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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 1, the claim recites receiving a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise; receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains; performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list; and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer implementation does not put the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 1 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic computer-implementation, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., computer implementation) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The receiving base domain step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving base domain step. The receiving a domain list step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving domain list step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 have also been fully analyzed. Each of these dependent claims are mere recites additional abstract idea or an insignificant, extra-solution activity. Therefore, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the claims have also been analyzed regarding whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 8
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 8, the claim recites receiving a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise; receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains; performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list; and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a generic non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor do not put the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 8 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The receiving base domain step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving base domain step. The receiving a domain list step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving domain list step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 8 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 9-14 have also been fully analyzed. Each of these dependent claims are mere recites additional abstract idea or an insignificant, extra-solution activity. Therefore, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the claims have also been analyzed regarding whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 15
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 15, the claim recites receiving a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise; receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains; performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list; and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a generic system, processor and memory do not put the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 8 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic system, processor and memory, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., system, processor and memory) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The receiving base domain step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving base domain step. The receiving a domain list step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the receiving domain list step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 15 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 16-20 have also been fully analyzed. Each of these dependent claims are mere recites additional abstract idea or an insignificant, extra-solution activity. Therefore, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the claims have also been analyzed regarding whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-7 and 14 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.
Re. claim 1, The BRI of the claim requires the functional language that an entity must somehow receive information, perform a favicon comparison and classify the domains. The claimed function of receiving information, performing a favicon comparison and a classifying the domains are not performed by any element in the claim.
The boundaries of the functional language is unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. It is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating an entity in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. The claims are therefore rendered indefinite.
Re. claims 7 and 14; the claims recite “wherein the domain list is a directory of similar domains, and wherein prior to receiving the directory of similar domains the steps comprise: receiving a domain list…”. The claim indicates that the domain list is a directory, but then it says prior to receiving the directory it receives the domain list. Unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can receive the domain list prior to the directory, when the directory is the domain list. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. The claims are therefore rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-7 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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, 7-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohavi (US 20220070216).
Re. claim 1, Kohavi discloses a method for performing similar domain detection, the method comprising steps of: receiving a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise (Kohavi discloses page favicon [0091]. Message URL [0108]. Newly detected URL [0128]); receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains (Kohavi discloses a library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128 [0091]. Cache 129 and DB 128, 132 lookups [0109]. Group of domains [0128]); performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. Additionally, favicons known to be used in phishing pages are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. The image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons [0091]); and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison (Kohavi discloses the image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons. When favicons of known phishing pages and/or brands are detected by the image comparison, the page under analysis is likely to be a phishing page. It should be appreciated that the image comparison uses ML technique [0091]. Following URL validation and analysis of webpage 150, the scores for each of the phishing score contributors are totaled in step 220 to classify webpage 150. In step 222 the final score is assessed by scan engine 122 to determine whether webpage 150 is a phishing page [0099]. Determine whether the message URL has already been classified as either a phishing site or a known trusted site [0109]).
Re. claim 7, Kohavi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the domain list is a directory of similar domains, and wherein prior to receiving the directory of similar domains the steps comprise: receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains (Kohavi discloses a library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128 [0091]. Cache 129 and DB 128, 132 lookups [0109]. Group of domains [0128]); performing a plurality of similarity checks between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list (Kohavi discloses the image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons. When favicons of known phishing pages and/or brands are detected by the image comparison, the page under analysis is likely to be a phishing page. It should be appreciated that the image comparison uses ML technique [0091]. Following URL validation and analysis of webpage 150, the scores for each of the phishing score contributors are totaled in step 220 to classify webpage 150. In step 222 the final score is assessed by scan engine 122 to determine whether webpage 150 is a phishing page [0099]. Determine whether the message URL has already been classified as either a phishing site or a known trusted site [0109]); and generating the directory of similar domains comprising one or more domains determined to be associated with the enterprise based on the one or more similarity checks (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 [0091]).
