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
This communication is responsive to Amendment, filed 11/24/2025.
Claims 37-56 are pending in this application. Claims 1-36 were cancelled. This action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 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 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 37-39, 43-45, 47-49, 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (US Pat No. 9686308), in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub No. 20160260169).
As per claim 37, Srivastava teaches a computer-based digital object tracking system comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer readable memory storing software instructions, the at least one memory further storing at least one tracking ticker having a cumulative value and at least one entity-specific blockchain data structure forming a verifiable ledger of linked digital objects associated with a specific person (i.e. Any type of database may be used to store the email relationship graph 146 ... Sender 204 is associated with its immutable attributes 212 and derived attributes 214. Recipient 206 is associated with its immutable attributes 216 and derived attributes 218. Message 202 too is associated with its immutable attributes 220 and derived attributes 222, col. 8, lines 33-43); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one processor being operable to perform, upon execution of the software instructions, operations comprising (i.e. Email graph interface 144 can be accessed by email crawler 142 in order to add and/or update graph 146 in accordance with newly added records in email store 116 ... to access email graph interface 144 in order to query the graph 146 and/or to update the graph 146 ... to display information derived from graph 146 on a display device (not shown) viewable by a user (e.g., a CSA) and also update email relationship graph 146, col. 8, lines 54-67):
receiving digital content from a first device (i.e. In subsystem 106, an email crawler 142, an email relationship graph interface 144, an email relation graph 146, a predictive analyzer 148, a big data threat analyzer 150, and CSA dashboard 152 operate, in collaboration with components of subsystems 102 and 104, to detect and/or handle targeted attacks in the email channel, col. 7, lines 26-31; email crawler 142 may include an email header analyzer that parses email header data into name-value pairs for predetermined attributes such as attributes defined in the SMTP protocol ... Email crawler 142 may then use the output generated by the analyzers including email header analyzer and transform it into aspects of the email relationship graph 146, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 2);
deriving a set of attributes from the digital content including at least one tracking metric (i.e. crawler 112 “crawls” email store 116 to access respective stored emails and, for respective stored emails, extract information such as sender, recipient, sender domain, other recipients, attachments in message content, web links etc. in message content, and/or to compute hashes of attachments. In some embodiments, email crawler 142 may also perform functions such as counting the number of messages that satisfy certain specified criteria. This information is then used to either add one or more new nodes and/or edges in the email relationship graph 146, and/or to update one or more attributes in email relationship graph 146, col. 7, lines 32-57; the method further includes generating a graph representing a plurality of previously received email messages, forming the recipient interaction profile and the sender profile using the graph, and, determining one or more of the recipient interaction profile and the sender profile based at least in part upon the graph ... The sender profile may include parameters determined based upon a plurality of email messages represented in the graph and information regarding the sender obtained from an online cyber threat intelligence resource. The parameters may include a sender trust rating for the sender, col. 3, lines 15-43);
instantiating a new digital object in the at least one memory according to the set of attributes (i.e. Email crawler 142 may also extract from email store 116 and store in graph 146, actions (e.g., read message, not read message, reply, forward, delete, save, report as junk etc.) taken by a recipient in response to receiving an email message as attributes of the message represented by the edge between a sender and recipient, col. 9, lines 1-13; In some embodiments, profiles 502 and 522 may be stored in a memory separately from graph 146. In some other embodiments, profiles 502 and 522 are created and maintained as an attribute (e.g., derived attribute) of the respective node in email relationship graph 146, col. 15, lines 22-39);
linking the new digital object to an existing associated object within the at least one entity-specific blockchain data structure thereby forming a verifiable chain of digital objects associated with the specific person (i.e. At operation 708, the information determined in one or more of the operations 702-706 can be used to update the email relationship graph (e.g., email relationship graph 146). For example, an entry, such as that shown in FIG. 2, for a new email message from a sender to a recipient is added to graph 146. The determined header information can be added as attributes of the sender, recipient, or message, col. 20, lines 5-11; Based upon properties of the incoming email message, at operation 604, predictive analyzer 148 queries email relationship graph 146. The querying of the graph may be via email graph interface 144. The querying may request information from email relationship graph 146 related to the sender, recipient, and/or message corresponding to the incoming email. For example, the querying may include one or more queries based upon the sender, recipient, sender domain, sender MTA, an attachment, an embedded content, selected header fields, or any combination thereof, col. 18, lines 18-27);
identifying the at least one tracking ticker via selection criteria based on the set of attributes (i.e. At operation 710, the action taken by the recipient in response to receiving the message is determined, and this action information is stored in the graph 146 in association with the message. For example, when an email is received by a recipient, the recipient can take following actions in response; open the email, reply to the email, forward the email, move the email to a folder, mark the email as junk, delete the email, or delete without reading the email etc. These actions are stored as an attribute of the edge from the sender to the recipient in the email relationship graph, col. 20, lines 12-21);
updating the cumulative value of the at least one tracking ticker according to a cumulative function by summing the at least one tracking metric with the cumulative value (i.e. The features considered in determining the trust rating may include one or more of length of time sender domain has sent emails to the enterprise, number of senders from this sender domain interacting with the enterprise, number of recipients in the enterprise the sender domain interacts with organization vs. sender domain originated message ratio, sender domain messages open vs. not-open ratio, number of emails received from this sender domain, number of emails opened, number of emails opened but not replied, number of emails opened but not replied that contain an attachment, number of emails opened but not replied that contain a URL, number of emails replied for this sender domain, number of emails replied that contain an attachment, number of emails replied that contain a URL, number of emails from this sender not opened, number of emails not opened that contain an attachment, number of emails not opened that contain a URL, number of emails sent to this sender, number of email replies received from this sender, col. 17, lines 1-33; Proceeding to operation 612 after operation 614, the email relationship graph 146 is updated to reflect that a message, with the parameters of the present message's parameters, was found to pose a threat, col. 19, lines 27-37; One or more of the sender profile, the domain profile and the message transfer agent profile may include a respective associated trust rating, and wherein the updating further includes updating the respective associated trust rating at least partly in accordance with the determined message threat rating, col. 2, lines 27-42);
causing a second device to present the updated cumulative value of the at least one tracking ticker (i.e. The CSA dashboard can then query the graph 146, through the interface 144, to obtain information regarding the sender, recipient and/or
message type, col. 13, lines 39-67);
providing access to the new digital object via the at least one blockchain data structure (i.e. CSA dashboard 152 can also be configured to query the graph 146. The queries may be such as, for example: list of all recipients that received messages from a specified sender; list of all messages sent by a specified sender; list of all messages sent by a specified sender to a specified recipient; list of all recipients that received a specified message; and list of all senders that have sent messages to a specified recipient, col. 14, lines 15-22).
Although Srivastava does not seem to specifically teach "a verifiable ledger", Arnold teaches this limitation (i.e. The data messages may include electronic signatures appended by the client devices. These electronic signatures may be processed by the ledger administration server to verify that the data messages were sent from the client device and authorized by the respective accountholder. Responsive to verifying the electronic signatures, ledger administration server may employ a processor to identify the assets associated with the transaction, check available balances, and perform KYC validation, [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Srivastava, Arnold before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Srivastava to include the limitations as taught by Arnold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to verify that the data messages were sent from the client device and authorized by the respective accountholder in view of Arnold ([0009]), as doing so would give the added benefit that responsive to verifying the electronic signatures, ledger administration server may employ a processor to identify the assets associated with the transaction, check available balances, and perform KYC validation, as taught by Arnold ([0009]).
As per claim 38, Arnold teaches the system of claim 37, further comprising an object database storing the new digital object (i.e. The system creates a data table that records verified accountholders and the balance of each asset held by that respective accountholder. The system further records asset issuing authorities, [0007]).
As per claim 39, Arnold teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the operations further include providing access to the new digital object via the object database (i.e. Each asset issuing authority is an authority (or a proxy for that authority) that controls the supply of a particular asset held by one or more of the accountholders. The system includes a validation process that provides each asset issuing authority with view/approval access to the account of each accountholder, [0007]).
As per claim 43, Arnold teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the at least one entity-specific blockchain comprises a distributed ledger (i.e. the system authorizes an individual and associates with the individual an account that represents some amount of an asset (for example a regulated currency). The system performs a payment in a single asset or exchanges two or more assets in substantially real time between two or more authorized individuals by adjusting account balances maintained within redundant copies of a distributed ledger, [0006]).
As per claim 44, Arnold teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the at least one entity-specific blockchain comprises a global blockchain (i.e. The ledger administration server may compile and store indications of such KYC authorizations in a look-up table, e.g., upon receiving such indication in a signed message from a KYC validator such as a commercial bank. In some aspects, KYC authorizations may be based on a chain of trust, [0012]).
As per claim 45, Arnold teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the at least one entity-specific blockchain comprises, at least in part, a cryptocurrency blockchain (i.e. cryptographic codes (e.g., the client's public key). The ledger balances held by the client per asset may be stored in balance database 314, [0047]).
As per claim 47, Arnold teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the access is proved via at least one application programming interface (API) (i.e. The system includes a validation process that provides each asset issuing authority with view/approval access to the account of each accountholder, [0007]).
As per claim 48, Arnold teaches the system of claim 47, wherein the access via the API is over a network (i.e. FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a ledger administration network 300. Ledger administration network 300 includes ledger administration server 310, asset validation server 330, account operator server 340, and KYC validation server 360, [0043]).
As per claim 49, Srivastava teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the access is provided via a social media widget (i.e. The method may include receiving aspects of an incoming email message addressed to a first email account holder, selecting a recipient interaction profile and/or a sender profile from a plurality of predetermined profiles stored in a memory based upon the received properties, col. 1, lines 5-26).
As per claim 52, Srivastava teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the set of attributes comprises a set of name-value pairs (i.e. email crawler 142 may include an email header analyzer that parses email header data into name-value pairs for predetermined attributes such as attributes defined in the SMTP protocol, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 2).
As per claim 53, Srivastava teaches the system of claim 52, wherein the name-value pairs adhere to a defined namespace (i.e. email crawler 142 may include an email header analyzer that parses email header data into name-value pairs for predetermined attributes such as attributes defined in the SMTP protocol, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 2).
As per claim 54, Srivastava teaches the system of claim 53, wherein the defined namespace comprises an entity-specific namespace (i.e. email crawler 142 may include an email header analyzer that parses email header data into name-value pairs for predetermined attributes such as attributes defined in the SMTP protocol, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 2).
As per claim 55, Srivastava teaches the system of claim 37, wherein the set of attributes include at least one of the following types of attributes: a location and a time (i.e. time range when the sender sends messages), and locations: (e.g., places from where the sender sends messages), col. 16, lines 21-67).
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (US Pat No. 9686308), in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub No. 20160260169), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub No. 20160210963).
As to claims 40, 41, Srivastava, Arnold do not seem to specifically teach the system of claim 39, wherein the new digital object comprises an emotion object.
Kim teaches this limitation (i.e. In Example #2 of FIG. 4, an appropriate sticker group may be recommended in accordance with the emotional state of a user, [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Srivastava, Arnold, Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Srivastava, Arnold to include the limitations as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to determine a similar situation to the utterances of the first user terminal and the second user terminal from a dialogue situation information database in view of Kim ([0018]), as doing so would give the added benefit of calculating a distance between a sticker expression preference vector of the determined similar situation and expression vectors of each sticker of the selected sticker candidate group upon calculation of a situation-based expression suitability, as taught by Kim ([0018]).
As per claim 42, Kim teaches the system of claim 41, wherein the emotion object comprises a gratitude-based assertion (i.e. In FIG. 8, the factors of the dialogue attitudes may include “greeting”, “apology”, “gratitude”, “congratulation”, “condolence”, “encouragement”, and “malediction”, [0123]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (US Pat No. 9686308), in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub No. 20160260169), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US Pub No. 20150019317).
As per claim 46, Srivastava, Arnold do not seem to specifically teach the system of claim 37, wherein the new digital object comprises a private object accessible according the fee schedule.
Mitchell teaches this limitation (i.e. In one example of the business method model, each of the consumer users pays a subscription fee on a periodic basis (e.g., monthly) for access to incentives (offers and rewards) and privileges useable at platform-affiliated or registered merchants, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Srivastava, Arnold, Mitchell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Srivastava, Arnold to include the limitations as taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide consumer users the ability to enroll multiple payment cards in view of Mitchell ([0070]), as doing so would give the added benefit of accessing to incentives (offers and rewards) and privileges useable at platform-affiliated or registered merchants, as
taught by Mitchell ([0071]).
Claims 50, 51, 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (US Pat No. 9686308), in view of Arnold et al. (US Pub No. 20160260169), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Pope et al. (US Pat No. 8719255).
As per claim 50, Srivastava, Arnold do not seem to specifically teach the system of claim 37, wherein the updated cumulative value comprises a rate of change of the at least one tracking ticker.
Pope teaches this limitation (i.e. determining a time rate of change of the content request traffic, col. 1, lines 25-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Srivastava, Arnold, Pope before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Srivastava, Arnold to include the limitations as taught by Pope. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to detect content request traffic directed to a content source, determine a time rate of change of the content request traffic, and determine an indication of content interest associated with the content source in view of Pope (col. 1, lines 25-37), as doing so would give the added benefit of determining interest levels of online content based on rates of change of content access traffic, as taught by Pope (col. 1, lines 25-37).
As per claim 51, Pope teaches the system of claim 50, wherein the
updated cumulative value comprises a higher order derivative than the rate of change
of the at least one tracking ticker (i.e. This process may be extended to generate an arbitrary number of higher-order derivatives or difference functions with respect to content request traffic data, col. 12, lines 16-29).
As per claim 56, Srivastava, Arnold do not seem to specifically teach the system of claim 37, wherein the at least one tracking metric comprises a weighed value derived from the set of attributes of the new digital object.
Pope teaches this limitation (i.e. The indication of content interest associated with a given content source may also be referred to herein as a weight or interest weight associated with the given content source, col. 12, lines 30-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Srivastava, Arnold, Pope before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Srivastava, Arnold to include the limitations as taught by Pope. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to determine a weight associated with a content source in view of Pope (col. 12, lines 30-52), as doing so would give the added benefit of determining an indication of content interest, as taught by Pope (col. 12, lines 30-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 37-56 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 MIRANDA LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached on 571-272-8352. 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.
/MIRANDA LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153