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 is a reply to the application filed on 10/1/2024, in which, claims 1-2 are pending. Claims 1-2 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/1/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 10/1/2024 is accepted.
Double Patenting
1. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 16, and 19 of US 10904266 B1. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claim 1 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 2, 4, 16, and 19 of US 10904266 B1.
Claim 2 of the present application is not patentably distinct from respective claims 1, 10-14 of US 10904266 B1 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of US 11765185 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claim 1 of the present application and is broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 15 of US 11765185 B2.
Claim 2 of the present application is not patentably distinct from respective claims 1, 9-13, 15 of US 11765185 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claims 1 is e rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 17 of US 12137104 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claim 1 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 10, 17 of US 12137104 B2.
Claim 2 of the present application is not patentably distinct from respective claims 1, 3, 10, 16-18 of US 10904266 B1 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prakash (US 20160014151 A1) discloses a system and method of detecting email based spear phishing by intercepting inbound emails and performing analysis to determine whether the emails are legitimate or malicious by verifying the sender’s attributes such as valid email address, name, domain address, organization record and so forth (Prakash: Fig. 7, ¶16, ¶59-¶60 i.e., ¶67-¶84, ¶184-¶185).
Wescoe (US 9912687 B1) teaches a whitelist a whitelist of various attributes of the senders including senders names, ID, emails etc to verify whether the received message is from a trusted sender or malicious (Wescoe: col. 4:61 to col. 5:3, col. 5:12-33, col. 15:1 to col. 16:25).
Goutal et al (US 20180278627 A1) teaches an email phishing detection mechanism using classification and machine learning wherein sender models are generated and received emails are compared against the models to detect any threshold deviations between received email attributes and the model to determine whether the email is from an actual sender or an impersonating user (Goutal: Figs 3-5, page 2).
US 7413085 B2 is considered pertinent because it discloses verifying the email header including sender information on a whitelist.
US 7290035 B2
US 9805072 B2
US 11470029 B2
US 20020194502 A1
US 20160004852 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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 A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432