DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 5/29/2026.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations recite “trained to strictly detect anomaly” and “trained to loosely detect anomaly” The terms “strictly” and “loosely” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “strictly” and “loosely” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations as “trained to detect an anomaly only if a threshold is met” and “trained to detect an anomaly even if the threshold is not met,” respectively.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for reasons similar to those set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 7-8, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claims 7-8 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 would be allowable by overcoming all 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above.
In particular, the prior art of record fails to teach neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “wherein the anomaly detection model includes a primary analysis model to analyze whether the received login request is anomalous and a secondary analysis model to analyze what type of anomaly event corresponds to a login request that is determined to have a high probability of being anomalous by the primary analysis model, and wherein the primary analysis model is a light-weighted analysis model that requires few computing resources compared to the secondary analysis model”, as recited in claim(s) 1 and similarly stated in claim(s) 6. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim, are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record.
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 BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights