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 .
1. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1-3 and 16-18 are amended as filed on 07/07/2025.
Claim 4 is canceled as filed on 07/07/2025.
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) 1-3, 6-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0230166 A1), hereinafter Bala, in view of Guedalia et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0300049 A1), hereinafter Guedalia, in view of Bailor et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2015/0310195 A1), hereinafter Bailor, and in further view of Asulin et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0012003 A1), hereinafter Asulin.
2. With respect to claim 1, Bala taught a of verifying an authentication of a specific interaction of a user with a user device after the authentication has taken place, in a system comprising the user device and an interaction verification system (0073, where the authorization request is the interaction transaction and the verification can be seen in 0064), the method comprising at least one user device and an interaction verification system (0064, the monitored input device), wherein the user device comprises one or more processors configured to perform the steps of a computer-implemented method for enabling computer recognition of a user interacting with a user device by processing data at the user device to produce user verification data for use in an interaction verification system (0064), for verifying a disputed interaction after the interaction has taken place (this is to claim the intended use of the system and is not given patentable weight. However, the limitation can also be seen in 0074-0075, where the transaction is verified and the claimed limitation does not specify/require that the transaction has been completed. In other words, the initial part of the transaction has already taken place. Likewise, 0076 indicates that the transaction may still be processing, which implicitly teaches that the transaction may also not be still processing, which indicates that the transaction has already been completed) comprising: deriving first user behaviour data by processing a first plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by a plurality of different elements of the user device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device (0076 & 0064, where the user pattern data represents the different sets of data & where the sensors can be seen, at least, in 0096); identifying at least first data relating to an interaction of a user of the user device with the user device (0106, where the generated profile has recorded user interaction data); authenticating the interaction using a biometrical identification system (0005); deriving second user behaviour data by processing a second plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by the plurality of different elements of the device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device during a previous time (0076 & 0064, the keystrokes compared against the previously generated profile for example); and transmitting user verification data, based on the first user behaviour data and the second user behaviour data, from the user device to an interaction verification system (0091, where the data transmission can be seen in, at least, 0080), and wherein the interaction verification system comprises one or more processors configured to process the user verification data to provide a verification of a given interaction (0080).
However, Bala did not explicitly state that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval; storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving, at the user device, the first message comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the user device on the basis of the timing data; and processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to verify the disputed authentication. On the other hand, Guedalia did teach that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval (0171-0172, the identified time periods); storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the basis of the timing data (0157, where the timing information and etc. are stored on the user device. See also: 0192-0193); and processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to verify the disputed authentication (0060). Both of the systems of Bala and Guedalia are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize identified time intervals, as taught by Guedalia, in order to more accurately verify a user by looking a different sets of data over different time periods.
However, while it could be argued (by obviousness) that Guedalia taught resubmitting timing information in order to receive the updated behavior profile (Guedalia: 0166), in order to provide a more compact prosecution, it will be contended that the combination of Bala and Guedalia did not explicitly state dependent on the interaction being authenticated by the biometrical identification system and dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time. On the other hand, Bailor did teach dependent on the interaction being authenticated by the biometrical identification system and dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time (0080, where the request for credentials includes the monitored information of 0098, which would include the assigned time period associated with 0010). Both of the systems of Bala and Bailor are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize requesting updated verification data based on time intervals, as taught by Bailor, in order to more accurately verify a user in a dynamic environment.
However, Bala did not explicitly state performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place; subsequent to authenticating the first interaction, receiving a message at the interaction verification system identifying the first interaction and indicating that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed; processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data; and sending a response to the message received at the interaction verification system which indicated that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed, the response indicating said estimated probability. On the other hand, Asulin did teach performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place (0040); subsequent to authenticating the first interaction, receiving a message at the interaction verification system identifying the first interaction and indicating that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed (0057, where the security action is an indication that that verification has been disputed under broadest reasonable interpretation); processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data (0063 & 0078); and sending a response to the message received at the interaction verification system which indicated that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed, the response indicating said estimated probability (0006, sending the similarity score). Both of the systems of Bala and Asulin are directed towards biometric verification and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize specific time window biometric authentication verification, as taught by Asulin, in order to provide greater accuracy in the verification process.
3. With respect to claims 16 and 17, Bala taught a user device comprising one or more processors configured to perform a the steps of a method comprising at least one user device and an interaction verification system (0064, the monitored input device), wherein the user device comprises one or more processors configured to perform the steps of a computer-implemented method for enabling computer recognition of a user interacting with a user device by processing data at the user device to produce user verification data for use in an interaction verification system (0064), for verifying a disputed interaction after the interaction has taken place (this is to claim the intended use of the system and is not given patentable weight. However, the limitation can also be seen in 0074-0075, where the transaction is verified and the claimed limitation does not specify/require that the transaction has been completed. In other words, the initial part of the transaction has already taken place. Likewise, 0076 indicates that the transaction may still be processing, which implicitly teaches that the transaction may also not be still processing, which indicates that the transaction has already been completed) comprising: deriving first user behaviour data by processing a first plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by a plurality of different elements of the user device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device (0076 & 0064, where the user pattern data represents the different sets of data & where the sensors can be seen, at least, in 0096); identifying at least first data relating to an interaction of a user of the user device with the user device (0106, where the generated profile has recorded user interaction data); authenticating the interaction using a biometrical identification system (0005); deriving second user behaviour data by processing a second plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by the plurality of different elements of the device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device during a previous time (0076 & 0064, the keystrokes compared against the previously generated profile for example); and transmitting user verification data, based on the first user behaviour data and the second user behaviour data, from the user device to an interaction verification system (0091, where the data transmission can be seen in, at least, 0080), and wherein the interaction verification system comprises one or more processors configured to process the user verification data to provide a verification of a given interaction (0080).
However, Bala did not explicitly state that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval; storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving, at the user device, the first message comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the user device on the basis of the timing data; whereby to allow data relating to the disputed interaction to be identified and retrieved for use in processing by the interaction verification system. On the other hand, Guedalia did teach that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval (0171-0172, the identified time periods); storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the basis of the timing data (0157, where the timing information and etc. are stored on the user device. See also: 0192-0193); whereby to allow data relating to the disputed interaction to be identified and retrieved for use in processing by the interaction verification system (this claim limitation represents the intended use/results of the system and is not given patentable weight. However, in order to achieve a more compact prosecution, the limitation can be seen with the verification of 0060). Both of the systems of Bala and Guedalia are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize identified time intervals, as taught by Guedalia, in order to more accurately verify a user by looking a different sets of data over different time periods.
However, while it could be argued (by obviousness) that Guedalia taught resubmitting timing information in order to receive the updated behavior profile (Guedalia: 0166), in order to provide a more compact prosecution, it will be contended that the combination of Bala and Guedalia did not explicitly state dependent on the interaction being authenticated by the biometrical identification system and dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time. On the other hand, Bailor did teach dependent on the interaction being authenticated by the biometrical identification system and dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time (0080, where the request for credentials includes the monitored information of 0098, which would include the assigned time period associated with 0010). Both of the systems of Bala and Bailor are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize requesting updated verification data based on time intervals, as taught by Bailor, in order to more accurately verify a user in a dynamic environment.
However, Bala did not explicitly state did teach performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place; and to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data. On the other hand, Asulin did teach performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place (0040); and to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data (0063 & 0078). Both of the systems of Bala and Asulin are directed towards biometric verification and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize specific time window biometric authentication verification, as taught by Asulin, in order to provide greater accuracy in the verification process.
4. With respect to claims 18, Bala taught a system for verification of a specific interaction after the interaction has taken place comprising at least one user device and an interaction verification system (0073, where the authorization request is the interaction transaction and the verification can be seen in 0064) the method comprising at least one user device and an interaction verification system (0064, the monitored input device), wherein the user device comprises one or more processors configured to perform the steps of a method comprising: deriving first user behaviour data by processing a first plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by a plurality of different elements of the user device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device (0076 & 0064, where the user pattern data represents the different sets of data & where the sensors can be seen, at least, in 0096); identifying at least first data relating to an interaction of a user of the user device with the user device (0106, where the generated profile has recorded user interaction data); deriving second user behaviour data by processing a second plurality of sets of data, each of which is generated by the plurality of different elements of the device, the plurality of different elements including at least one sensor, and each of which is representative of a user interacting with the user device during a previous time (0076 & 0064, the keystrokes compared against the previously generated profile for example); and transmitting user verification data, based on the first user behaviour data and the second user behaviour data, from the user device to an interaction verification system (0091, where the data transmission can be seen in, at least, 0080), and wherein the interaction verification system comprises one or more processors configured to process the user verification data to provide a verification of a given interaction (0080).
However, Bala did not explicitly state that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval; storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving, at the user device, the first message comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the user device on the basis of the timing data. On the other hand, Guedalia did teach that the identifying a first time interval identified time and that a previous time could be a first time interval (0171-0172, the identified time periods); storing the second user behaviour data in a storage system on the user device; receiving timing data indicative of the first interval of time from the interaction verification system; and retrieving the second user behaviour data from the storage system on the basis of the timing data (0157, where the timing information and etc. are stored on the user device. See also: 0192-0193). Both of the systems of Bala and Guedalia are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize identified time intervals, as taught by Guedalia, in order to more accurately verify a user by looking a different sets of data over different time periods.
However, while it could be argued (by obviousness) that Guedalia taught resubmitting timing information in order to receive the updated behavior profile (Guedalia: 0166), in order to provide a more compact prosecution, it will be contended that the combination of Bala and Guedalia did not explicitly state dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time. On the other hand, Bailor did teach dependent on receiving an indication that authentication of the interaction has been disputed, sending a first message from the interaction verification system to the user device comprising timing data indicative of the first interval of time (0080, where the request for credentials includes the monitored information of 0098, which would include the assigned time period associated with 0010). Both of the systems of Bala and Bailor are directed towards providing verification security for a user and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize requesting updated verification data based on time intervals, as taught by Bailor, in order to more accurately verify a user in a dynamic environment.
However, Bala did not explicitly state performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place; processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data; and sending a response to the message received at the interaction verification system which indicated that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed, the response indicating said estimated probability. On the other hand, Asulin did teach performing the second authentication actions in response to the first interaction and that the interval of time was in regards to a time in which the first interaction took place (0040); processing the user verification data at the interaction verification system to estimate a probability that the first interaction involved the same user interacting with the user device as the user interacting with the user device for the deriving of the first user behaviour data (0063 & 0078); and sending a response to the message received at the interaction verification system which indicated that the authentication of the first interaction has been disputed, the response indicating said estimated probability (0006, sending the similarity score). Both of the systems of Bala and Asulin are directed towards biometric verification and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize specific time window biometric authentication verification, as taught by Asulin, in order to provide greater accuracy in the verification process.
5. As for claim 2, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Guedalia taught identifying the first interval of time as an interval of time during which the first interaction occurs (0172, time period M).
6. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Guedalia taught identifying a second interval of time as an interval of time before which the first interaction occurs and/or identifying a third interval of time as an interval of time after which the interaction occurs, wherein the second plurality of sets of data is each representative of a user interacting with the device during the first interval of time and the second and/or the third interval of time (0162, time period L).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Guedalia taught wherein deriving the first and second user behaviour data comprises use of a hardware abstraction functional module configured to transform data generated by the plurality of different elements of the user device into transformed element data having a normalised format (0108).
8. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 6. In addition, Guedalia taught wherein deriving the first and second user behaviour data comprises use of a data processing functional module configured to perform summarisation, aggregation and combination functions on the transformed element data to generate processed element data (0061, where the indicated behavior as suspicious teaches the summary and the data is aggregated and combined in order to form the vectors and correlate them accordingly).
9. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Guedalia taught wherein deriving the first user behaviour data comprises use of a user behaviour functional module configured to extract information about typical behaviour of a user from processed element data relating to the first plurality of sets of data (0061).
10. As for claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 8. In addition, Bala taught wherein deriving the second user behaviour data comprises use of a behaviour functional module configured to extract information about the behaviour of a user from processed element data relating to the second plurality of sets of data (0061, where the data is compared against the profile and determines if the user is suspicious).
11. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Bala taught wherein the user verification data comprises an output from a machine learning model, wherein parameters for the machine learning model are received from the validation system (0076).
12. As for claim 11, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 10. In addition, Bala taught wherein an input to the machine learning model comprises the first user behaviour data and the second user behaviour data and the user verification data comprises an output of the machine learning model (0076, where the current data is the second user data and the profile, against which it is compared, is the first user data).
13. As for claim 12, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. In addition, Bala taught wherein the output of the machine learning model comprises a probability that a user in the first interval of time is different from a user corresponding to the first user behaviour data (0028, where it is given that the authenticity threshold would compare against the probability. Accordingly, the identified time interval was previously taught by Guedalia: 0171-0172).
14. As for claim 19, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 18. In addition, Bala taught wherein the interaction verification system comprises a data processing module configured to determine data processing rules to be applied by the user device, and to send data indicating the data processing rules to the user device (0006, where the processing rules are given in, at least, the software on the system under broadest reasonable interpretation).
15. As for claim 20, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 19. In addition, Bala taught wherein the interaction verification system comprises a machine learning model for use in determining parameters for use in a corresponding machine learning model for a user device (0076).
16. As for claim 21, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Bala taught wherein the interaction verification system comprises an interaction validation module configured to provide an estimate of the probability that a given interaction involved a given user by processing of the user verification data (0079, the threshold associated with the valid transaction), and wherein the interaction verification system is configured to determine whether or not the disputed interaction was actually a case of fraudulent authentication with a certain degree of confidence (0079).
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Guedalia, in view of Bailor, and in further view of Choi et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0125057 A1), hereinafter Choi.
17. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 12. However, Bala did not explicitly state wherein the machine learning model is a deep neural network, DNN, wherein the deep neural network has been trained to detect an anomalous interval of time in a series of intervals of time. On the other hand, Choi did teach wherein the machine learning model is a deep neural network, DNN, wherein the deep neural network has been trained to detect an anomalous interval of time in a series of intervals of time (0006, where the training parameters being time intervals was previously shown by Guedalia: 0172). Both of the systems of Bala and Choi are directed towards machine learning models for managing data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Bala, to utilize a DNN, as taught by Choi, in order to implement the most advanced/effective machine learning techniques that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
18. As for claim 14, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Bala taught wherein an input to the machine learning model comprises at least the first set of data and the second set of data and an output of the machine learning model comprises the first user behaviour and the second user behaviour data (0066).
19. As for claim 15, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 14. In addition, Choi taught wherein the machine learning model has been trained by using unsupervised learning to sort interactions in trial data into clusters, wherein the machine learning model processes individual time intervals to estimate to which cluster the time interval belongs, and wherein the user verification data comprises an estimate of to which cluster the time interval belongs (0022, where the classifiers are the clusters and the time intervals were previously shown by Geudalia: 0172).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443