Re. claim 8, Kohavi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform steps of (Kohavi discloses computer-readable medium [0135]. Computer programs that are executable at least one programmable processor [0136]): receiving a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise (Kohavi discloses page favicon [0091]. Message URL [0108]. Newly detected URL [0128]); receiving a domain list comprising a plurality of domains (Kohavi discloses a library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128 [0091]. Cache 129 and DB 128, 132 lookups [0109]. Group of domains [0128]); performing a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. Additionally, favicons known to be used in phishing pages are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. The image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons [0091]); and classifying each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison (Kohavi discloses the image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons. When favicons of known phishing pages and/or brands are detected by the image comparison, the page under analysis is likely to be a phishing page. It should be appreciated that the image comparison uses ML technique [0091]. Following URL validation and analysis of webpage 150, the scores for each of the phishing score contributors are totaled in step 220 to classify webpage 150. In step 222 the final score is assessed by scan engine 122 to determine whether webpage 150 is a phishing page [0099]. Determine whether the message URL has already been classified as either a phishing site or a known trusted site [0109]).
Re. claim 14, rejection of claim 8 is included and claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 7 above.
Re. claim 15, Kohavi discloses a cloud-based system comprising: one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to (Kohavi discloses system implementing software and hardware [0134]. memory and processor [0135]): receive a base domain, the base domain being associated with an enterprise (Kohavi discloses page favicon [0091]. Message URL [0108]. Newly detected URL [0128]); receive a domain list comprising a plurality of domains (Kohavi discloses a library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128 [0091]. Cache 129 and DB 128, 132 lookups [0109]. Group of domains [0128]); perform a favicon comparison between the base domain and each of the plurality of domains within the domain list (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. Additionally, favicons known to be used in phishing pages are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. The image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons [0091]); and classify each of the plurality of domains within the domain list as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise based on the favicon comparison (Kohavi discloses the image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons. When favicons of known phishing pages and/or brands are detected by the image comparison, the page under analysis is likely to be a phishing page. It should be appreciated that the image comparison uses ML technique [0091]. Following URL validation and analysis of webpage 150, the scores for each of the phishing score contributors are totaled in step 220 to classify webpage 150. In step 222 the final score is assessed by scan engine 122 to determine whether webpage 150 is a phishing page [0099]. Determine whether the message URL has already been classified as either a phishing site or a known trusted site [0109]).
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, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 20220070216) in view of Sharov et al. (WO 2015072879, hereinafter Sharov).
Re. claim 2, Kohavi discloses the method of claim 1, Although Kohavi discloses performing a comparison between the favicons associated with the base domain and the test domain (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. Additionally, favicons known to be used in phishing pages are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. The image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons [0091]), Kohavi does not explicitly teach but Sharov discloses wherein the favicon comparison comprises steps of: converting favicons associated with the base domain and a test domain to gray, wherein the test domain is a domain from the domain list (Sharov teaches a variety of different visual attributes of favicons or combinations of visual attributes of favicons may be used as indicators of the respective trust scores of web resources [0058]. The color or colorfulness with which favicons are displayed could also serve to indicate trust score, such that, for example, favicons shown in color are indicative of more trustworthy web resources and favicons shown in gray are indicative of less trustworthy web resources, or vice versa [0058]); resizing the favicons associated with the base domain and the test domain (Sharov teaches the size of the favicons may be varied, wherein larger favicons could be indicative either of higher or of lower trust scores than smaller favicons [0058]); inverting one of the favicons associated with the base domain and the test domain (Sharov teaches visual attributes of each of the first favicon and the second favicon are modified in order to convey the trust scores of the web resources they represent [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Kohavi to include wherein the favicon comparison comprises steps of: converting favicons associated with the base domain and a test domain to gray, wherein the test domain is a domain from the domain list; resizing the favicons associated with the base domain and the test domain; inverting one of the favicons associated with the base domain and the test domain as disclosed by Sharov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of measuring the trustworthiness of web resources and reporting those measures to potential users in order to guide them in their decisions as to whether or not to share information or otherwise interact with those web resources (Sharov [0004]).
Re. claim 4, Kohavi-Sharov teach the method of claim 2, Sharov teaches wherein the inverting comprises performing an inversion of the favicon associated with the test domain (Sharov teaches visual attributes of each of the first favicon and the second favicon are modified in order to convey the trust scores of the web resources they represent [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Kohavi to include wherein the inverting comprises performing an inversion of the favicon associated with the test domain as disclosed by Sharov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of measuring the trustworthiness of web resources and reporting those measures to potential users in order to guide them in their decisions as to whether or not to share information or otherwise interact with those web resources (Sharov [0004]).
