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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest identifying “one or more fraudulent activities included in the interactions, said fraudulent activities being identified by a failure of each of the one or more fraudulent activities to correspond with an authorized activity pattern”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Ibrahim discloses fraudulent activities which fail to correspond to authorized activities such as authorized or valid transactions (¶ 13-14, 32-36).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “the authorized activity pattern being customized for each network node included in the network based on the one or more characteristics of the network node”. In response to applicant's argument 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). Ibrahim fails to disclose the authorized activity pattern being customized for each network node included in the network based on one or more characteristics of the network node. However, Petersen discloses an authorized activity pattern being customized for each network node included in a network based on one or more characteristics of the network node (¶ 51; see also ¶ 5-9, 60-66, activity pattern customized per node based on characteristics of node). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “said first rule using a predetermined amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; wherein when the first rule receives a first amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; the first rule identifies the first amount of data as insufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the processing unit scans the network for a second amount of data, the second amount of data combined with the first amount of data being sufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the processing unit retrieves the second amount of data from the network; and the processing unit provides the second amount of data to the first rule”. However Petersen discloses the features in at least ¶ 94 which discloses rules utilizing a predetermined amount of data to complete execution according to an amount of data that is insufficient, collecting first data and scanning a network for second data and retrieving a second amount of data indicative of an amount to trigger the rule and provisioning the data sufficient to complete execution of the first rule. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments cannot be held persuasive in this regard.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20230126764 to Ibrahim in view of US 20230188500 to Pikarski in view of US 20120131185 to Petersen.
Regarding claim 1, Ibrahim teaches a quantum network system that detects and prevents malicious activities in real- time, the quantum network system comprising:
a quantum processing unit operable to (¶ abstract, 13-14, 32-36; quantum computer for fraud detection):
monitor interactions on a network (¶ 13-14, 32-36, network interactions monitored);
identify one or more fraudulent activities included in the interactions, said fraudulent activities being identified by a failure of each of the one or more fraudulent activities to correspond with an authorized activity pattern (¶ 13-14, 32-36, identification of fraudulent activities);
amalgamate the one or more fraudulent activities into a log of fraudulent activities (¶ 36-39, logging of fraudulent activities).
Ibrahim fails to teach but Pikarski teaches:
rebuild, using artificial intelligence, based on the log of fraudulent activities, one or more fraudster rules used by one or more entities executing the one or more fraudulent activities (¶ 46, building rules based on log of activities);
build one or more elastic counteractive rules, said elastic counteractive rules counteracting the fraudster rules, said elastic counteractive rules comprising a first rule (¶ 47-52, building counteractive security rules), execute the elastic counteractive rules within the network (¶ 52, 54),
halt the one or more fraudulent activities within the network using the elastic counteractive rules (¶ 51, 54, prevention of malicious activities using counteractive rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Pikarski. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Pikarski would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating improvements to the security of networked environments (Pikarski, ¶ 4).
Ibrahim fails to teach:
the authorized activity pattern being customized for each network node included in the network based on one or more characteristics of the network node;
said first rule using a predetermined amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; wherein when the first rule receives a first amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; the first rule identifies the first amount of data as insufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the quantum processing unit scans the network for a second amount of data, the second amount of data combined with the first amount of data being sufficient to complete execution of the first rule; the quantum processing unit retrieves the second amount of data from the network; and the quantum processing unit provides the second amount of data to the first rule;
However Petersen teaches:
an authorized activity pattern being customized for each network node included in a network based on one or more characteristics of the network node (¶ 51; see also ¶ 5-9, 60-66, activity pattern customized per node based on characteristics of node);
said first rule using a predetermined amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; wherein when the first rule receives a first amount of data to complete execution of the first rule; the first rule identifies the first amount of data as insufficient to complete execution of the first rule (¶ 94, data to complete rule trigger is insufficient);
the processing unit scans the network for a second amount of data, the second amount of data combined with the first amount of data being sufficient to complete execution of the first rule (¶ 94,network is scanned for second amount of data indicative of amount to trigger rule); the processing unit retrieves the second amount of data from the network; and the processing unit provides the second amount of data to the first rule (¶ 94, retrieval of second amount of data and provision of data to rule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Petersen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Petersen would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating quantitative and behavioral analyses for event detection (Petersen, abstract, ¶ 91-94).
Regarding claim 2, 7,
Ibrahim fails to teach: wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node associated with the network
However, Pikarski teaches: wherein elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node associated with a network (¶ 12-19, customization using per node objects). Motivation to include Pikarski is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 3,
Ibrahim fails to teach: wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node based on one or more characteristics of the network node.
However, Petersen teaches: wherein elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node based on one or more characteristics of a network node (¶5-9, 60-66, e.g. per IP). Motivation to include Petersen is the same as presented above.
Claim 5 is addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6,
Ibrahim fails to teach monitoring, using the quantum processing unit, additional interactions on the network; identifying, using the quantum processing unit, one or more additional fraudulent activities; amalgamating, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more fraudster rules based on the additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the quantum processing unit, the one or more elastic counteractive rules based on the modifying the one or more fraudster rules; and executing, using the quantum processing unit, the modified one or more elastic counteractive rules. However Pikarski teaches: monitoring, using the a processing unit, additional interactions on the network; identifying, using the processing unit, one or more additional fraudulent activities; amalgamating, using the processing unit, the one or more additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the processing unit, the one or more fraudster rules based on the additional fraudulent activities; modifying, using the processing unit, the one or more elastic counteractive rules based on the modifying the one or more fraudster rules; and executing, using the processing unit, the modified one or more elastic counteractive rules (¶ 41-54). Motivation to include Pikarski is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 8,
Ibrahim teaches:
the network is associated with an entity; and each network node corresponds to a customer of the entity (¶ 31, 45-46, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9,
Ibrahim fails to teach: wherein the elastic counteractive rules are customized for each network node based on a location of the network node. However, Petersen teaches: wherein rules are customized for each network node based on a location of the network node (fig. 16, ¶ 120-121). Motivation to include Petersen is the same as presented above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ibrahim, Pikarski, and Petersen in view of US 20180103047 to Turgeman
Regarding claim 10,
Ibrahim fails to teach but Turgeman teaches:
executing a set of permanent rules within the network, said set of permanent rules which override the elastic counteractive rules (¶ 169, overriding decision maker unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Turgeman. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Turgeman would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating cyber attack detection or malware (Turgeman, abstract, ¶ 13).
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 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 RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights