DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended dependent claim 3 into the independent claims.
Applicant argues “Wang determines difficulty based on broad qualitative categories like “memorization” or “computation.” Wang’s system relies on the inherent nature of the task itself to distinguish humans from bots. In contrast, the amended claims require that quantifies difficulty using a specific, calculated proportion derived from historical performance data (Remarks pg. 6).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely require wherein the degree of difficulty of the challenge question is based on an index score that corresponds to a proportion of a number of correct answers to a number of incorrect answers to the challenge question. There is nothing in the claim that requires a “specific, calculated proportion derived from historical performance data.” Rather, the claims merely require that the difficulty is determined based on the proportion of correct to incorrect answers.
Wang teaches a proportion of number of correct answers to number of incorrect answers (Humans, memorization 6%, Computation 2%, pg. 9). This teaches the degree of difficulty (i.e. if only 6% of humans vs 99% of LLM get a question correct, the challenge question is difficult for humans)
Applicant argues “The combination with Badhwar is improper because Badhwar’s “step-up authentication workflow” is initiated by the server system…not in response to a request from the user’s device. (Remarks pg. 7).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own specification recites “the server device may provide, as an alternative authentication process, a request to receive an input of a biometric from the client device (Paragraph [0044]).” Therefore the alternate authentication system described by the specification is initiated by the server device. Badhwar similarly teaches receiving data from the device requesting an alternative authentication process.
Applicant argues “Badhwar does not teach or suggest determining a new probability score based on the received biometric input itself. In Badhwar’s system, the biometric input is treated as a pass/fail mechanism…not as an input for a new probability score calculation (Remarks pg. 7).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pass/fail teaches a probability score of 100% or 0%. If Applicant intends the probability score of the user being invalid being other than 100 or 0% than the claims must explicitly claim these features.
The remaining claims are derived from the above and are unpersuasive for a similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 4-10, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question,Hong Wang, et. al, May 2023) in view of Ford (US 2024/0256686)
Regarding Claim 1,
Wang (Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single
Question,Hong Wang, et. al, May 2023) teaches a computer-implemented method to, the method comprising:
providing challenge data to the device to assess whether a user of the device is an invalid user, wherein the challenge data corresponds to a challenge question having a high degree of difficulty (pg. 6-7, “These questions are typically challenging for humans, but are relatively easy for LLMs” “What is the square of pi”)
wherein the degree of difficulty of the challenge question is based on an index score that corresponds to a proportion of a number of correct answers to a number of incorrect answers to the challenge question (pg. 9, Human correct percentage)
receiving data from the device, wherein the received data corresponds to an answer to the challenge question; determining that the received data corresponds to a correct answer to the challenge question and that the user of the device is an invalid user (pg. 7, teaches GPT plugins can even solve more intricate problems with in a second. But for human, it will require a much longer time to solve the problem. Therefore, the behavior of a real human will be very different from a language model and we can easily detect bots);
Wang does not explicitly teach receiving, from a device, a request to access one or more portions of a website during a session;
and denying the requested access to the one or more portions of the website
Ford (US 2024/0256686) teaches receiving, from a device, a request to access one or more portions of a website during a session; and denying the requested access to the one or more portions of the website (Paragraph [0003] teaches websites provide a test such as a Turing test to access portions of the website)(Paragraph [0039] teaches the Turing test prevents malware or bots from accessing the webpage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang with the denying access to a website after determining an invalid user
The motivation is to prevent malicious malware or bots from accessing the website (Paragraph [0026] of Ford)
Regarding Claim 2,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the degree of difficulty of the challenge question is based on one or more of age appropriateness, grade level, and subject matter (pg. 9, teaches subject matter including ”memorization”, “computation” is determined to be difficult for humans)
Regarding Claim 4,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the invalid user comprises a bot (pg. 7, invalid user is a bot)
Regarding Claim 5,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Ford teaches further comprising terminating the session in response to determining that the user of the device is an invalid user (Paragraph [0055] teaches ending sessions when user is invalid)
Regarding Claim 6,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Wang teaches further comprising determining that the received data corresponds to an incorrect answer to the challenge question and validating the user of the device (pg. 8, Human: I don’t know, validates the user as human)
Regarding Claim 7,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6. Ford teaches further comprising providing to the device data associated with the requested access to the one or more portions of the website (Paragraph [0003] teaches websites provide a test such as a Turing test to access portions of the website).
Regarding Claim 8,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Wang teaches further comprising determining, in response to the received data corresponding to the correct answer to the challenge question, a score that indicates a probability that the user of the device is an invalid user (pg. 9, GPT correct percentage)
Regarding Claim 9,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8. Ford teaches wherein in response to determining that the score is not greater than a threshold, providing additional challenge data to the device, wherein the additional challenge data corresponds to one or more challenge questions having varying degrees of difficulty (Paragraph [0055] teaches if the response isn’t received before the first threshold providing additional challenge data)
Regarding Claim 10,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein in response to determining that the score is not greater than a threshold, validating the user of the device and providing to the device data associated with the requested access to the one or more portions of the website (Paragraph [0003] teaches websites provide a test such as a Turing test to access portions of the website).
Regarding Claims 12-19,
Claims 12-19 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 3-9, and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question,Hong Wang, et. al, May 2023) in view of Ford (US 2024/0256686) in further view of Badhwar (US 2021/0194883)
Regarding Claim 11,
Wang and Ford teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving data from the device requesting an alternative authentication process; providing a request to the device for a biometric input; receiving, from the device, data corresponding to the requested biometric input; and determining a score that indicates a probability that the user of the device is an invalid user.
Badhwar (US 2021/0194883) teaches receiving data from the device requesting an alternative authentication process; providing a request to the device for a biometric input; receiving, from the device, data corresponding to the requested biometric input; and determining a score that indicates a probability that the user of the device is an invalid user (Paragraph [0058] teaches providing step up authentication which includes biometric based authentication)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang and Ford to include the biometric authentication process as taught by Badhwar
The motivation is to additional authentication options for step-up authentication (Paragraph [0058])
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 11 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights