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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to the arguments filed on 11/12/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of JUNQUERA and Toth fail to teach the claim limitation, “perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user, determine a list of behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user, the list of behavioral experiments including one or more behavioral experiments”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, in paragraph 8 of Toth’s reference emphasizes that authenticating the first user of the first client computing device to the first user account may include validating one or more authentication credentials associated with the first authentication request…determining that the one or more behavioral parameters associated with the first client computing device are valid based on evaluating the one or more behavioral parameters associated with the first client computing device. Further, in paragraph 35 of Toth’s reference elaborates that different and/or multiple layers of challenges may be implemented depending on user-specific risk state (e.g., multi-factor authentication, challenge questions, or the like). Data associated with the Biometrics dimension may capture user-specific biometrics (which may, e.g., include validation data associated with a particular user's authentication biometrics, a particular user's history or frequency of using particular biometrics to authenticate, or the like). For instance, such data may include information associated with fingerprint biometrics, facial biometrics, voice biometrics, cadence biometrics, behavioral biometrics, retina biometrics, health biometrics, heart rate biometrics, ECG biometrics, chemical biometrics, or the like. Data associated with the Other dimension may capture other customer-specific data that may be evaluated for authentication purposes. Therefore, it is evidentiary, that Toth’s reference successfully teaches the agued portion of the claim limitation, “perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user”. Then, in paragraph 6 of JUNQUERA’s reference discuss that the set of defined behavior-related representations and respective token scores are user-modifiable, and the method further includes receiving a user-modification to the set of defined behavior-related representations and respective token scores for the activity of the subject, the user-modification including one or more of adding, editing or deleting a behavior-related representation or a token score of the set of defined behavior-related representations and respective token scores. Moreover, in paragraph 41 of JUNQUERA’s reference deliberates a display screen appears on the user's electronic device with a list of defined behavior-related representations configured for the activity…the user may observe a behavior on the list of defined behavior-related representations, and click or otherwise select the defined behavior-related representation in the user's electronic device 210. Hence, from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that JUNQUERA’s reference successfully teaches the claim limitation, “determine a list of behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user…. the list of behavioral experiments including one or more behavioral experiments”. Additionally, paragraph 48 of Toth’s reference describes that …any and/or all of this information may be used by client authentication computing platform 110 in building and/or updating a user-account behavior profile (which may, e.g., be used by client authentication computing platform 110 in evaluating future login events associated with the first user account). Further, in paragraph 51 of Toth’s reference highlights that client authentication computing platform 110 may authenticate the user of client computing device 130…client authentication computing platform 110 may authenticate the first user of the first client computing device (e.g., client computing device 130) to the first user account based on the one or more behavioral parameters associated with the first client computing device (e.g., client computing device 130) and one or more authentication credentials associated with the first authentication request. For instance, client authentication computing platform 110 may evaluate and validate one or more authentication credentials received from account portal computing platform 120 and/or client computing device 130, as well as compare and validate the captured behavioral parameters and current activity data against the user-account behavioral profile corresponding to the user account. Moreover, in paragraph 60 of Toth’s reference defines that at step 216, client authentication computing platform 110 may update a behavioral profile for the first user account. client authentication computing platform 110 may create the first behavioral profile (e.g., if a behavioral profile does not already exist for the first user account) or may update an existing behavioral profile for the first user account. Further, paragraph 61 of Toth’s reference expresses that the first behavioral profile associated with the first user account may include…. biometric information associated with a biometrics dimension of the first behavioral profile. The first behavioral profile associated with the first user account (which mat, e.g., by updated by client authentication computing platform 110 at step 216) may include.. the biometric information associated with the biometrics dimension of the first behavioral profile. Therefore, from the above mentioned discusses, it is evidentiary that Toth’s reference successfully teaches the portion of the claim limitation, “determine behavioral experiments based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user”. Hence, the combined teachings of JUNQUERA and Toth successfully teaches the claim limitation, “determine a list of behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user, the list of behavioral experiments including one or more behavioral experiments”. Any ordinary skill in the art would agree that “pursuant to user-selection of a behavior-related representation from a set of defined behavior-related representations” of JUNQUERA’s reference and “the computing platform to capture behavioral profile which includes behavioral parameters” of Toth’s reference are the similar concept of “behavioral experiment” of the instant application.
Applicant further argues that the Office also failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 because the Office's articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinning as required by KSR and relies on impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. On the aforementioned discussion, it is clearly shown that the knowledge of “behavioral experiment” takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and it does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that the lack of obviousness to combine these two analogous arts, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, from the aforementioned discussion, applicant’s arguments are respectfully traversed and the applied rejection will be sustained.
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 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNQUERA et al hereafter JUNQUERA (US pat. App. Pub. 20210307663) and in view of Toth et al hereafter Toth (US pat. App. Pub. 20210264005).
4. As per claims 1, and 9, JUNQUERA discloses a computing device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: a memory; and an electronic processor configured to: receive information of a user of the computing device, perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user, determine a list of behavioral experiments the information of the user, the list of behavioral experiments including one or more behavioral experiments, display the list of behavioral experiments (paragraphs: 3-4, 27-28, and 40-42, wherein it emphasizes receiving user’s information of a device and determining a list of behavioral representation based on user’s information. The list of behavioral representation including behavioral representation of the user then displaying the list of behavioral representation), receive a selection of a behavioral experiment in the list of behavioral experiments from the user, initiate the behavioral experiment based on the selection, and in response to the user completing the behavioral experiment, upload experiment data to a server (paragraphs: 44-46, 50-51, and 54-58, wherein it elaborates receiving a selection of behavioral representation in the list of behavioral representation from the user and starting the behavioral representation based on the selection. Then, send the behavioral representation data to a cloud system after completed by the user). Although, JUNQUERA discusses about behavioral representation based on user’s information. He does not expressly disclose behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user. However, in the same field of endeavor, Toth more specifically discusses perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user and determine behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user (paragraphs: 11-13, 48-50, and 82).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Toth’s teachings of determine behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user with the teachings of JUNQUERA, for the purpose of effectively protecting behavioral experiments from any unauthorized intruders.
5. As per claim 2, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: calculate an amount of time from a last execution of a previous session of the behavioral experiment by the user, determine whether the amount of time is greater than or equal to a session wait time threshold, and responsive to determining that the amount of time is not greater than or equal to the session wait time threshold, control a display screen to display a timer with remaining time until next session of the behavioral experiment is available based on the amount of time that is calculated (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 25, 27, and 41).
6. As per claim 3, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: responsive to determining that the amount of time is greater than or equal to the session wait time threshold, display the next session of the behavioral experiment as available for selection, receive a second selection of the next session of the behavioral experiment from the user, initiate the next session of the behavioral experiment based on the second selection, and in response to the user completing the next session of the behavioral experiment, upload additional experiment data to the server (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 6-8).
7. As per claim 4, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: calculate an amount of time from a last execution of a previous behavioral experiment by the user, determine whether the amount of time is greater than or equal to an experiment wait time threshold, and responsive to determining that the amount of time is not greater than or equal to the experiment wait time threshold, control a display screen to display a timer with remaining time until next behavioral experiment is available based on the amount of time that is calculated (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 67, and 71-72).
8. As per claim 5, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: responsive to determining that the amount of time is greater than or equal to the experiment wait time threshold, control the display screen to display an updated list of behavioral experiments, receive a second selection of a second behavioral experiment in the updated list of behavioral experiments from the user, initiate the second behavioral experiment based on the second selection, and in response to the user completing the second behavioral experiment, upload second experiment data to the server (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 28, 44, 46).
9. As per claim 6, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the experiment wait time threshold is a configured interval that is the same between each behavioral experiment in the list of behavioral experiments (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 3-4).
10. As per claim 7, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein the experiment wait time threshold is a configured interval between the behavioral experiment and a second behavioral experiment in the list of behavioral experiments, wherein a second experiment wait time threshold is a second configured interval between the behavioral experiment and a third behavioral experiment in the list of behavioral experiments, wherein the second behavioral experiment is distinct from the behavioral experiment and the third behavioral experiment, and wherein the third behavioral experiment is distinct from the behavioral experiment and the second behavioral experiment (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 50-51, and 54).
11. As per claim 8, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the computing device, wherein, to perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user, the electronic processor is further configured to perform an authentication mechanism on the information of the user that uniquely identifies the user, wherein the authentication mechanism includes a Single Sign On authentication mechanism and an OAuth2 authentication protocol, and wherein the experiment data includes a collected behavioral data payload and some or all of a timestamp, an experiment identifier (ID), an identification of a dataset used in the behavioral experiment, an identification of a configuration used in the behavioral experiment, a session number, an iteration number, an identification of a channel, and an identification of a platform (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 73, 76, and 78).
12. Claims 10-16 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-8. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-8 apply equally as well to claims 10-16.
13. As per claim 17, JUNQUERA discloses a system comprising: a computing device; and a server including a memory and an electronic processor, the memory including a list of behavioral experiments, and the electronic processor is configured to: receive information of a user of the computing device, perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user, receive a request for access to a portion of the list of behavioral experiments that can be performed the information of the user, the portion of the list of behavioral experiments including one or more behavioral experiments, output the portion of the list of behavioral experiments to the computing device (paragraphs: 3-4, 27-28, and 40-42), receive experiment data from the computing device, the experiment data including a collected behavioral data payload, and the experiment data indicating an association with a behavioral experiment from the portion of the list of behavioral experiments, store the experiment data in the memory, and associate the experiment data with the behavioral experiment from the list of behavioral experiments (paragraphs: 44-46, 50-51, and 54-58). Although, JUNQUERA discusses about behavioral representation based on user’s information. In the same field of endeavor, Toth more specifically discusses perform authentication of the user based on the information of the user and determine behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user (paragraphs: 11-13, 48-50, and 82).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Toth’s teachings of determine behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user with the teachings of JUNQUERA, for the purpose of effectively protecting behavioral experiments from any unauthorized intruders.
14. As per claim 18, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the system, wherein the computing device includes a second memory and a second electronic processor, the second electronic processor is configured to: receive the information of the user of the computing device, request the authentication of the user by the server, request access to the portion of the list of behavioral experiments that can be performed by the user based on the authentication of the user and the information of the user (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 25, 27, and 28), display the portion of the list of behavioral experiments, receive a selection of the behavioral experiment in the portion of the list of behavioral experiments from the user, initiate the behavioral experiment based on the selection, and in response to the user completing the behavioral experiment, upload the experiment data to the server (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 40, 50, and 54).
15. As per claim 19, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the system, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: receive second experiment data from the computing device, the second experiment data including a second collected behavioral data payload, and the second experiment data indicating an association with a second session of the behavioral experiment from the portion of the list of behavioral experiments, wherein the second experiment data is distinct from the experiment data, store the second experiment data in the memory, and associate the second experiment data with the behavioral experiment from the list of behavioral experiments (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 66-67, and 71).
16. As per claim 20, JUNQUERA and in view of Toth discloses the system, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: receive second experiment data from the computing device, the second experiment data including a second collected behavioral data payload, and the second experiment data indicating an association with a second behavioral experiment from the portion of the list of behavioral experiments, wherein the second behavioral experiment is distinct from the behavioral experiment, store the second experiment data in the memory, and associate the second experiment data with the second behavioral experiment from the list of behavioral experiments (JUNQUERA, paragraphs: 73, 76, and 78).
Conclusion
17. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407