Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/515,288

DYNAMIC SECURITY CHALLENGE AUTHENTICATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 29, 2021
Examiner
LEUNG, ROBERT B
Art Unit
2494
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Citrix Systems Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
517 granted / 613 resolved
+26.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
632
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 613 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 3, 2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17, and 20 were amended. Re: Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant’s arguments on pp. 2-3 of the REMARKS (filed on July 3, 2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection to the independent claims over US 2011/0191838 to Yanagihara in view of US 2017/0317993 to Weber has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “the one or more devices”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “access an application” twice. It is unclear if there are two distinct applications, or if the limitation was referring to a singular application. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claims 1 and 11. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The claimed invention is directed to dynamic security challenge authentication, wherein security challenges are generated from interactions with one or more applications, files, and/or devices associated with the user. See [0038]-[0039] & Fig. 3 of the originally filed specifications. The concept of generating authentication challenges and/or questions derived from a user’s activities, such as interactions on a device or historical transactions, was well-known. See the cited prior arts in Conclusion on pp. 10-12 of the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/9/2024, and the following Conclusion in the current Office Action for additional relevant prior arts. Furthermore, US 2011/0191838 (Yanagihara), from the withdrawn 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, discloses preparing authentication questions based off of transient event data, such as recent application activities, document access, login history, etc. [0026], [0040]. However, none of the cited prior arts disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest features to: “receive a plurality of device identifiers for a plurality of devices associated with the user identifier; retrieve, using each of the plurality of device identifiers, from one or more services or components configured to monitor usage on the plurality of devices, first data corresponding to one or more previous interactions of the user with one or more applications on a respective device of the plurality of devices; retrieve, according to the first data, from the one or more services or components, second data corresponding to one or more files including information indicative of access linked to the user identifier via a respective device” and “generate, based on the first data and the second data, a security challenge including a question relating to the one or more previous interactions of the user via the one or more devices” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,396,316: User information includes an account owner’s past activities, associated IP address(es), user device identifier(s) associated with the account owner, etc. The user information is used to determine a whitelisting deviation during a login attempt. See col. 14, lines 5-26. US 2020/0380112: Device data may include identifier data and historical usage information relating to access of user devices. Device data and identity data are used in a passive-dimension process for verifying authentication of a user device. See [0037]-[0041]. US 2016/0057110: One-time challenge questions are generated from context information, which includes past location data, a user’s phone log, SMS history, or e-mail exchanges. See [0014]-[0016]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET. 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, JUNG KIM can be reached on 571-272-3804. 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. /ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 29, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591669
MALWARE DETECTION METHOD, MALWARE DETECTION DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591670
CYBER THREAT INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CYBER THREAT INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CYBER THREAT INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587858
Obscured Device Identity in Wireless Transmissions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562922
Device Pairing and Authentication
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563087
ENDPOINT AGENT AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 613 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month