DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment dated 12 February 2026. Claims 1, 12 and 13 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raley et al. (US 10,671,693 B1) in view of Chaar et al. (US 2016/0171804 A1) and further in view of Kahn et al. (US 11,477,028 B2).
As for independent claim 1, Raley teaches a process comprising:
getting information representative of requests about at least two services, made from at least one terminal, where the at least one terminal is associated with a first user login [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 6 lines 24-48) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … The external web servers 105 may host web services such as a social media website, a news site, a blog site, a vlog site, or an online merchant. The external web servers 105 may receive login requests from the user devices 104 and transmit corresponding notifications to the system server 101. The system server 101 may validate the login request or may request additional authentication information … A user may use user devices 104 to provide an account identifying information such as a username or social media handle to the system server 101. Furthermore, the user may use the user devices 104 to provide account security information such as a password or a passcode to the system server 101. Furthermore, the user may use the user devices to provide authentication information requested by the system server 101”].
getting, from the representative information, an indicator about a plurality of incorrect requests which, among the requests about the at least two services, each corresponds to at least one of an access failure to any one of the at least two services, a request for assistance about any one of the at least two services and entry errors for a recipient of a communication [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 6 lines 31-35, 59-62, col 7 lines 34-46, col 7 line 66 – col 8 line 3 and Fig. 1) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … The external web servers 105 may host web services such as a social media website, a news site, a blog site, a vlog site, or an online merchant. The external web servers 105 may receive login requests from the user devices 104 … send a set of tokens to servers hosting a set of web services such that a user may establish a connection with the set of web services based upon a single authentication by the system server 101 … the computer system may receive from the external web server a response indicating the status for the transmitted account information. The response may include an indication that the account information was valid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. As an alternative, the response may include an indication that the account information was invalid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. As another alternative, the response may include an indication that the account information was partially valid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. For example, the response may indicate that a username was valid but the password provided did not match the username … In some instances, the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect”]. Examiner notes that a set of authentication requests are sent, one to each external web service server (numerals 105a-105n) and a plurality of which could generate invalid responses from the external web service servers based on incorrect passwords.
triggering, as a function of the indicator and in combination with at least one of the terminals associated with the first user login, at least one action for assistance [(e.g. see Raley col 7 line 55 – col 8 line 17) ”the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect. In these instances, the external web service hosted by the external web server may require additional authentication information such as the user's date of birth, or answers to password retrieval questions to reset the user's password … the computer system may transmit an authentication request to the user device based upon the response received from the external web server … display a prompt that inquires user's extra information”].
Raley does not specifically teach managing a digital inaptitude of a user or wherein the indicator comprises a frequency of incorrect requests. However, in the same field of invention, Chaar teaches:
managing a digital inaptitude of a user [(e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0002, 0035, 0062) ”Tremors are involuntary muscle contractions and relaxations involving movement of one or more body parts. Existing authentication methods can be difficult for users with tremors. For example, it may be difficult for people with tremors to type long alpha-numeric passwords in mobile phones and other small devices. Users with tremors may make mistakes such as striking an incorrect key, repeating a key, or missing a key. The number of such committed mistakes is particularly high when people with tremors use touch screen text entry … The tremor profile maintains characteristics of a tremor. The tremor profile may be a generic tremor profile or may be user-specific … the probabilities in the user-specific tremor pattern are modified based on the received errors”].
wherein the indicator comprises a frequency of incorrect requests [(e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0044) ”In some embodiments, the user may repeatedly perform authentication behaviors such as typing passwords … A user may attempt authentication by providing an input using targets on the device. If the authentication attempt fails, the tremor pattern and correct password are used to determine if the errors in the authentication can be explained by a tremor. For errors that can be explained by a tremor, those errors in the input may be corrected and authentication may be done with the corrected input … Authentication attempts may be monitored over time to modify the tremor pattern. For example, if a specific error is occurring more often than would be indicated by the tremor pattern, the tremor pattern may be updated to include the new probability. This may be useful if the original tremor pattern is based on a generic tremor or if the user's tremor has changed over time”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley and Chaar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add managing a digital inaptitude of a user and wherein the indicator comprises a frequency of incorrect requests, as taught by Chaar, to the teachings of Raley because it offers improved authentication for failed attempts and an improved user experience (e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0019, 0020).
Raley and Chaar do not specifically teach a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services or verifying whether the indicator exceeds a first threshold value, wherein exceeding the first threshold value corresponds to detecting a [digital inaptitude of the user]. However, in the same field of invention, Kahn teaches:
a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services [(e.g. see Kahn col 4 lines 17-46, col 5 lines 58-61, col 9 lines 53-59, col 12 lines 62-65 and Fig. 1 numerals 104) ”service provider (SP) devices 104A and 104B (collectively referred to as “SP device 104”) … Such devices may each access a variety of SP devices 104 for the same or different services … SP device 104 provides such services to authorized users that provide valid credentials (e.g., a username and password, etc.) … authentication device 108 includes a lockout counter for each user identifier. When authentication device 108 sends a failure message, it also increments the associated lockout counter … each of user device 102, SP device 104, IDP device 106, and authentication device 108 represents an example of a computing device comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry and configured to, in response to determine that the first password is not valid, incrementing a lockout counter associated with the user account … IDP device 106 stores this data in attempt table 110. In the illustrated example, IDP device 106 also increment a lockout counter (606)”].
verifying whether the indicator exceeds a first threshold value, wherein exceeding the first threshold value corresponds to detecting a [digital inaptitude of the user] [(e.g. see Kahn col 5 lines 62-67, col 7 lines 62-63) ”When the lockout counter satisfies (e.g., is greater than or equal to) a lockout threshold, authentication device 108 locks (e.g., prevents access to) the associated user account until an intervention clears the lockout. When authentication device 108 sends a verification message, it may reset the associated lockout counter … IDP device 106 may store multiple invalid passwords up to the lockout threshold of authentication device 108”]. Examiner notes that secondary reference Chaar above detects “digital inaptitude” by monitoring authentication attempts over time, but does not specifically compare to a threshold.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley, Chaar and Kahn, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services or verifying whether the indicator exceeds a first threshold value, wherein exceeding the first threshold value corresponds to detecting a [digital inaptitude of the user], as taught by Kahn, to the teachings of Raley and Chaar because it improves both computing devices and the field of network security in authentication and authorization (e.g. see Kahn col 6 lines 40-42).
As for dependent claim 3, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the process comprises: among the requests about at least two services, identifying the incorrect requests [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 6 lines 32-48) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … The external web servers 105 may host web services such as a social media website, a news site, a blog site, a vlog site, or an online merchant. The external web servers 105 may receive login requests from the user devices 104 and transmit corresponding notifications to the system server 101. The system server 101 may validate the login request or may request additional authentication information. The external web servers 105 may also receive requests for creating new accounts from the user devices 104 and transmit the corresponding notifications to the system server 101. In some implementations, the system server 101 may receive account login requests, authenticate the account login requests, and transmit the authenticated requests to the external web servers 105. Furthermore, the system server 101 may receive requests for creating new accounts, authenticate the received requests for creating new accounts, and transmit the authenticated requests to the external web servers”].
As for dependent claim 5, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the process comprises: querying a database storing requests from the at least one terminal for accessing one of the services [(e.g. see Raley col 5 lines 55-62, col 14 lines 31-40) ”The database 102 may be any type of database storing user profiles and profiles of external web services. The user profiles may include information of user accounts with the external web services. For example, user profile for a user may include the user's username and password for logging into an external web service, Furthermore, the user profile may include additional information about the user such as the user's address, date of birth, marital status. The system server 101 may use the additional information about the user to authenticate the user … the computer system may verify whether received additional authentication information is proper. The computer system may query the database to determine whether the additional authentication information matches the corresponding data records in the database. If the computer system determines that the received additional authentication information is improper, the computer system may transmit a message to the external web server indicating that the attempted account creation should be denied by the external web service”].
As for dependent claim 6, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the incorrect requests comprise at least one among the following requests: at least one request for assistance accessing any one of the at least two services, made from the at least one terminal; at least one access request to any one of the at least two services from the at least one terminal, comprising an incorrect password; at least one access password reset request to any one of the at least two services made from the at least one terminal; at least one phone call made from the at least one terminal; at least one phone call made from the at least one terminal to at least one voice assistance service about any one of the at least two services [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 7 line 66 – col 8 line 3) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … In some instances, the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect”]. Examiner notes that this is a Markush group limitation in which the prior art is only required to show one of the listed alternatives.
As for dependent claim 8, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1; further, claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1. Raley further teaches the electronic device comprises at least one processor configured for executing the process [(e.g. see Raley col 6 lines 20-24, col 19 lines 9-12, 25-27) ”the functions may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable or processor-readable storage medium … program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that may be accessed by a computer or processor … The user devices 104 may be any type devices that a user may use to access the server and/or the external servers 105. Non-limiting examples of user devices 104 include desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, and server computers”].
As for dependent claim 9, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the device as described in claim 8 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the electronic device is one of the at least one terminal and a service platform [(e.g. see Raley col 6 lines 20-26) ”The user devices 104 may be any type devices that a user may use to access the server and/or the external servers 105. Non-limiting examples of user devices 104 include desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, and server computers. A user may use user devices 104 to provide an account identifying information such as a username or social media handle to the system server 101”]. Examiner notes that, the fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. See MPEP 608.01(n)(III).
As for dependent claim 10, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the device as described in claim 8 and Raley further teaches:
wherein triggering comprises execution of the assistance action from the electronic device [(e.g. see Raley col 7 line 34 – col 8 line 15, col 8 lines 36-38) ”In some instances, the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect. In these instances, the external web service hosted by the external web server may require additional authentication information such as the user's date of birth, or answers to password retrieval questions to reset the user's password … display a prompt that inquires user's extra information. For example, the computer system may receive an indication, from the external web server, that additional authentication information may be needed; the computer system may then display a prompt with one or more graphical input elements (e.g., radio buttons, drop down menus, input field configured to receive input text strings, and the like) in order to receive the user's input … the computer system may receive from the user computer user response to the authentication request”]. Examiner notes that, the fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. See MPEP 608.01(n)(III).
As for dependent claim 11, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the device as described in claim 8 and Raley further teaches:
wherein triggering comprises transmission of an execution command from the assistance action to at least one of the at least one terminal [(e.g. see Raley col 7 line 34 – col 8 line 15) ”the computer system may receive from the external web server a response indicating the status for the transmitted account information … the response may include an indication that the account information was partially valid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. For example, the response may indicate that a username was valid but the password provided did not match the username … the computer system may transmit an authentication request to the user device based upon the response received from the external web server. In some instances, the response from the external web server may include indication that additional information of the user is required by the external web service hosted by the external web server. The additional information may include, for a user having a preexisting account with the external web service, additional authentication information required to log into the preexisting account. For example, the additional authentication information may include date of birth, social security number, or home address. In some instances, the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect. In these instances, the external web service hosted by the external web server may require additional authentication information such as the user's date of birth, or answers to password retrieval questions to reset the user's password”]. Examiner notes that, the fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. See MPEP 608.01(n)(III).
As for independent claim 12, Raley teaches a process comprising:
sending on the communication network at least one first request about at least one first service among at least two services [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 6 lines 24-48) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … The external web servers 105 may host web services such as a social media website, a news site, a blog site, a vlog site, or an online merchant. The external web servers 105 may receive login requests from the user devices 104 and transmit corresponding notifications to the system server 101. The system server 101 may validate the login request or may request additional authentication information … A user may use user devices 104 to provide an account identifying information such as a username or social media handle to the system server 101. Furthermore, the user may use the user devices 104 to provide account security information such as a password or a passcode to the system server 101. Furthermore, the user may use the user devices to provide authentication information requested by the system server 101”].
upon receiving from the communication network a signal depending on requests made from a terminal of the communication network associated with the user login, and about the at least two services, each incorrect request of the plurality of incorrect requests corresponding to at least one of an access failure to any one of the at least two services, a request for assistance about any one of the at least two services and entry errors for a recipient of a communication, executing at least one action for assistance from the terminal [(e.g. see Raley col 2 lines 18-21, col 6 lines 31-35, 59-62, col 7 lines 34-46, col 7 line 55 – col 8 line 17) ”The system may link the username with the multiple accounts across various external web services such that the user can login to these services with a single login to the system … The external web servers 105 may host web services such as a social media website, a news site, a blog site, a vlog site, or an online merchant. The external web servers 105 may receive login requests from the user devices 104 … send a set of tokens to servers hosting a set of web services such that a user may establish a connection with the set of web services based upon a single authentication by the system server 101 … the computer system may receive from the external web server a response indicating the status for the transmitted account information. The response may include an indication that the account information was valid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. As an alternative, the response may include an indication that the account information was invalid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. As another alternative, the response may include an indication that the account information was partially valid for the external web service hosted by the external web server. For example, the response may indicate that a username was valid but the password provided did not match the username … the account credentials provided by the user and transmitted to the external web server may be partially correct, for example, a login username may be correct but the password may be incorrect. In these instances, the external web service hosted by the external web server may require additional authentication information such as the user's date of birth, or answers to password retrieval questions to reset the user's password … the computer system may transmit an authentication request to the user device based upon the response received from the external web server … display a prompt that inquires user's extra information”]. Examiner notes that a set of authentication requests are sent, one to each external web service server (numerals 105a-105n), and a plurality of which could generate invalid responses from the external web service servers based on incorrect passwords.
Raley does not specifically teach a result provided by a statistical analyzer of a plurality of incorrect requests made or where detection of digital inaptitude corresponds to the result, the result being determined based at least on a frequency of incorrect requests. However, in the same field of invention, Chaar teaches:
a result provided by a statistical analyzer of a plurality of incorrect requests made [(e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0040, 0061) ”The errors in the password are explained by the tremors if the probability of making the combination of errors given the tremors is significantly higher than a base probability. The base probability may be the probability of making the combination of errors in the general population of users of the device … When an entered password is matched against the correct password, a set of omission, insertion, and substitution errors is identified. Referring to FIG. 6, the flowchart depicts an example method 600 for examining each of the individual errors to determine if the errors match a tremor pattern. Method 600 starts at block 605. At block 607, an initial probability value is set to 1”].
where detection of digital inaptitude corresponds to the result, the result being determined based at least on a frequency of incorrect requests [(e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0002, 0019, 0039-0041, 0044) ”As current generations are getting older and the older persons are using technology more and more, the number of users experiencing problems caused by tremors when using technology will increase. This means that the user experience that they feel now will start to degrade … In some embodiments, the user may repeatedly perform authentication behaviors such as typing passwords … A user may attempt authentication by providing an input using targets on the device. If the authentication attempt fails, the tremor pattern and correct password are used to determine if the errors in the authentication can be explained by a tremor. For errors that can be explained by a tremor, those errors in the input may be corrected and authentication may be done with the corrected input … The errors in the password are explained by the tremors if the probability of making the combination of errors given the tremors is significantly higher than a base probability. The base probability may be the probability of making the combination of errors in the general population of users of the device … Authentication attempts may be monitored over time to modify the tremor pattern. For example, if a specific error is occurring more often than would be indicated by the tremor pattern, the tremor pattern may be updated to include the new probability. This may be useful if the original tremor pattern is based on a generic tremor or if the user's tremor has changed over time”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley and Chaar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a result provided by a statistical analyzer of a plurality of incorrect requests made and where detection of digital inaptitude corresponds to the result, the result being determined based at least on a frequency of incorrect requests, as taught by Chaar, to the teachings of Raley because it offers improved authentication for failed attempts and an improved user experience (e.g. see Chaar paragraphs 0019, 0020).
Raley and Chaar do not specifically teach the result exceeding a first threshold value or a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services. However, in the same field of invention, Kahn teaches:
the result exceeding a first threshold value [(e.g. see Kahn col 5 lines 62-67, col 7 lines 62-63) ”When the lockout counter satisfies (e.g., is greater than or equal to) a lockout threshold, authentication device 108 locks (e.g., prevents access to) the associated user account until an intervention clears the lockout. When authentication device 108 sends a verification message, it may reset the associated lockout counter … IDP device 106 may store multiple invalid passwords up to the lockout threshold of authentication device 108”]. Examiner notes that secondary reference Chaar above detects “digital inaptitude” by monitoring authentication attempts over time, but does not specifically compare to a threshold.
a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services [(e.g. see Kahn col 4 lines 17-46, col 5 lines 58-61, col 9 lines 53-59, col 12 lines 62-65 and Fig. 1 numerals 104) ”service provider (SP) devices 104A and 104B (collectively referred to as “SP device 104”) … Such devices may each access a variety of SP devices 104 for the same or different services … SP device 104 provides such services to authorized users that provide valid credentials (e.g., a username and password, etc.) … authentication device 108 includes a lockout counter for each user identifier. When authentication device 108 sends a failure message, it also increments the associated lockout counter … each of user device 102, SP device 104, IDP device 106, and authentication device 108 represents an example of a computing device comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry and configured to, in response to determine that the first password is not valid, incrementing a lockout counter associated with the user account … IDP device 106 stores this data in attempt table 110. In the illustrated example, IDP device 106 also increment a lockout counter (606)”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley, Chaar and Kahn, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the result exceeding a first threshold value or a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services, as taught by Kahn, to the teachings of Raley and Chaar because it improves both computing devices and the field of network security in authentication and authorization (e.g. see Kahn col 6 lines 40-42).
As for independent claim 13, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach a terminal. Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 12.
As for dependent claim 14, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the terminal as described in claim 13 and Raley further teaches:
where the terminal comprises a human-machine interface, where the human-machine interface is configured for being driven by a simplified user menu for using at least one second service, as a function of the signal [(e.g. see Raley col 6 lines 22-24, col 8 lines 18-35) ”Non-limiting examples of user devices 104 include desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, and server computers … the computer system may display a prompt that inquires user's extra information. For example, the computer system may receive an indication, from the external web server, that additional authentication information may be needed; the computer system may then display a prompt with one or more graphical input elements (e.g., radio buttons, drop down menus, input field configured to receive input text strings, and the like) in order to receive the user's input. In some other configurations, the computer system may have access to one or more databases or pre-stored web-based interfaces, such as webpages or other GUI component, comprising a number of preconfigured sub-interfaces, such as various containers, and dynamically populate/render the above-mentioned prompt on the user's device. For example, webpages may contain code, such as HTML or PHP, presenting a website of any number of webpages having a common “look-and-feel.” In those configurations, the computer system may render the prompt while preserving the look and feel of the external web server's graphical user interface”].
As for dependent claim 15, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1; further, claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1. Raley further teaches a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program for executing the process [(e.g. see Raley col 6 lines 20-24, col 19 lines 9-12, 25-27) ”the functions may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable or processor-readable storage medium … program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that may be accessed by a computer or processor … The user devices 104 may be any type devices that a user may use to access the server and/or the external servers 105. Non-limiting examples of user devices 104 include desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, and server computers”].
As for dependent claim 16, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 12; further, claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 12. Raley further teaches a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program for executing the process [(e.g. see Raley col 6 lines 20-24, col 19 lines 9-12, 25-27) ”the functions may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable or processor-readable storage medium … program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that may be accessed by a computer or processor … The user devices 104 may be any type devices that a user may use to access the server and/or the external servers 105. Non-limiting examples of user devices 104 include desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, and server computers”].
As for dependent claim 17, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 1 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the at least one action for assistance is an action for assistance using at least one of the at least two services [(e.g. see Raley col 16 lines 1-25) ”the computer system may also query an internal database and retrieve the user's content posting requirements. A user may have specific restrictions for content posted on different social media websites and these restrictions and requirements may be stored in a user profile (e.g., the user may use a GUI render by the computer system to indicate different requirements for different social media websites). In those embodiments, the computer system may receive the same content from the user device, modify according to different social media websites, and transmit two different modified social media content to be posted on different social media … The computer system may generate the modification message with recommended changes to the content. For example, the modification message may include recommendations to shorten the content or to remove special characters in the content that are not recognized by the content posting external web service. In some instances, the computer system may transmit a unique feedback and a modification message for each of the web services”].
As for dependent claim 18, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 12 and Raley further teaches:
wherein the at least one action for assistance is an action for assistance using at least one second service [(e.g. see Raley col 16 lines 1-25) ”the computer system may also query an internal database and retrieve the user's content posting requirements. A user may have specific restrictions for content posted on different social media websites and these restrictions and requirements may be stored in a user profile (e.g., the user may use a GUI render by the computer system to indicate different requirements for different social media websites). In those embodiments, the computer system may receive the same content from the user device, modify according to different social media websites, and transmit two different modified social media content to be posted on different social media … The computer system may generate the modification message with recommended changes to the content. For example, the modification message may include recommendations to shorten the content or to remove special characters in the content that are not recognized by the content posting external web service. In some instances, the computer system may transmit a unique feedback and a modification message for each of the web services”].
As for dependent claim 19, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 12; further, claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 6.
As for dependent claim 20, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the terminal as described in claim 13; further, claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 18. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 18.
As for dependent claim 21, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 18; further, claim 21 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raley et al. (US 10,671,693 B1) in view of Chaar et al. (US 2016/0171804 A1) and further in view of Kahn et al. (US 11,477,028 B2), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al. (US 2017/0093862 A1).
As for dependent claim 4, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 3, but do not specifically teach wherein identifying an incorrect request comprises: verifying whether the length of an access to one of the services is shorter than a first length. However, in the same field of invention, DeLuca teaches:
wherein identifying an incorrect request comprises: verifying whether the length of an access to one of the services is shorter than a first length [(e.g. see DeLuca paragraphs 0052, 0071) ”the cognitive password service 108 can monitor a number of login attempts since the password was manually entered at the website 104 and determine whether a prompting period has been reached based on the number of login attempts meeting a prompting period threshold. Multiple prompting period thresholds 114 can be tracked on a user identifier and website identifier basis. A prompting policy 116 can dynamically adjust the prompting period thresholds 114 with a user-specific rate of decay based on one or more of: an elapsed time since a last successful login … The prompting period may be user configurable by allowing specific user-defined values to be set in the prompting period thresholds 114. The prompting period threshold can be dynamically adjusted according to the prompting policy 116 based on one or more of: an elapsed time since a last successful login”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley, Chaar, Kahn and DeLuca, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the indicator considers respective frequencies of incorrect requests to the services, as taught by DeLuca, to the teachings of Raley, Chaar and Kahn because providing cognitive aids to a user at a designed rate assists the user in recall of a password over an extended period of time (e.g. see DeLuca paragraph 0013).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raley et al. (US 10,671,693 B1) in view of Chaar et al. (US 2016/0171804 A1) and further in view of Kahn et al. (US 11,477,028 B2), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2022/0337577 A1).
As for dependent claim 7, Raley, Chaar and Kahn teach the process as described in claim 6, but do not specifically teach wherein the indicator considers respective frequencies of incorrect requests to the services. However, in the same field of invention, Tan teaches:
wherein the indicator considers respective frequencies of incorrect requests to the services [(e.g. see Tan paragraph 0048) ”the electronic device may determine, according to the a plurality of login monitoring results and corresponding login features thereof, a login result of a historical login with the target login feature, and further determine success rates (or failure rates) corresponding to different third-party login channels, and determine a third-party login channel with a higher login success rate (or a lower failure rate) as the login channel allowed for logging in the target application”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Raley, Chaar, Kahn and Tan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the indicator considers respective frequencies of incorrect requests to the services, as taught by Tan, to the teachings of Raley, Chaar and Kahn because the accuracy of determining the proper login channel is improved (e.g. see Tan paragraph 0048).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 February 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Raley [and Chaar] does not disclose … an indicator (or more generally analysis) comprising ‘a frequency of incorrect requests from each of the at least two services’ … [or] a comparison of the indicator with a threshold to determine inaptitude.” (Pages 8 and 9).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 8, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2017/0208075 A1 issued to Kerametilan et al. on 20 July 2017. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1 and 3-21 (e.g. bad password entry counter threshold for applications).
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 CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174