DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/25/2025. Claims 31-50 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 18/467,992, filed on 09/15/2023, which a continuation of U.S application No. 18/048,723, filed on 10/21/2022, which claims priority to U.S provisional application No. 63/270,717, filed on 10/22/2021, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 31-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over both claims 31-50 of any patents granted on application No. 18/467,992 and claims 1-30 of any patents granted on application No. 18/048,735.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “accessing an email of a user email system, performing a discrete analysis of the email to determine behavior of the user and updating a data store that stores indications of internet service activity of users of the email system, based on the discrete analysis.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-50 would be allowable with a terminal disclaimer or rewritten to overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Jeyakumar et al. (U.S Pub No. 2021/0329035 A1, referred to as Jeyakumar), Bratman et al. (U.S Pub No. 2021/0374679 A1, referred to as Bratman) and Wuslich et al. (U.S Pub No. 2021/0390510 A1, referred to as Wuslich).
Jeyakumar discloses threat detection platforms designed to take an integrative approach to detecting security threats, by receiving input indicative of an approval from an individual to access past email received by employees of an enterprise, a threat detection platform can download past emails to build a machine learning (ML) model that understands the norms of communication with internal contacts (e.g., other employees) and/or external contacts (e.g., vendors). By applying the ML model to incoming email, the threat detection platform can identify security threats in real time in a targeted manner.
Bratman discloses techniques for generating and then managing a federated database that can be used to ascertain the risk in interacting with vendors. At a high level, the federated database allows knowledge regarding the reputation of vendors to be shared amongst different enterprises with which those vendors may interact. A threat detection platform may utilize the federated database when determining how to handle incoming emails from vendors.
Wuslich discloses how to dynamically providing cybersecurity training based on user-specific threat information. A computing platform may receive, from a targeted attack protection (TAP) server, user-specific threat information indicating at least one threat that has been encountered by at least one user. The computing platform may identify one or more users to receive cybersecurity training in a first cybersecurity training topic based on the user-specific threat information indicating the at least one threat that has been encountered by the at least one user. Subsequently, the computing platform may load one or more cybersecurity training modules based on identifying the one or more users to receive the cybersecurity training in the first cybersecurity training topic. Then, the computing platform may provide the one or more cybersecurity training modules to one or more user computing devices.
However, regarding claim 31, the prior art of Jeyakumar, Bratman and Wuslich when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “in response to the discrete analysis indicating that the behavior of the user pertains to the user having administrative responsibility for an Internet service established with the email address, updating, based on content of the email, a database that stores indications of Internet service activity of users of the email system; determining, based on the discrete analysis, whether a corrective action for the email is to be taken; performing, by the computer system, an aggregate analysis of behavior of multiple users of the email system, wherein the aggregate analysis takes into account the determined behavior of the user indicated by the discrete analysis of the email; and updating the database based on the aggregate analysis.”
Regarding claims 38 and 44, the prior art of Jeyakumar, Bratman and Wuslich when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “in response to the discrete analysis indicating that the behavior of the user pertains to the user having administrative responsibility for an Internet service established with the email address, updating, using content of the email, a database that stores indications of Internet service activity of users of the email system.”.
Regarding claims 47 and 49, the prior art of Jeyakumar, Bratman and Wuslich when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “in response to the discrete analysis indicating that the behavior of the user pertains to billing associated with an Internet service established with the email address, updating, using content of the email, a database that stores indications of Internet service activity of users of the email system.”.
Claims 32- 37 and 43 depend on claim 31, claims 39-42 depend on claim 38, claims 45-46 depend on claim 44, claim 48 depends on claim 47 and claim 50 depends on claim 49, and are of consequence allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435