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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024, 11/11/2024, 12/09/2024, 04/03/2025, 08/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8355951.
Claim 1 of instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12143389. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 10 of instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12143389. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 19 of instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12143389. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akerman; Kevin et al. US 20140236678 (hereinafter Akerman) in view of Pereira; Shane Anil et al. US 10887333 (hereinafter Pereira).
As per claim 1, Akerman teaches: A system, comprising:
a processing circuit configured to:
extract an identifier from first third party activity data, wherein the identifier is
extracted based at least in part on routing information of a traffic packet of the first third party activity data (“the profile selector (129) determines the identity (identifier) of the user (101) based on matching information associated with the identity of the user (101) and information provided in the user data (125), such as via matching IP addresses” Akerman: para.141);
determine an item of an entity profile based at least in part on the identifier (street address, account information of the user (items of an entity profile) is determined. Akerman: para.141);
monitor third party activity on a plurality of data channels associated with the computing entity, comprising collecting second third party activity data (Akerman: para. 278 and 279),
wherein collecting the second third party activity data comprise querying or accessing the plurality of data channels (Akerman: para. 278 and 279).
Akerman does not teach; however, Pereira discloses: based on the item, determine a computing entity external to the system associated with the first third party activity data and the identifier (“processes 600, 700 and 800 are generally described as identifying potentially malicious IP addresses from log information using in-memory IP address tree, this is merely an example, and any suitable identifying information related to activity associated with the user's account can be used to identify potentially malicious activity associated with the user's compute resources (e.g., URLs, domain names, file hashes, file signatures, process activity, etc.) from any suitable data structure (e.g., a hash table, a database, a file system, a document, a prefix tree, etc.).” Pereira:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akerman with the teachings of Pereira to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to identify an unauthorized access to an account.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Akerman teaches: the routing information comprises at least one of a source information or a destination information of the traffic packet (“the profile selector (129) determines the identity of the user (101) based on matching information associated with the identity of the user (101) and information provided in the user data (125), such as via matching IP addresses” Akerman: para.141).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Akerman teaches:
the routing information comprises at least one of application-layer level routing information, Transport Layer Security (TLS) routing information, Security Shell Layer (SSL) routing information, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) routing information, transport or Internet-link level routing information, or data link-layer routing information (Akerman; para. 354).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Akerman teaches:
at least one of a header, a footer, or metadata of the traffic packet comprises the routing information (Akerman: para. 93).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Akerman teaches:
the identifier comprises at least one of a domain identifier, subdomain identifier, email address, file name, or Internet Protocol (IP) address (Akerman: para.141).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Akerman does not teach; however, Pereira disclose: the processing circuit is further configured to identify an unknown computing entity external to the system associated with the first third party activity data, the identifier comprises at least one of a cookie, a unique code, a public/private key, a user name, an active directory handle, a social media handle, an email address, or a financial account identifier (col. 25, lines 53-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akerman and Pereira with the teaching of Brandmaier to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to utilize a unique identifier associated with the authorized user.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. Akerman does not teach; however, Pereira disclose: the processing circuit is further configured to:
generate a notification comprising the identifier (Pereira: col. 12, lines 38-41); and
transmit the notification to an administrator associated with the entity profile (Pereira: col. 12, lines 41-67) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akerman and Pereira with the teaching of Brandmaier to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to provide to relate the provide information related to a specific account.
As per claim 10, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 11, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 12, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 13, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a computer-readable media storing instructions corresponding to method claim 10 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 10.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a computer-readable media storing instructions corresponding to method claim 11 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akerman in view of Pereira and further in view of Brandmaier; Jennifer A. et al. US 10839460 (hereinafter Brandmaier).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Akerman and Pereira does not teach; however, Brandmaier discloses: the processing circuit is communicatively coupled to a database comprising a system of records retrievably storing a plurality of data points associated with a plurality of third party entities, and wherein at least one in the plurality of data points represents a policy associated with the monitored third party activity, the processing circuit being further configured to correlate the monitored third party activity to the policy (Col. 19, lines 16-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akerman and Pereira with the teaching of Brandmaier to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to implement a policy in conducting activities.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akerman in view of Pereira and further in view of Thomas; Doyle E. US 20220164897 (hereinafter Thomas).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Akerman and Pereira does not teach; however, Thomas discloses: generate a user interface comprising a graphical representation of the entity profile (“the Profile Module 214 is responsible for the entire graphical representation that is used to communicate and display the information regarding the user's profile to the user. That is, in some embodiments, a graphics generator within the Profile Module 214 creates the image that is presented to the Display Module 216 to be shown on the display 220.” Thomas: para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Akerman and Pereira with the teaching of Thomas to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to simplify complex ideas reveal patterns.
As per claim 18, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 9 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493