinstein discloses HTTP responses and URL based tracking systems).
As to claim10, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an email classification and analysis system configured to facilitate the detection and reporting of email presentation to the user and to provide feedback to the sender regarding the deliverability status of the email (see at least abstract and col. 11, lines 43-58, system provides details of the identified deliverability problem and feedback to the sender regarding deliverability status).
As to claim 11, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway utilizes protocols including OAuth and OIDC to programmatically determine the labels and folders of emails (see at least col. 5 line 46- col. 6 line 57, accessing the email to determine categorization of the email and performs analysis of which emails made it to which seed account).
As to claim 12, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server gateway includes a quality throughput control that uses feedback on deliverability to modify sending rates dynamically (see at least col.11, line 59- col. 12, line 3, the feedback based system where the deliverability analysis module may notify operator who can take appropriate actions to investigate the problem and take necessary remedial action and modifying email behavior and adjust threshold range of differences can be observed during comparisons before a message deliverability problem is determined to have occurred) .
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 (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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinstein, and further in view of Rothwell et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,769,016 (referred to hereafter as Rothwell).
As to claim 9, Feinstein teaches the system of claim 1. Feinstein does not explicitly teach the analysis engine comprises an artificial intelligence module. However, Rothwell teaches intelligent spam detection system using updateable neural analysis engine
which uses artificial intelligence that analyzes previous user input for determining whether the message is unwanted (see at least abstract and col.2 lines 37-45 and col. 5 lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Rothwell with those of Feinstein to improve classification accuracy and enhance analysis by using AI methods consequently improving performance of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Dillingham et a. U.S. Patent No. 8,719,356, Methods, Systems, and Computer Readable Media doe Monitoring Deliverability of Electronic Mail Based on Subscriber and Seed Deliverability Data.
- Starbuck et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,533,270, Advanced Spam Detection Techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443