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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11, of instant application provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8, of copending Application No. 19/092,159 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as being explained below.
Instant Application 18/901,192.
Co-pending Application 19/092,159.
Claim 1. A method comprising steps of: receiving an original target domain and a lookalike domain;
converting the original target domain and the lookalike domain into pixelated images; calculating a similarity based on the pixelated images of the original target domain and the lookalike domain;
and
providing a similarity score based on the similarity.
11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform steps of: receiving an original target domain and a lookalike domain; converting the original target domain and the lookalike domain into pixelated images; calculating a similarity based on the pixelated images of the original target domain and the lookalike domain; and providing a similarity score based on the similarity.
Claim 1. A method comprising steps of: receiving an original target domain and a lookalike domain; converting the original target domain and the lookalike domain into pixelated images; calculating a similarity via a trained Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based on the pixelated images of the original target domain and the lookalike domain; and providing a similarity score based on the similarity.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform steps of: receiving an original target domain and a lookalike domain; converting the original target domain and the lookalike domain into pixelated images; calculating a similarity via a trained Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based on the pixelated images of the original target domain and the lookalike domain; and providing a similarity score based on the similarity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartik (US PGPUB 2019/0068638 A1).
As per claim 1, Bartik discloses a method comprising steps of:
receiving an original target domain and a lookalike domain (Bartik, paragraphs 24-26, discloses legitimate domain landing page URL and suspicious URL);
converting the original target domain and the lookalike domain into pixelated images (Bartik, paragraphs 28 and 44);
calculating a similarity based on the pixelated images of the original target domain and the lookalike domain (Bartik, paragraphs 28-30, and 34, discloses The comparison may apply a keypoint extraction algorithm (e.g., KAZE or scale-invariant feature transform SIFT) to match the two screenshots. If the two screenshots contain a large number of matching keypoints, then the screenshots are considered similar and the suspicious URL receives a low phishing score. Alternatively, if the two screenshots contain a low number of matching keypoints, then the screenshots are not considered to be similar and the suspicious URL receives a high phishing score. A high similarity between the screenshots may relate to a benign URL (i.e., domain landing page URL) and a low similarity between the screenshots may relate to a suspicious URL); and
providing a similarity score based on the similarity (Bartik, paragraph 29-30, and 47-48, discloses similarity score).
As per claim 3, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein calculating the similarity is based on a similarity of a location of the pixels of the target domain and lookalike domain pixelated images (Bartik, paragraph 44).
As per claim 6, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the steps comprise: displaying a notification to a customer based on the score (Bartik, paragraphs 25-26).
As per claim 9, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a list of one or more lookalike domains based on similarity (Bartik, paragraph 26).
As per claim 10, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the steps further comprise: utilizing the lookalike domain for performing one or more functions (Bartik, paragraphs 26 and 40).
As per claim 11, Bartik discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors (Bartik, paragraph 12) to perform steps of:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 13, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 6.
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 9.
As per claim 20, please see the analysis of claim 10.
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(s) 2 and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartik (US PGPUB 2019/0068638 A1) and further in view of Mao (CN 113596016 A, hereinafter Mao, an English translation of the CN is being attached herewith and utilized for citation).
As per claim 2, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the Bartik does not explicitly disclose images are converted to a same size and to black and white (0,1) values.
Mao discloses images are converted to a same size and to black and white (0,1) values (Mao, page 11, discloses binary code obtained by pixel value conversion of each pixel point of the black-and-white image with the same size)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartik teachings by implementing image processing technique, as taught by Mao.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for malicious domain name detection (page 1), as taught by Mao.
As per claim 12, please see the analysis of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartik (US PGPUB 2019/0068638 A1) and further in view of Natarajan (US PGPUB 2015/0319182 A1).
As per claim 5, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the similarity score is any of a real phishing score generated by a context similarity score, and a graphical similarity score (Bartik, paragraphs 25, 35 and 44).
Bartik does not explicitly disclose score is generated by a Zulu system.
Natarajan discloses score is generated by a Zulu system (Natarajan, paragraphs 84 and 88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartik teachings by implementing risk analyzer to the system, as taught by Matarajan.
The motivation would be to provide an improved technique to detect malware (paragraph 84), as taught by Matarajan.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, 14, and 17-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartik (US PGPUB 2019/0068638 A1) and further in view of Lev (US PGPUB 2006/0120607 A1).
As per claim 4, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the steps comprise: Although Bartik discloses pixel difference between the original target domain and the lookalike domain, however Bartik does not explicitly disclose calculating a percentage difference based on a quantity of different pixels between the original target domain and the lookalike domain.
Lev discloses calculating a percentage difference based on a quantity of different pixels between the original target domain and the lookalike domain (Lev, paragraphs 58, 87 and 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartik teachings by implementing an image recognition technique to the system, as taught by Lev.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for user authentication, access control, expedited processes, security, or location identification (paragraph 4), as taught by Lev.
As per claim 7, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the Bartik does not explicitly disclose calculating includes utilizing a sliding window logic adapted determine a best lookalike permutation.
Lev discloses calculating includes utilizing a sliding window logic adapted determine a best lookalike permutation (Lev, paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bartik teachings by implementing an image recognition technique to the system, as taught by Lev.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for user authentication, access control, expedited processes, security, or location identification (paragraph 4), as taught by Lev.
As per claim 8, Bartik further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the sliding window logic is configured to add a one-word gap between letters of either the target domain or the lookalike domain (Lev, paragraph 58, discloses sliding window).
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 4.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 7.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights