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 Objections
Claim3 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite an acronym without first defining it in the claim language (email). It is recommended to the applicant to recite “electronic mail (email)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/044,356 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to the detection of a fraudulent communication that involves the determination of a risk level. See for example below, an illustrative table of independent claim 1 in each associated application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application: 18/900,424
Co-pending Application: 19/044,356
A method comprising:
obtaining electronic communication content corresponding to an electronic communication;
determining a risk level of the electronic communication based on the electronic communication content, the risk level corresponding to a likelihood that the electronic communication includes content produced using generative artificial intelligence (AI);
detecting selection of the electronic communication such that the electronic communication is at least partially displayed on a display of a user computing device; and
in response to detecting selection of the electronic communication, when the risk level of the electronic communication exceeds a fraudulence threshold, presenting a notification on the user computing device, the notification comprising one or more elements indicating that the risk level of the electronic communication is high; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors.
A method comprising:
obtaining observational data comprising interaction data on a user computing device;
detecting, in a communication application executing on the user computing device, a command to send an electronic communication;
determining a risk level of the electronic communication based on analyzing the interaction data, the risk level corresponding to a likelihood that the electronic communication is not generated by a human user; and
when the risk level of the electronic communication is below a risk threshold,associating a validation indicator with the electronic communication, and allowing the sending of the electronic communication to proceed; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/382,196 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to the detection of a fraudulent communication that involves the determination of a risk level. See for example below, an illustrative table of independent claim 1 in each associated application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application: 18/900,424
Co-pending Application: 19/382,196
A method comprising:
obtaining electronic communication content corresponding to an electronic communication;
determining a risk level of the electronic communication based on the electronic communication content, the risk level corresponding to a likelihood that the electronic communication includes content produced using generative artificial intelligence (AI);
detecting selection of the electronic communication such that the electronic communication is at least partially displayed on a display of a user computing device; and
in response to detecting selection of the electronic communication, when the risk level of the electronic communication exceeds a fraudulence threshold, presenting a notification on the user computing device, the notification comprising one or more elements indicating that the risk level of the electronic communication is high; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining electronic communication content corresponding to an electronic communication;
assessing a risk level of the electronic communication based on the electronic communication content;
classifying the electronic communication into one of a plurality of risk categories based on assessing the risk level, the plurality of risk categories comprising at least a safe risk category associated with no warnings and a required risk category;
detecting selection of the electronic communication in a communication application such that the electronic communication is at least partially displayed in a user interface of the communication application;
in response to detecting selection of the electronic communication, when the electronic communication is classified in the required risk category, displaying a required warning comprising one or more required warning elements; and blocking an interactive element of the electronic communication until the required warning is acknowledged by a user.
The method of claim 1, wherein the risk level corresponds to a likelihood that the electronic communication includes content produced using generative artificial intelligence (AI)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jakobsson (US 2020/0053111).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Jakobsson discloses a method performed by a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors, and a computer system comprising: one or more hardware processors; at least one memory storing one or more instructions which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform [0452-0458]:
obtaining electronic communication content corresponding to an electronic communication [0027-0030] (the user receiving an email in a launchpad attack);
determining a risk level of the electronic communication based on the electronic communication content, the risk level corresponding to a likelihood that the electronic communication includes content produced using generative artificial intelligence (AI) [0070, 0071, 0130] (a risk score is computed based on factors such as normal and abnormal behavior such as the origin being one of script);
detecting selection of the electronic communication such that the electronic communication is at least partially displayed on a display of a user computing device [0070] (the user believes there is word document and opens it);
in response to detecting selection of the electronic communication, when the risk level of the electronic communication exceeds a fraudulence threshold, presenting a notification on the user computing device, the notification comprising one or more elements indicating that the risk level of the electronic communication is high [0115, 0116] (notifications are sent to Alice and Bob using unaffected channels).
Regarding claim 2, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses in response to detecting selection of the electronic communication, when the risk level of the electronic communication does not exceed the fraudulence threshold, displaying, on the display of the user computing device, one or more elements indicating that the risk level of the electronic communication is low [0115, 0116, 0233, 0234] (notifications are sent to Alice and Bob using unaffected channels).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the electronic communication is an email [0039, 0016].
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the electronic communication content includes content obtained using an integration framework for an electronic communication client executing on the user computing device [0165] (web bug or beacon).
Regarding claim 5, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein selection of the electronic communication is detected using an integration framework for an electronic communication client executing on the user computing device [0165] (web bug or beacon).
Regarding claim 6, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the one or more elements are displayed using an integration framework for an electronic communication client executing on the user computing device [0165] (web bug or beacon).
Regarding claim 7, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the electronic communication content includes content obtained from a communication server configured to handle communications including the electronic communication for a plurality of users including the user [0165, 0258] (security system traps and scrutinizes all outgoing emails).
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the electronic communication content includes content obtained from system-level software executing on the user computing device [0045-0047, 0258] (security system traps and scrutinizes all outgoing emails).
Regarding claim 9 and 17, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses capturing an image rendered on at least a portion of the display of the user computing device; and processing the image to obtain image-derived content; wherein the electronic communication content includes the image-derived content [0196] (a honeypot may be implemented to run the data that has risk associated with it).
Regarding claim 10 and 18-19, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson further discloses identifying a flagged portion of the electronic communication content; identifying a display position of the flagged portion on the user computing device; and displaying, by the display position of the flagged portion, a corresponding warning element indicating that the flagged portion is suspect [0144, 0258] (data may be flagged and a risk assessment may be made).
Regarding claim 11, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson does not further discloses wherein determining the risk level of the electronic communication is based on a model generated based on supervised learning techniques.
However, the examiner takes official notice that at the time the claimed invention was made it was well known in the art to implement a model generated based on supervised learning techniques, see for example cited NPL Unsupervised Pre-training vs Supervised Fine-tuning for LLMs.
Regarding claim 12, Jakobsson disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 20. Jakobsson does not further discloses wherein determining the risk level of the electronic communication is based on a large language model (LLM).
However, the examiner takes official notice that at the time the claimed invention was made it was well known in the art to implement a large language model, see for example cited NPL Unsupervised Pre-training vs Supervised Fine-tuning for LLMs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leddy et al (US 2020/0067861): discloses dynamically updating a filter set includes: obtaining a first message from a first user; evaluating the obtained first message using a filter set; determining that the first message has training potential; updating the filter set in response to training triggered by the first message having been determined to have training potential; obtaining a second message from a second user; and evaluating the obtained second message using the updated filter set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDALL DOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/KENDALL DOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436