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 .
1. This is in response to the communications filed on 02 December 2024.
2. Claims 41-60 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 41-60 have been rejected.
4. Claims 1-40 have been cancelled in a preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 19 September 2024.
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).
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.
6. Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,605 B2 (hereinafter the ‘605 patent) in view of Castro et al US 2014/0137219 A1 (hereinafter Castro).
The ‘605 patent discloses a method of authenticating a user, the method comprising:
parsing a social media account associated with a social media handle for the user using a template-based algorithm [column 33, lines 17-18];
comparing the results of the parsing with a plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions [column 33, lines 21-22].
The ‘605 patent does not teach determining, based on the comparison, that one or more of the plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions is compromised based on an answer being publicly available through the social media account. The ‘605 patent does not teach eliminating each compromised knowledge-based authentication question. The ‘605 patent does not teach presenting the remaining uncompromised knowledge-based authentication questions to the user for authentication.
Castro teaches determining, based on the comparison, that one or more of the plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions is compromised based on an answer being publicly available through the social media account (i.e. determine that answers to personalized questions being posted on at least one of the social media web sites) [0061]. Castro teaches eliminating each compromised knowledge-based authentication question (i.e. deletes generated challenge questions that have information corresponding to answers of the generated challenge questions posted on at least one of the social and business networks) [0081]. Castro teaches presenting the remaining uncompromised knowledge-based authentication questions to the user for authentication (i.e. display questions) [0097].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the ‘605 patent so that it would have been determined, based on the comparison, that one or more of the plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions was compromised based on an answer being publicly available through the social media account. Each compromised knowledge-based authentication question would have been eliminated. The remaining uncompromised knowledge-based authentication questions would have been presented to the user for authentication.
It 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 to have modified the ‘605 patent by the teaching of Castro because it helps to automatically generate challenge questions inferred from user history data for user authentication [0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 41-60 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to the instant application is Myslinski U.S. Patent No. 9,189,514 Bl1 and Castro et al U.S. Patent No. 8,955,058 B2 (hereinafter Castro). Myslinski is directed towards an optimized fact checking system that analyzes and determines the factual accuracy of information and/or characterizes the information by comparing the information with source information [abstract]. Myslinski teaches analyzing and monitoring a social media account (i.e. Twitter account) and using templates [column 14, lines 23-61]. Castro is directed towards user authentication and at least one of a social network and a business network of each user in a plurality of users is accessed [abstract]. Castro teaches that a server device deletes generated challenge questions that have information corresponding to answers of the generated challenge questions posted on at least one of the social and business networks [column 15, lines 7-16]. However, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “parsing a social media account associated with a social media handle for the user using a template-based algorithm”, “comparing the results of the parsing with a plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions” and “determining, based on the comparison, that one or more of the plurality of knowledge-based authentication questions is compromised based on an answer being publicly available through the social media account”, as recited by independent claims 41, 54 and 60.
Any claims not directly addressed are allowed on the virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
8. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Wei et al US 2021/0281612 A1 directed to detecting a network application security question [abstract].
B. Wu et al US 2020/0134157 A1 directed to providing tactile challenge-response tests for limiting access to electronic resources associated with a computing system [abstract].
C. Sandstrom US 2020/0311250 A1 directed to the field of online user access control, more precisely, to techniques of adjusting the user authentication challenge level based on observed attributes of the online user [0010].
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights