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. This is in response to the RCE filed on 21 November 2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
4. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,218,494 B2 (hereinafter the ‘494 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed claims of the ‘494 patent in that the claims of the ‘494 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed claims of the ‘494 patent, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
The ‘494 patent teaches:
generating a plurality of risk analysis responses regarding a transaction for fraud evaluation (i.e. a plurality of evidence vectors regarding the transaction) [column 27, lines 32-36], wherein the transaction is between a first computing device of the data transactional network and a second computing device of the data transactional network regarding transactional subject matter [column 27, lines 26-31];
performing a first level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses to produce a first level fraud answer [column 27, lines 49-51];
determining a confidence of the first level fraud answer compares unfavorably with a confidence threshold (i.e. favorable) [column 27, lines 52-53];
determining a second level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses based on a level of the confidence of the first level fraud answer [column 27, lines 54-58]; and
performing the second level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses to produce a fraud evaluation answer regarding the transaction [column 27, lines 59-62].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav).
As to claim 1, Yadav discloses a method for execution by a computing entity of a data transactional network comprises:
generating a plurality of risk analysis responses regarding a transaction for fraud evaluation (i.e. risk assessments involving different types of electronic transaction requests) [0047], wherein the transaction is between a first computing device of the data transactional network and a second computing device of the data transactional network regarding transactional subject matter (i.e. between user device and service provider server) [0047];
performing a first level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses to produce a first level fraud answer (i.e. first recursive assessment) [0054];
determining a confidence of the first level fraud answer compares unfavorably with a confidence threshold (i.e. below threshold) [0054];
determining a second level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses based on a level of the confidence of the first level fraud answer (i.e. second recursive level) [0054]; and
performing the second level interpretation of the plurality of risk analysis responses to produce a fraud evaluation answer regarding the transaction [0054].
As to claim 2, Yadav discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fraud evaluation answer is one of:
further analysis is required;
a low risk of fraud (i.e. low risk type) [0076]; and
a high risk of fraud (i.e. high risk type) [0076].
As to claim 3, Yadav discloses the method of claim 1 further comprises:
generating a plurality of evidence vectors regarding the transaction, wherein an evidence vector of the plurality of evidence vectors is a piece of information regarding a topic, or portion thereof, of a list of topics (i.e. as defined by the applicant’s specification the topic can be information regarding the first computing device, therefore Yadav discloses the IP address of a device used to submit the request) [0018].
As to claim 8, Yadav discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the topic comprises user information regarding a user associated with the first computing device (i.e. personal information related to the user) [0036].
As to claim 10, Yadav discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the topic comprises information regarding the first computing device (i.e. the IP address of a device used to submit the request) [0018].
As to claim 11, Yadav discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the information regarding the first computing device comprises one or more sub-topics of:
device information the IP address of a device used to submit the request) [0018];
device type; and
user-device affiliation information.
As to claim 17, Yadav discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the list of topics further includes:
transaction mechanism information that includes one or more sub-topics of:
information regarding the transactional subject matter;
transmission medium information regarding transmission of a request for the transaction from the first computing device to the second computing device;
host layer information; and
proxy information (i.e. IP addresses associated with the proxies) [0101].
As to claim 19, Yadav discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the list of topics further includes:
fraud information that includes one or more sub-topics of:
account take over (i.e. account-takeover activity level) [0080];
fake account information;
fraudulent login;
fraud attempt rate; and
multiple user collusion.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Singh US 2016/0117466 A1.
As to claim 4, Yadav does not teach engaging a plurality of tools. Yadav does not teach generating, by the plurality of tools, the plurality of risk analysis responses based on the plurality of evidence vectors.
Singh teaches generating, by the plurality of tools, the plurality of risk analysis responses based on the plurality of evidence vectors (i.e. plurality of risk assessment tools) [0102].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the plurality of tools would have generated the plurality of risk analysis responses based on the plurality of evidence vectors.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Singh because it helps identify individuals that are likely to engage in adverse behavioral outcomes [0003].
As to claim 5, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of tools comprises a set of risk assessment tools.
Singh teaches that the plurality of tools comprises a set of risk assessment tools (i.e. plurality of risk assessment tools) [0102].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the plurality of tools would have comprised a set of risk assessment tools.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Singh because it helps identify individuals that are likely to engage in adverse behavioral outcomes [0003].
8. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) and Singh US 2016/0117466 A1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang et al US 2019/0116193 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
As to claim 6, the Yadav-Singh combination does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of tools comprises a set of evidentiary tools.
Wang teaches that the plurality of tools comprises a set of evidentiary tools (i.e. event cluster based on the received events during a period) [0045].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Yadav-Singh combination so that the plurality of tools would have comprised a set of evidentiary tools.
It 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 to have modified the Yadav-Singh combination by the teaching of Wang because it helps determine if user activity is normal or abnormal [0004].
9. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) and Singh US 2016/0117466 A1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Laude et al US 2011/0066683 A1 (hereinafter Laude).
As to claim 7, the Yadav-Singh combination does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of tools comprises a set of swarm processing tools.
Laude teaches that the plurality of tools comprises a set of swarm processing tools [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Yadav-Singh combination so that the plurality of tools would have comprised a set of swarm processing tools.
It 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 to have modified the Yadav-Singh combination by the teaching of Laude because it helps in updating of learning tools [0014].
10. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DePizzol US 2019/0130471 A1.
As to claim 9, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 8, wherein the topic comprises information regarding network affiliations of the user.
DePizzol teaches that the topic comprises information regarding network affiliations of the user (i.e. identifying affiliates of user of the first computing device) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of DePizzol because it helps provide personalized recommendations [0001].
11. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rave et al US 2019/0334823 A1 (hereinafter Rave).
As to claim 12, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 3, wherein the topic comprises anomaly information regarding the first computing device.
Rave teaches that the topic comprises anomaly information regarding the first computing device (i.e. anomaly with first device) [0026].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the topic would have comprised anomaly information regarding the first computing device.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Rave because it provides an end-to-end connection between a first device and a target device which is directed to a user performance [0003].
12. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) and Rave et al US 2019/0334823 A1 (hereinafter Rave). as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Birkner et al US 2018/0077677 A1 (hereinafter Birkner).
As to claim 13, the Yadav-Rave combination does not teach the method of claim 12, wherein the anomaly information further comprises information regarding the second computing device.
Birkner teaches that the anomaly information further comprises information regarding the second computing device (i.e. detecting anomaly of second network node) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Yadav-Rave combination so that the anomaly information would have further comprised information regarding the second computing device.
It 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 to have modified the Yadav-Rave combination by the teaching of Birkner because it helps minimize the risk of events such as equipment failure [0002].
13. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) and Rave et al US 2019/0334823 A1 (hereinafter Rave). as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hitt et al US 2015/0229662 A1 (hereinafter Hitt).
As to claim 14, the Yadav-Rave combination does not teach the method of claim 12, wherein the anomaly information further comprises information regarding the data transaction network.
Hitt teaches that the anomaly information further comprises information regarding the data transaction network (i.e. anomaly information of network transaction data) [0031].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Yadav-Rave combination so that the anomaly information further would have comprised information regarding the data transaction network.
It 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 to have modified the Yadav-Rave combination by the teaching of Hitt because it helps identify a threatening network [0005].
14. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hitt et al US 2015/0229662 A1 (hereinafter Hitt).
As to claim 15, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 3, wherein the topic comprises anomaly information regarding the data transaction network.
Hitt teaches that the topic comprises anomaly information regarding the data transaction network (i.e. anomaly information of network transaction data) [0031].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the topic would have comprised anomaly information regarding the data transaction network.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Hitt because it helps identify a threatening network [0005].
15. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of DePizzol US 2019/0130471 A1.
As to claim 16, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 3, wherein the topic comprises information regarding network affiliations of the first computing device.
DePizzol teaches the topic comprises information regarding network affiliations of the first computing device (i.e. identifying affiliates of user of the first computing device) [abstract].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the topic would have comprised information regarding network affiliations of the first computing device.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of DePizzol because it helps provide personalized recommendations [0001].
16. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yumer U.S. Patent No. 9,800,606 B1.
As to claim 18, Yadav does not teach bad actor information that includes one or more sub-topics of: markers indicating use of hacker tools; and professional bad actor indicators.
Yumer teaches that bad actor information includes markers indicating use of hacker tools (i.e. indicating the identities of hacking tools) [column 8, lines 11-26].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that bad actor information would have included markers indicating use of hacker tools.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Yumer because it provides for additional and improved systems and methods for evaluating network security [column 1, lines 17-32].
17. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al US 2020/0120144 A1 (hereinafter Yadav) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bender et al US 2018/0082059 A1 (hereinafter Bender).
As to claim 20, Yadav does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the first level interpretation on the plurality of risk analysis responses is further based on risk tolerance inputs associated with the second computing device.
Bender teaches that the performing the first level interpretation on the plurality of risk analysis responses is further based on risk tolerance inputs associated with the second computing device (i.e. risk analysis responses based on inputs of information of second computing device) [0038].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Yadav so that the performing the first level interpretation on the plurality of risk analysis responses would have further been based on risk tolerance inputs associated with the second computing device.
It 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 to have modified Yadav by the teaching of Bender because it provides a centralized approach to provide security as a service to devices connected to a network [0004].
Relevant Prior Art
18. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Liu et al US 2016/0065620 A1 directed to computer network and, more particularly, to techniques for analyzing computer networks to determine susceptibility to malicious attacks [0003].
B. Crabtree et al US 2018/0295154 A1 directed to the field of computer management, and more particularly to the field of cybersecurity and threat analytics [0003].
C. Vittal et al US 2018/0314833 A1 directed to identifying and retrospecting cyber security threats, including but not limited to in industrial control systems and other systems [abstract].
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407