Re. claim 9, rejection of claim 8 is included and claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 2 above.
Re. claim 11, rejection of claim 9 is included and claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 4 above.
Re. claim 16, rejection of claim 15 is included and claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 2 above.
Re. claim 18, rejection of claim 16 is included and claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 4 above.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 20220070216) in view of Sharov et al. (WO 2015072879, hereinafter Sharov) and in further view of Pevny et al. (“Malicons: Detecting Payload in Favicons”, hereinafter Pevny).
Re. claim 3, Kohavi-Sharov teach the method of claim 2, Kohavi-Sharov discloses resizing the favicon, Kohavi-Sharov does not explicitly teach but Pevny teaches wherein the resizing comprises determining a size of each of the favicons, and resizing a larger favicon to a size of a smaller favicon (Pevny teaches favicons with size of 32x32. Each image was to resized to 256x256 and then 10 random crops of size 32x32 were taken from each [Page 4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Kohavi-Sharov to include wherein the resizing comprises determining a size of each of the favicons, and resizing a larger favicon to a size of a smaller favicon as disclosed by Pevny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of telling which stegranographic technique are stronger for noiseless favicons rather than natural images with noise (Pevny [Page 4]).
Re. claim 10, rejection of claim 9 is included and claim 10 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 3 above.
Re. claim 17, rejection of claim 16 is included and claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 3 above.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 20220070216) in view of Sharov et al. (WO 2015072879, hereinafter Sharov) and in further view of Chiaraviglio et al. (US 11528297, hereinafter Chiaraviglio).
Re. claim 5, Kohavi-Sharov teach the method of claim 2, wherein performing the comparison comprises performing a first comparison between the favicon associated with the base domain and the favicon associated with the test domain before inversion (Kohavi discloses performing image analysis on the webpage favicon. A library of genuine brand favicons of known phishing page targets are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. Additionally, favicons known to be used in phishing pages are stored in resource DB 132 and copy DB 128. The image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons [0091]). Kohavi-Sharov does not explicitly teach but Chiaraviglio teaches a second comparison between the favicon associated with the base domain and the favicon associated with the test domain after inversion (Chiaraviglio teaches the mobile device determines 706 whether the representative image matches an image of a known legitimate website (e.g., using detection module 252 to compare the favicon, or a modified version of the favicon, to images of quilt 500) [Col 8 line 52- Col 9 line 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Kohavi-Sharov to include a second comparison between the favicon associated with the base domain and the favicon associated with the test domain after inversion as disclosed by Chiaraviglio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining the representative image matches of a known legitimate website in order to perform a security action (Chiaraviglio [Col 8 line 52 – Col 9 line 5]).
Re. claim 6, Kohavi-Sharov-Chiaraviglio teach the method of claim 5, wherein the steps further comprise: generating a score for the first comparison and a score for the second comparison; and utilizing a lower score of the scores for classifying the test domain as one of being associated with the enterprise or not being associated with the enterprise comparison (Kohavi discloses the image analysis compares the page favicon to the stored brand and phishing favicons. When favicons of known phishing pages and/or brands are detected by the image comparison, the page under analysis is likely to be a phishing page. It should be appreciated that the image comparison uses ML technique [0091]. Following URL validation and analysis of webpage 150, the scores for each of the phishing score contributors are totaled in step 220 to classify webpage 150. In step 222 the final score is assessed by scan engine 122 to determine whether webpage 150 is a phishing page [0099]. Determine whether the message URL has already been classified as either a phishing site or a known trusted site [0109]).
Re. claim 12, rejection of claim 9 is included and claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 5 above.
Re. claim 13, rejection of claim 12 is included and claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 6 above.
Re. claim 19, rejection of claim 16 is included and claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 5 above.
Re. claim 20, rejection of claim 19 is included and claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chow (US 20220058267) discloses a Web browser coupled to the system may display a banner or list of domain names (or favicons, which may be obtained over the Internet), each showing or otherwise being accompanied by the number of past bookmark submissions, and/or the number of current bookmark submissions that refer to the corresponding domain for a given subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday: Variable EST.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights