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
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the application filed on 12/5/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentworth et al. (US 20160373408 A1; hereinafter Wentworth) in view of Turgeman et al. (US 20160371476 A1; hereinafter Turgeman).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Wentworth discloses an information handling system (a system with an USB device to prevent unauthorized access or communications from being passed in either direction between a host and a peripheral device [Wentworth; ¶24; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]) for comprising:
at least one processor; a memory (utilizes a memory and a processor [Wentworth; ¶37; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]);
an external peripheral port configured to couple to external peripheral devices (connecting to the peripherals via USB port [Wentworth; ¶37-39; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]); and
a firewall physically coupled between the at least one processor and the external peripheral port, wherein the firewall is configured to (the firewall security is connected to the memory and processor [Wentworth; ¶37-39; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]):
receive a plurality of communications associated with the external peripheral port, wherein each communication has a time of transmission associated therewith (multiple package data between the peripheral device thru the firewall to the host system, with different time constraints [Wentworth; ¶37-39, 54, 67; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]);
compare the times of transmission (determined if time is outside of the authorized time windows, and determine user’s physically interact with the devices [Wentworth; ¶26, 37-39, 54, 67; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]);
in response to the likelihood being below the threshold, block the communication from proceeding (block communication, disable peripheral and other security actions [Wentworth; ¶49-57]; Figs. 5-6 and associated text]). Wentworth does not explicilty discloses wherein differences between subsequent ones of the times of transmissions indicate delays between corresponding subsequent ones of the transmissions; compare the delay to a human input model to determine a likelihood that the communications were generated by a human; Turgeman teaches these features.
In particular, Turgeman teaches using user characteristics (interaction features) in order to distinguish between a genuine local user, and a fraudster (human hacker, or automatic script or “bot”), comparator/matching module may compare or match, between values of user-specific features that are extracted in a current user session (or user interaction), and values of respective previously-captured or previously-extracted user-specific features (of the current user, and/or of other users, and/or of pre-defined sets of values that correspond to known automated scripts or “bots” or RAT mechanism) and measuring the user-specific reaction or pattern-of-reactions to such injected delay or time-gap; and utilizing the user-specific pattern or profile of reactions as a means in subsequent log-in sessions, or to detect fraudulent users, or to differentiate between users [Turgeman; ¶24-28, 39, 58, 154-156; figs. 2A-2B and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wentworth in view of Turgeman with the motivation to prevent non-human activities, bots from accessing and even further to determine whether they are the authenticated user based on pattern/profile.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the firewall comprises a microcontroller (has its own processor [Wentworth; ¶37-39; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the external peripheral port is a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port (Device class—such as: audio, printer, hub, mass storage, human interface device (e.g., keyboard, mouse), video, etc., [Wentworth; ¶3-6; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the model is an artificial intelligence model pre-trained on a dataset of natural human input (machine-learning processing [Turgeman; ¶51]). The motivation to prevent non-human activities, bots from accessing and even further to determine whether they are the authenticated user based on pattern/profile.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the communications comprise keyboard input packets (Device class—such as: audio, printer, hub, mass storage, human interface device (e.g., keyboard, mouse), video, etc., [Wentworth; ¶3-6; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the communications comprise mouse input packets (Device class—such as: audio, printer, hub, mass storage, human interface device (e.g., keyboard, mouse), video, etc., [Wentworth; ¶3-6; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Wentworth-Turgeman combination discloses wherein the communications comprise packets sent to an external peripheral device configured to cause a light associated with the external peripheral device to turn on or off (light indicators to turn on and off [Wentworth; ¶44; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights