The present invention relates to processing electronic mail messages, and more particularly to policy-based electronic mail message processing.
Electronic mail messages have conventionally been utilized for communicating data over a network. Such electronic mail messages have oftentimes been processed based on policies, for ensuring the electronic mail messages comply with such policies. However, traditional policy-based electronic mail message processing has exhibited various limitations. Just by way of example, electronic mail messages have generally been limited to being processed based on security policies for ensuring security with respect to the electronic mail messages.
There is thus a need for addressing these and/or other issues associated with the prior art.
A system, method, and computer program product are provided for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy. In use, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message is identified. Additionally, it is determined whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in response to the predetermined event. Furthermore, a reaction is performed, based on the determination.
Coupled to the networks 102 are servers 104 which are capable of communicating over the networks 102. Also coupled to the networks 102 and the servers 104 is a plurality of clients 106. Such servers 104 and/or clients 106 may each include a desktop computer, lap-top computer, hand-held computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), peripheral (e.g. printer, etc.), any component of a computer, and/or any other type of logic. In order to facilitate communication among the networks 102, at least one gateway 108 is optionally coupled therebetween.
The workstation shown in
The workstation may have resident thereon any desired operating system. It will be appreciated that an embodiment may also be implemented on platforms and operating systems other than those mentioned. One embodiment may be written using JAVA, C, and/or C++ language, or other programming languages, along with an object oriented programming methodology. Object oriented programming (OOP) has become increasingly used to develop complex applications.
Of course, the various embodiments set forth herein may be implemented utilizing hardware, software, or any desired combination thereof. For that matter, any type of logic may be utilized which is capable of implementing the various functionality set forth herein.
As shown in operation 302, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail (email) message is identified. With respect to the present description, the email message may include any mail message capable of being electronically communicated. For example, the email message may be capable of being communicated over a network utilizing an email messaging application (e.g. Microsoft® Outlook®, etc.).
Further, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. Such request, command, etc. may be received from a user of a client device utilized to generate, view, etc. the email message. As another option, the request, command, etc. may be received from an administrator, such as an administrator (e.g. of a server device via which the email message is communicated from a first client device to a second client device, etc.).
For example, in one embodiment, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. to send the email message (e.g. over the network to a designated recipient). As an option, the request, command, etc. to send the email message may include a user selection of an option to send the email message. The user selection may be performed utilizing the email messaging application, for example.
In another embodiment, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. to determine whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy. For example, the request, command, etc. may include a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy (e.g. where such etiquette policy is associated with a minimum threshold for etiquette of the email message). Such option may include a button included in a graphical user interface (GUI), just by way of example.
The option may be selected during composition of the email message, and thus while a window displaying contents of the email message is displayed. In another embodiment, the option may be selected after composition of the email message, and thus without contents of the email message being displayed. For example, the option may be selected with respect to a previously drafted (e.g. and not yet sent) email message, such as an email message stored in a drafts folder of the email messaging application.
To this end, indicia may be displayed, such that the predetermined event may include selection of the indicia (e.g. by a user). In various embodiments, the indicia may include a send icon, a check icon (e.g. for initiating the determination of whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy), etc., as noted above. In this way, the predetermined event may optionally be manually generated. For example, the predetermined event may include an on-demand event.
Of course, as another option, the predetermined event may be automatically generated. Just by way of example, in one embodiment, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message over a network. As an option, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message at a client device to which the email message is destined. As another option, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message at a server device, such as a server device utilized for communicating the email message from a first client device to a second client device.
While various embodiments of the predetermined event have been described above, it should be noted that the predetermined event may include any type of event predetermined for the email message. Moreover, in various embodiments, the predetermined event may be identified by a client device capable of being utilized to send the email message, a client device that received the email message, a server device that received the email message, etc. For example, the predetermined event may be identified by an agent, plug-in, and/or any other application installed on any of such devices.
In addition, as shown in operation 304, it is determined whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in response to the predetermined event. Accordingly, in response to the identification of the predetermined event, it may be determined whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. To this end, the determination may optionally be carried out at any of the client devices and/or the server device described above. Just by way of example, the determination may be carried out utilizing an application situated on any of such devices.
With respect to the present description, the etiquette policy may include any policy capable of being utilized for determining whether etiquette of the email message is compliant with a predefined etiquette. For example, the policy may include rules indicating the predefined etiquette. In this way, portions (e.g. a body, attachment, header, etc.) of the email message may be compared with the etiquette policy (e.g. with rules of the etiquette policy) for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.
In one embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a size of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to exceed a predefined threshold size (e.g. 1 megabyte, etc.). Thus, a size of the email message may be compared to the size indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In this way, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the size of the email message exceeds the size indicated by the etiquette policy.
In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a format of the email message (e.g. a format of content of the email message). For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined format. As another example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined format based on a recipient of the email message. The format may include plain text, hypertext markup language (HTML), rich text format (RTF), etc. To this end, a format of the email message may be compared to the format indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. Accordingly, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the format of the email message does not comply with the format indicated by the etiquette policy.
In yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a disclaimer included in the email message. As an option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a disclaimer. As another option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a predefined disclaimer, a disclaimer with a predefined format, etc. Thus, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the email message does not include a disclaimer as indicated by the etiquette policy.
In still yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a signature (e.g. digital signature, etc.) of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a signature. As another option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a predefined signature, a signature with a predefined format, etc. Thus, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the email message does not include a signature as indicated by the etiquette policy.
In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a font of the email message (e.g. a font of text included in the email message). Just by way of example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined font type, font size, etc. Accordingly, a font of text included in the email message may be compared to the font indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. It may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the font of text included in the email message does not comply with the font indicated by the etiquette policy.
In yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a number of recipients of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to be sent to more than a predefined threshold number of recipients (e.g. 10 recipients, etc.). Thus, a number of recipients of the email message (e.g. as designated by a header of the email message, etc.) may be compared to the threshold number of recipients indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In this way, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of recipients of the email message exceeds the threshold number of recipients indicated by the etiquette policy.
In still yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a distribution list (e.g. collection of recipients) utilized by the email message. As an option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to be addressed to more than a predefined number of distribution lists. A number of distribution lists utilized by the email message (e.g. as designated by a header of the email message, etc.) may optionally be compared to the predefined number of distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. As another option, it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of distribution lists utilized by the email message exceeds the predefined number of distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy.
In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a number of attachments and/or a type of attachment of the email message (e.g. included in the email message). For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to include more than a predefined number of attachments (e.g. 5 attachments, etc.), such that it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of attachments of the email message exceeds the predefined number of attachments indicated by the etiquette policy. As another example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to include, or is optionally only allowed to include, a predefined type of attachment (e.g. an executable attachment, etc.), such that it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the type of attachment of the email message is not compliant with the type of attachment indicated by the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to whether multiple attachments of the email message are compressed as a zip file.
It should be noted that while various etiquette of the etiquette policy has been described above, such etiquette and/or any other etiquette may be included in the etiquette policy in combination, etc. Just by way of example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is only allowed to have a predefined format and a predefined recipient. Of course, the etiquette policy may be configured as desired (e.g. by an administrator, etc.).
Moreover, a reaction is performed, based on the determination, as shown in operation 306. The reaction may optionally include any number of actions, such as a single action, a combination of actions, etc. Such actions may include the reactions described below, for example.
For example, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy, a first reaction may be performed. In one embodiment, the reaction may include categorizing (e.g. flagging, etc.) the email message as compliant, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the reaction may include allowing the email message to be transmitted (e.g. to recipients designated by the email message), if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In yet another embodiment, the reaction may include reporting the compliance of the email message (e.g. the report created based on an event and/or data generated in response to the compliance of the email message), if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.
In yet another embodiment the reaction may include logging a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. a compliance of the email message) if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In still yet another embodiment, the reaction may include sending an event and/or any other data indicative of the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. indicative of a compliance of the email message), etc. to a management server, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.
As another example, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy, a second reaction that is different from the first reaction may be performed. In one embodiment, the reaction may include preventing the email message from being transmitted (e.g. to recipients designated by the email message), if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. Just by way of example, the email message may be quarantined, deleted, etc., if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy.
In another embodiment, the reaction may include categorizing the electronic at non-compliant, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. In yet another embodiment, the reaction may include reporting the email message (e.g. the report created based on an event and/or data generated in response to the non-compliance of the email message), if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. For example, an information technology (IT) department of an organization that is a source or recipient of the email message may be notified, an administrator (e.g. IT administrator) may notified, a manager (e.g. senior management) may be notified, etc.
In still yet another embodiment, the reaction may include sending an event and/or any other data indicative of the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. indicative of a non-compliance of the email message), etc. to a management server, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the reaction may include logging the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. a non-compliance of the email message), etc., if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy.
To this end, it may optionally be ensured that the email message is only transmitted if such email message complies with an etiquette policy. Ensuring such compliance may further ensure that a reputation of a sender of the email message, an organization employing the sender, etc. is maintained at a desired level (e.g. by preventing transmittal of non-compliant email messages based on which a recipient may judge a reputation of the sender, organization, etc.), in various embodiments.
More illustrative information will now be set forth regarding various optional architectures and features with which the foregoing technique may or may not be implemented, per the desires of the user. It should be strongly noted that the following information is set forth for illustrative purposes and should not be construed as limiting in any manner. Any of the following features may be optionally incorporated with or without the exclusion of other features described.
As shown, the client-side system 400 includes a client device (hereinafter referred to as the client device 400). The client device 400 may include any client device capable of determining whether an email message is compliant with an etiquette policy 406, and reacting based on such determination. For example, the client device 400 may include a device utilized by a user to compose the email message, send the email message to a recipient device (e.g. over a network), etc. For example, the client device 400 may include a sending mail client or a receiving mail client. As an option, the client device 400 may include any of the client devices described above with respect to
In addition, the client device 400 includes an email application 402. The email application 402 may include any program, code, etc. that may be utilized for managing the email message. In various embodiments, the email application 402 may be used for composing the email message, sending the email message to a recipient device, receiving the email message, etc.
Further, the client device 400 includes an etiquette policy checking and enforcement agent 404 (hereinafter referred to as the agent 404). With respect to the present embodiment, the agent 404 may include a module (e.g. computer code) for determining whether an email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, and reacting based on such determination.
In one embodiment, the agent 404 may identify a predetermined event associated with the email message. For example, the agent 404 may identify receipt of the email message. As another example, the agent 404 may identify user selection of an option to send the email message to a recipient. As yet another example, the agent 404 may identify user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. For example, the user may select the option for a selected plurality of email messages, such that the selected email messages are subject to the determination and any reaction based on the determination.
Such predetermined event may optionally be identified based on monitoring performed by the agent 404 for the predetermined event. As another option, the predetermined event may be identified in response to a notification received from the email application 402 indicating occurrence of the predetermined event.
In another embodiment, the agent 404 may determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, in response to the predetermined event. For example, the agent 404 may compare characteristics of the email message to the etiquette policy 406 for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. The characteristics of the email message may include a size of the email message, a format of the email message, a disclaimer associated with the email message, etc.
As an option, the etiquette policy 406 may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, the agent 404 may determine whether the email message is compliant with each etiquette policy in the set of etiquette policies. As another option, the etiquette policy 406 may be locally stored on the client device 400. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 406, and optionally any updates thereto, may be received by the client device 400 from a centralized and/or distributed server, such as an etiquette policy management server, over a network. Of course, however, the etiquette policy 406 may be received by the client device 400 in any desired manner.
In yet another embodiment, the agent 404 may react, based on the determination of whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. For example, if the agent 404 determines that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may allow the email message to be sent a recipient designated by the email message. As another example, the agent 404 may report the compliance of the email message to a user of the client device 400, an administrator of a remote server device (not shown), etc.
Just by way of example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the agent 404 may allow the email message to be sent in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. As another example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may report the compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406.
However, if the agent 404 determines that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may prevent sending of the email message. As another option, the agent 404 may report the non-compliance of the email message to a user of the client device 400, an administrator of a remote server device (not shown), etc. For example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the agent 404 may prevent the email message from being sent in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406. As another example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may report the non-compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406.
As shown, the server-side system 450 includes a serve device (hereinafter referred to as the server device 450). The server device 450 may include any server device capable of determining whether an email message is compliant with an etiquette policy 456, and reacting based on such determination. For example, the server device 450 may include a device utilized to send the email message from a first client device to a second client device designated by the email message, etc. As another example, the server device 450 (e.g. mail server) may include either a sending mail server or a receiving mail server. If the email message is sent across different organizations (e.g. networks, etc.), there may be multiple mail servers involved in the email message transmission/reception. As an option, the server device 450 may include any of the server devices described above with respect to
In addition, the server device 450 includes an email application 452. The email application 452 may include any program, code, etc. that may be utilized for managing the email message. In various embodiments, the email application 452 may be used for sending the email message to a recipient device, receiving the email message from a client device, storing the email message, etc. As an option, the email application 452 may manage (e.g. store, etc.) email messages associated with a plurality of email messaging applications of various client devices (e.g. such as the client device 400 of
Further, the server device 450 includes an etiquette policy checking and enforcement module 454 (hereinafter referred to as the module 454). With respect to the present embodiment, the module 454 may include computer code, a plug-in, a component, etc. for determining whether an email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, and reacting based on such determination.
In one embodiment, the module 454 may identify a predetermined event associated with the email message. For example, the module 454 may identify receipt of the email message. As another example, the module 454 may identified a user (e.g. administrator) selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. For example, the user may select the option for email messages received within a designated period of time (e.g. a particular month, day, etc.), for emails received with respect to designated email applications of at least one client device (e.g. emails communicated to the client device via the server device 450, emails communicated from the client device via the server device 450), etc. In this way, the user may optionally be allowed to select a plurality of emails for being subject to the determination of whether such emails comply with the etiquette policy 456, and thus subject to a reaction based on the determination.
Such predetermined event may optionally be identified based on monitoring performed by the module 454 for the predetermined event. As another option, the predetermined event may be identified in response to a notification received from the email application 452 indicating occurrence of the predetermined event.
In another embodiment, the module 454 may determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, in response to the predetermined event. For example, the module 454 may compare characteristics of the email message to the etiquette policy 456 for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. The characteristics of the email message may include a size of the email message, a format of the email message, a disclaimer associated with the email message, etc.
As an option, the etiquette policy 456 may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, the module 454 may determine whether the email message is compliant with each etiquette policy in the set of etiquette policies. As another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be locally stored on the server device 450. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be received by the server device 450 from a centralized and/or distributed server, such as an etiquette policy management server, over a network. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be configured at the server device 450. For example, the server device 450 may be utilized for distributing the etiquette policy 456 to a plurality of other devices (e.g. such as the client device 400 of
In yet another embodiment, the module 454 may react, based on the determination of whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. For example, if the module 454 determines that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may allow the email message to be sent a recipient designated by the email message. As another example, the module 454 may report the compliance of the email message to an administrator associated with the server device 450, a client device from which the email message was received (not shown), etc.
Just by way of example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may report the compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the module 454 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456.
However, if the module 454 determines that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may prevent sending of the email message. As another option, the module 454 may report the non-compliance of the email message to an administrator associated with the server device 450, a client device from which the email message was received (not shown), etc. For example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may report the non-compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the module 454 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 456.
As shown in decision 502, it is determined whether a predetermined event associated with an email message is identified. The email message may include any email message capable of being created, managed, sent, etc. by an email application. If it is determined that the predetermined event is not identified, the method 500 continues to wait for a predetermined event associated with an email message to be identified.
If, however, it is determined that the predetermined event is identified, an etiquette policy is applied to the email message. Note operation 504. The etiquette policy may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, as an option, each of the etiquette policies in the set of etiquette policies may be applied to the email message. Applying the etiquette policy to the email message may include comparing the etiquette policy to the email message. For example, rules of the etiquette policy may be compared with characteristics of the email message.
Additionally, it is determined whether the email message complies with the etiquette policy, as shown in decision 506. For example, the determination may be made based on the comparison of the etiquette policy to the email message. In this way, it may optionally be determined whether the characteristics of the email message comply with the rules of the etiquette policy.
If it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy, transmission of the email message is allowed. Note operation 508. As an option, the email message may be automatically transmitted if it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy. Just by way of example, if the identified predetermined event (see decision 502) includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the email message may be automatically transmitted in response to a determination that the email message complies with the etiquette policy.
Of course, as another option, the email message may only be transmitted after a manual selection for such transmittal, after it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy. For example, if the identified predetermined event (see decision 502) does not include a user selection of an option to send the email message (e.g. includes instead a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy), the email message may only be transmitted after a selection by the user of the option to send the email. The email may optionally be flagged for indicating the compliance of the email with the etiquette policy, such that the email may be automatically transmitted in response to a user selection of an option to send the email message.
If it is determined that the email message does not comply with the etiquette policy, an action is taken. Note operation 510. In one embodiment, the action may include preventing transmittal of the email message. For example, if the identified predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, automatic transmittal of the email message in response to such user selection may be prevented. As another example, if the identified predetermined event does not include a user selection of an option to send the email message (e.g. includes instead a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy), any transmittal of the email message based on a subsequent user selection of an option to send the email message may be prevented.
With respect to the GUIs 600-620 shown in
In one embodiment, at least one of the mail boxes 602 may be selected. For example, the mail box 602 may be selected by a user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed. As an option, the device may include a server device utilized by an organization, and the user may include an administrator of the organization.
In another embodiment, an option 604 to determine whether email messages included in the mail box 602 comply with an etiquette policy may be displayed for selection. The user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed may select the option 604, for example. Selection of such option 604 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the email messages included in the mail box 602 are compliant with the etiquette policy.
As shown in the GUI 610 of
Additionally, a selectable option 612 to determine whether the email message complies with an etiquette policy may displayed in the GUI 610 with the contents of the email message. The user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed may select the option 612, for example. Selection of such option 612 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.
As shown in the GUI 620 of
At least one of the email messages 622 may be selected (as shown, the three shaded email messages are selected). For example, a user of the device via which the GUI 620 is displayed may select the email messages 622. Upon selection of the email messages 622, a drop down menu of options may be displayed via the GUI 620.
As shown, one of such options may include a selectable option 624 to determine whether the selected email messages comply with an etiquette policy. Accordingly, the user of the device via which the GUI 620 is displayed may select the option 624. Selection of such option 624 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the selected email messages are compliant with the etiquette policy.
While various embodiments have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Thus, the breadth and scope of a preferred embodiment should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4797447 | Gergen et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
5195086 | Baumgartner et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5280527 | Gullman et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5485068 | Vaught | Jan 1996 | A |
5572694 | Uchino | Nov 1996 | A |
5796948 | Cohen | Aug 1998 | A |
5845068 | Winiger | Dec 1998 | A |
5941915 | Federle et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5987610 | Franczek et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081265 | Nakayama et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6177932 | Galdes et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6240417 | Eastwick et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6367019 | Ansell et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6460050 | Pace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6658566 | Hazard | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6718367 | Ayyadurai | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6741851 | Lee et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6820204 | Desai et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6934857 | Bartleson et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6957330 | Hughes | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6961765 | Terry | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7023816 | Couillard | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7100123 | Todd et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7124197 | Ocepek et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7149778 | Patel et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7194623 | Proudler et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7194728 | Sirota et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7222305 | Teplov et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7257707 | England et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7278016 | Detrick et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7313615 | Fitzpatrick et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7346778 | Guiter et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7350074 | Gupta et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7350084 | Abiko et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7383433 | Yeager et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7424543 | Rice, III | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7434543 | Raukola et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7437752 | Heard et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7441000 | Boehringer et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7461249 | Pearson et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7475420 | Hernacki | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7484247 | Rozman et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7490355 | Wong | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7497447 | Musselman | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506155 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7519984 | Bhogal et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7523484 | Lum et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7526654 | Charbonneau | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7539857 | Bartlett et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7559080 | Bhargavan et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7581004 | Jakobson | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7630986 | Herz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7653811 | Yagiura | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7660845 | Fusari | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7661124 | Ramanathan et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7689563 | Jacobson | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7725934 | Kumar et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730040 | Reasor et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7742406 | Muppala | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7847694 | Lee et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877616 | Abiko et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890587 | Chebiyyam | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7940756 | Duffy et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
8103727 | Lin | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8111413 | Nuggehalli et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8151363 | Smithson | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8181036 | Nachenberg | May 2012 | B1 |
8199965 | Basavapatna et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8272058 | Brennan | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8353053 | Chebiyyam | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8446607 | Zucker et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8590002 | Chebiyyam | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8621008 | Chebiyyam | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8713468 | Chebiyyam | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8893285 | Zucker et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8943158 | Chebiyyam | Jan 2015 | B2 |
20010046069 | Jones | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020046275 | Crosbie et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046575 | Hayes et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020083003 | Halliday et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099944 | Bowlin | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020157089 | Patel et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030043039 | Merrem et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046679 | Singleton | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065937 | Watanabe et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097583 | Lacan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105979 | Itoh et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030133443 | Klinker et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135744 | Almeida | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030177394 | Dozortsev | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182435 | Redlich et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030192033 | Gartside et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030233421 | Shibata et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003255 | Apvrille et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006715 | Skrepetos | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010686 | Goh et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040027601 | Ito et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034794 | Mayer et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054928 | Hall | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064732 | Hall | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088433 | Kaler et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111482 | Bourges-Waldegg et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117802 | Green | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040146006 | Jackson | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040172557 | Nakae et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199555 | Krachman | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199566 | Carlson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199596 | Nutkis | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230572 | Omoigui | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040255138 | Nakae | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004359 | Rai et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033810 | Malcolm | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038853 | Blanc et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044359 | Eriksson et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050058285 | Stein et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060643 | Glass et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050116749 | Pentakota et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131990 | Jewell | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132184 | Palliyil et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154885 | Viscomi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050166066 | Ahuja et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050172140 | Ide | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050198285 | Petit | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204009 | Hazarika et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216749 | Brent | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050262208 | Haviv et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050272861 | Qiao et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050275861 | Ferlitsch | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289181 | Deninger et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005244 | Garbow et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060010150 | Shaath et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060010209 | Hodgson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060010217 | Sood | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021043 | Kaneko et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026593 | Canning et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031359 | Clegg et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060039554 | Fry | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041930 | Hafeman et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060050879 | Iizuka | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059548 | Hildre et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060070089 | Shoaib et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075040 | Chimaytelli | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075502 | Edwards | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060112166 | Pettigrew et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060120526 | Boucher et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123413 | Collet et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123479 | Kumar et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060132824 | Aritomi | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060168026 | Keohane et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060190986 | Mont et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060224589 | Rowney et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248252 | Kharwa | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070022285 | Groth et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028112 | Mackelden et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070029744 | Musselman | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033283 | Brown | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070064883 | Rosenthal et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074292 | Mimatsu | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070094394 | Singh et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101419 | Dawson | May 2007 | A1 |
20070110089 | Essafi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070118904 | Goodman et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136593 | Plavcan et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143472 | Clark et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143851 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070174909 | Burchett et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070198656 | Mazzaferri et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070214220 | Alsop et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220319 | Desai et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070245148 | Buer | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070256142 | Hartung et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070279668 | Czyszczewski et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070280112 | Zheng et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080034224 | Ferren et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080040358 | Deng | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080065882 | Goodman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065903 | Goodman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080079730 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080083037 | Kruse et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120689 | Morris et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080170785 | Simmons et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208988 | Khouri et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080229428 | Camiel | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080262991 | Kapoor et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080279381 | Narendra et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080309967 | Ferlitsch et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090055536 | Jo | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090086252 | Zucker et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090172786 | Backa | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090182931 | Gill et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090232300 | Zucker et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090327743 | Finlayson et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100174784 | Levey et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100250547 | Grefenstette et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110167265 | Ahuja et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110273554 | Su et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120011189 | Werner et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120183174 | Basavapatna et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120191792 | Chebiyyam | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20130276061 | Chebiyyam | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140115086 | Chebiyyam | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140283145 | Chebiyyam et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2411330 | Aug 2005 | GB |
WO 02093410 | Nov 2002 | WO |
WO 2006076536 | Jul 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432, filed Sep. 5, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Aug. 17, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/123,370, filed May 19, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed Apr. 14, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/210,321, filed Aug. 23, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Jun. 23, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Feb. 6, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 26, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Nov. 29, 2006. |
Fumera, G. et al., “Spam Filtering Based on the Analysis of Text Information Embedded into Images,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, Dec. 2006. |
Non-Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Dec. 8, 2008. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated Dec. 8, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Mar. 9, 2009. |
Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Jun. 10, 2009. |
Notice of Appeal in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Dec. 10, 2009. |
Appeal Brief filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Dec. 10, 2009. |
Examiner Interview Summary in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Feb. 5, 2010. |
Non-Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Mar. 22, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated Mar. 22, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Jul. 22, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Nov. 8, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Aug. 17, 2009. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 17, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 17, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jan. 26, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Apr. 26, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jul. 16, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Dec. 16, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Mar. 10, 2011. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated Mar. 10, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Jun. 10, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed Nov. 2, 2009. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on Nov. 2, 2009 U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Feb. 2, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed on Apr. 21, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on Apr. 21, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Jul. 21, 2010. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed on Oct. 21, 2010. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Feb. 22, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 14, 2009. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 14, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Oct. 14, 2009. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jan. 11, 2010. |
Response to Final Office Action dated Jan. 11, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Mar. 11, 2010. |
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Mar. 25, 2010. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Mar. 29, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jun. 24, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 24, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Nov. 24, 2010. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Feb. 18, 2011. |
Response to Final Office Action dated Feb. 18, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 18, 2011. |
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Apr. 27, 2011. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed May 18, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Oct. 12, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated Oct. 12, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Feb. 14, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on May 5, 2011. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Jul. 5, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on May 23, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Apr. 28, 2011. |
ClearContext, www.clearcontext.com/user—guide/; [available online at at URL <http://web.archive.org/20061107135010/http://www.clearcontext.com/user—guide/>], Nov. 7, 2006 (pp. 1-24). |
Dabbish, et al., “Understanding Email Use: Predicting Action on a Message,” CHI 2005—Papers: Email and Security, Portland Oregon; available online at URL: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/˜kraut/Rkraut.site.files/articles/dabbish05-UnderstandingEmailUse.pdf>] Apr. 2-7, 2005 (pp. 691-700). |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jul. 20, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Jul. 21, 2011. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163, filed Jul. 28, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Dec. 21, 2011. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 filed Jan. 3, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jan. 19, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 filed Jan. 19, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Feb. 16, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Response in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Feb. 21, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Mar. 1, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Mar. 22, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Preventing Image-Related Data Loss”, filed on Mar. 24, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Apr. 3, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Mar. 29, 2012, entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Determining Whether an Electronic Mail Message is Compliant with an Etiquette Policy”, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 19, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Apr. 16, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 16, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Apr. 27, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jun. 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 10, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Jul. 10, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Jul. 23, 2011. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated May 23, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420, filed Aug. 22, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Sep. 14, 2011. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 20, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Oct. 19, 2011. |
Response to Non-Final Action dated Jul. 21, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Oct. 19, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Nov. 2, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Oct. 19, 2011. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 14, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Mar. 16, 2012. |
Layland, Robin, “Data Leak Prevention: Coming Soon to a Business Near You,” Business Communications Review, May 2007 (pp. 44-49). |
Heikkila, Faith M., “Encryption: Security Considerations for Portable Media Devices,” IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Security & Privacy, Jul.-Aug. 2007 (pp. 22-27). |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed May 29, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Aug. 8, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment to in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 7, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Aug. 6, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Aug. 15, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Nov. 15, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 23, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420, filed Oct. 23, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on May 9, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Dec. 6, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Sep. 4, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 4, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163, filed Dec. 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Aug. 20, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 20, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Nov. 20, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 4, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed May 06, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Apr. 5, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 3, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Mar. 25, 2013. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Apr. 15, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Feb. 4, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Feb. 12, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jul. 16, 2013. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 05, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Jul. 5, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jul. 29, 2013. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 3, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Aug. 5, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Sep. 5, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Sep. 10, 2013. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 23, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Aug. 23, 2013. |
Masaru Takesue, “A Scheme for Protecting the Information Leakage Via Portable Devices,” IEEE, 2007. |
Hangbae Chang et al., “Design of Inside Information Leakage Prevention System in Ubiquitous Computing Environment,” Springer Verlag, 2005. |
Mingdi Xu et al., “A New Data Protecting Scheme Based on TPM,” IEEE, 2007. |
Peter Hannay et al.,“ Pockdet SDV with SD Guardian: A Secure & Forensically Safe Portable Execution Environment,” Australian Digital Forensics Conference, 2007. |
Morejon, Mario, “Review: Remote Desktop Support out of the Box”, CRN Tech, May 21, 2007. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Oct. 7, 2010. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/144,136 entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Performing an Action Based on an Aspect of an Electronic Mail Message Thread”, inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam, filed on Dec. 30, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/144,136 mailed on Jun. 2, 2014. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Sep. 23, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Mar. 21, 2014. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Mar. 18, 2014. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Dec. 17, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Oct. 7, 2010. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on May 10, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Jul. 16, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Jan. 31, 2014. |
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Aug. 1, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Feb. 6, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Sep. 21, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/076,163, filed May 28, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on May 23, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed on Apr. 14, 2008, entitled “Computer Program Product and Method for Permanently Storing Data Based on Whether a Device is Protected with an Encryption Mechanism and Whether Data in a Data Structure Requires Encryption”, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Nov. 24, 2010. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 24, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed Mar. 9, 2011. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on May 25, 2011. |
After Final Response to Final Office Action dated May 25, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526, filed Jul. 13, 2011. |
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526 mailed on Aug. 1, 2011. |
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526, filed Aug. 25, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526 mailed on Sep. 21, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/606,915, filed Jan. 27, 2015, entitled System, Method and Computer Program Product for Performing an Action Based on an Aspect of an Electronic Mail Message Thread, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Jan. 27, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/289,859 mailed on Mar. 13, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Jul. 30, 2014. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Jul. 18, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/543,869, filed Nov. 17, 2014 and entitled Securing Data Using Integrated Host-Based Data Loss Agent With Encryption Detection, inventors Elad Zucker et al. |