DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim filed 9/25/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 17-21 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 9/25/2026: Applicant has amended the specification, and the corresponding objections have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims, and the objections and corresponding 35 USC § 112 rejections and 35 USC § 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims, and the corresponding rejections have been altered to address the amended language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regards to claim:
“Applicant traverses this rejection. Jakobsson fails to disclose the combination of features recited in any of these claims. Jakobsson fails to disclose at least "providing the user with the indication of the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack" as recited in independent claim 1, and the corresponding acts recited in independent claims 11 and 21. The disclosure of Jakobsson in paragraph [0102] that "[t]he output 1610 of task 1602, when provided message 1700 as input message 1608, is an interpretation stating 'phishing email' and 'XYZ Bank,' and a likelihood that is 95%" cannot be validly equated with "providing the user with the indication of the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack." There is no disclosure in Jacobsson the "interpretation stating 'phishing email' and 'XYZ Bank,' and a likelihood that is 95%" is ever provided to a user. The output 1610 of Jacobsson is generated as part of the method illustrated in Jacobsson FIG. 16. Jacobsson discloses in paragraph [0102] that the final output of this method is that "[t]he action 1614 taken as part of task 1606 is to filter out message 1700 and place it in the user's spam folder, and to notify Bank XYZ later in the day of the number of emails with content portion matching terms 1710, 1712, 1714, and 1716, of which message 1700 was one." Neither placing a message in a user's spam folder nor notifying "Bank XYZ" of a number of emails with content portions matching various terms involves "providing the user with the indication of the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack." Each of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and the claims that depend therefrom, including claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-16, and 18-20, thus patentably distinguish over Jacobsson.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant correctly observes that Jakobsson ¶102, standing alone, does not expressly state that output 1610 is provided to the user. However, Jakobsson’s disclosure is not limited to ¶102. Paragraph ¶102 teaches determining the probability that the e-mail is a phishing e-mail, while ¶97 teaches generating scores and rule indicators based on characteristics of an e-mail and, when the resulting output contains a risk score, transferring processing to a warning module that may mark up the e-mail by adding a “warning or explanation”. The claim limitation does not require a numerical probability or risk value to be displayed verbatim to the user, rather it requires providing the user with an indication of the risk level or probability. Accordingly, the warning provided to the user indicates the determined risk level of the e-mail. Therefore, Jakobsson teaches the disputed limitation.
All other arguments presented by Applicant either repeat or rely upon the issues addressed above, and are also not persuasive for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakobsson (US 2020/0067978 A1), published Feb. 27, 2020.
As to claims 1, 11 and 21, Jakobsson discloses a computerized platform for providing a user with an indication of one of a risk level or a probability of an e-mail including a phishing attack (Jakobsson ¶38 techniques for protecting users from communications from malicious entities; ¶36 phishing; ¶70 probability assessment that message is deceptive; ¶102 phishing email with likelihood of 95%), a method (Jakobsson ¶31 technique), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Jakobsson ¶31 computer readable storage medium), hereinafter referred to by the computerized platform, the computerized platform including a hardware processor (Jakobsson ¶31 processor) configured to perform a method comprising: performing an assessment of one or more characteristics of one or more aspects of the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶33 examines characteristics including sender address, name, message text, graphics, audio and referenced web addresses); determining the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including a phishing attack based on results of the assessment (Jakobsson ¶68 hyperlinks, hyperlink text, logos, and urgency terms used increase risk score; ¶70 probability assessment that message is deceptive; ¶102 phishing email with likelihood of 95%); and providing the user with the indication of the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack (Jakobsson ¶102 output indicating “phishing email” with likelihood of 95% ).
As to claims 2 and 12, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively, including wherein the computerized platform is configured to produce a graphical display (Jakobsson ¶40 plugin on web browser client – indicates display environment) including the indication of the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack (Jakobsson ¶102 output indicating “phishing email” with likelihood of 95%).
As to claims 3 and 13, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 2 and 12, respectively, including wherein the computerized platform is further configured to provide an indication of one or more factors contributing to the one of the risk level or the probability of the e-mail including the phishing attack within the graphical display (Jakobsson ¶97 adding warning or explanation to message).
As to claims 4 and 14, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively, including wherein the one or more aspects include one or more of a source of the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶48 evaluates the sender/originator e-mail address, name, location, IP address, domain type and first or subsequent contact), spoof potential of the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶55 likelihood sender information matches purported entity and evaluating DMARC and DKIM), a link within the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶67-68 evaluate whether hyperlinks lead to sender associated domains, and assigns risk score based on hyperlinks and hyperlink text), an attachment to the e-mail (optional limitation – not required), or content of the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶68 assesses bank terminology, urgency language, hyperlink text, and logos and uses them to increase risk score).
As to claims 5 and 15, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, including wherein the one or more characteristics of the source of the e-mail include one or more of whether a domain of the source of the e-mail is trusted (Jakobsson ¶55 matching domain of purported sender), whether the domain of the source of the e-mail is DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance), SPF (Sender Policy Framework), or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) enabled (Jakobsson ¶55 evaluating DMARC and DKIM), whether a top level domain of the source of the e-mail is trusted (optional limitation – not required), whether the top level domain of the source of the e-mail is dangerous (optional limitation – not required), or an age of the domain of the source of the e-mail (optional limitation – not required).
As to claims 6 and 16, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, including wherein the one or more characteristics of the source of the e-mail include whether the user has had prior contact with the source of the e-mail (Jakobsson ¶48 evaluates whether first or subsequent contact).
As to claims 8 and 18, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, including wherein the one or more characteristics of the link within the e-mail include one or more of an indication of whether the link is clear and direct (optional – not required), whether the link is a shortened link (optional – not required), or an indication of whether the link is misleading (Jakobsson ¶57 malicious URL “www.evilhacker.com/acmebank-login” has legitimate bank name “ACME bank”; ¶67 check if link domain leads to sender).
As to claims 9 and 19, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, failing, however, to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more characteristics of the attachment to the e-mail include one or more of an indication of whether a file extension of the attachment is considered dangerous or whether the attachment has a file extension that is consistent with context of the attachment. However, Claim 9 does not require assessment of an attachment because Claim 4 recites the source, spoof potential, link, attachment, and content as alternatives, requiring only “one or more”. As shown in the rejection of Claim 4, Jakobsson assesses the source, spoof potential, link, and content. Accordingly, the limitation qualifying the attachment alternative are not required by the Claim 4 which carries into dependent Claim 9.
As to claims 10 and 20, Jakobsson discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, including wherein the one or more characteristics of the content of the e-mail include one or more of whether the e-mail includes a prompt of urgency (Jakobsson ¶68 assesses bank terminology, urgency language, hyperlink text, and logos and uses them to increase risk score; ¶57 “immediately” “as soon as possible” and “within” “hours” language), whether the e-mail includes spelling or grammar mistakes (Jakobsson ¶107 email having incorrectly spelled wording), or an indication of whether the e-mail appears suspicious to the user (Jakobsson ¶52 making communication available to human reviewers who assess whether the communication appears to have been sent on behalf of the purported authoritative entity and return that assessment to the platform).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson (US 2020/0067978 A1), published Feb. 27, 2020, in view of Jakobsson (US 2017/0230323 A1), published Aug. 10, 2017, hereinafter referred to as Jakobsson‘323.
As to claims 7 and 17, Jakobsson substantially discloses the invention as claimed as described in claims 4 and 14, respectively, failing, however, to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more characteristics of the source of the e-mail include whether a Reply To address of the e-mail matches the source of the e-mail. Jakobsson’323 describes a method for detection of business email compromise. With this in mind, Jakobsson’323 discloses wherein the one or more characteristics of the source of the e-mail include whether a Reply To address of the e-mail matches the source of the e-mail (Jakobsson’323 ¶104-105 Deception detector that checks if Reply To address is not equal to From address; ¶110 determine how deceptive Reply To address is relative to from & sender fields; ¶127 check if Reply To goes to different domain than From). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the Reply To checking of Jakobsson’323 with the phishing attempts detection of Jakobsson, such that one characteristic of the email that is checked is the Reply To address being the same as the source of the email, as it would advantageously reduce the level of risk of replying to the wrong/phishing entity (Jakobsson’323 ¶127).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan et al. (US 2025/0077661 A1) is related to email security detection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
/ERIC W SHEPPERD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
ERIC W. SHEPPERD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2492
