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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 02/12/2025, claims priority from Provisional Application 63/552339, filed 02/12/2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 merely recite the steps of storing, adding, determining an identifier and receiving and providing messages. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of, store a list of trusted identifiers, wherein each trusted identifier corresponds to a trusted sender; add an identifier to the list of trusted identifiers in response to receiving an input; receive an incoming message, wherein the incoming message includes an identifier corresponding to a sender of the incoming message; determine whether the identifier of the incoming message is included in the list of trusted identifiers; and provide the incoming message to a user in response to determining that the identifier of the incoming message is included in the list of trusted identifiers (Claim 1), which is grouped within Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with generic computer elements and these generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims fail to be patent eligible when analyzed under the prongs of step 2A and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)).
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, 5-7, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakobsson et al. (9,847,973).
As per claim 1, Jakobsson et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, are configured to: store a list of trusted identifiers, wherein each trusted identifier corresponds to a trusted sender;
add an identifier to the list of trusted identifiers in response to receiving an input;
receive an incoming message, wherein the incoming message includes an identifier corresponding to a sender of the incoming message;
determine whether the identifier of the incoming message is included in the list of trusted identifiers [col. 3, ll. 16-53]; and
provide the incoming message to a user in response to determining that the identifier of the incoming message is included in the list of trusted identifiers [col. 28, ll. 66-col. 29, ll. 14].
As per claim 5, Jakobsson et al. teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to: store a list of third-party trusted identifiers; add a third-party trusted identifier to the list of third-party trusted identifiers in response to receiving a third-party input; determine whether the identifier of the incoming message corresponds to a third-party trusted identifier included in the list of third-party trusted identifiers in response to determining that the identifier of the incoming message is not included in the list of trusted identifiers; and provide the incoming message to the user with an indication in response to determining that the identifier of the incoming message corresponds a third-party trusted identifier included in the list of third-party trusted identifiers [col. 12, ll. 62-col. 13, ll. 34].
As per claim 6, Jakobsson et al. teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to: determine a number of third-party inputs received, wherein each third-party input includes the third-party trusted identifier; and add a third-party trusted identifier to the list of third-party trusted identifiers based on the number of third-party inputs and a predetermined threshold number [col. 36, ll. 27-48].
As per claim 7, Jakobsson et al. teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the input is further defined as a user input including an identifier, and further comprising a step of adding the identifier of the user input to the list of trusted identifiers [col. 18, ll. 50-65].
Claims 11 and 15-17 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
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) 2-4, 8-10, 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (9,847,973) in view of Sullivan et al. (2005/0125667).
As per claim 2, Jakobsson et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Sullivan et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to add the incoming message to an electronic inbox viewable by the user to provide the incoming message to the user [Sullivan et al., paragraph 0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jakobsson et al. with Sullivan et al. in order to use delivery tickets that include data and a checksum to authenticate incoming electronic messages on behalf of a user.
As per claim 3, Jakobsson-Sullivan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to add the incoming message to an electronic trash folder in response to determining that the identifier of the incoming message is not included in the list of trusted identifiers [Sullivan et al., paragraph 0007].
As per claim 4, Jakobsson-Sullivan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the electronic trash folder is viewable by the user [Sullivan et al., paragraph 0007].
As per claim 8, Jakobsson-Sullivan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the incoming message is further defined as an email message, and wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to receive the incoming message from a Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) email server [Sullivan et al., paragraph 0050].
As per claim 9, Jakobsson-Sullivan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the identifier is further defined as an email address [Jakobsson et al., col. 3, ll. 16-39].
As per claim 10, Jakobsson-Sullivan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to provide the incoming message to the user via an email inbox viewable by the user [Sullivan et al., paragraph 0070].
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights