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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of US 18/079,866 (filed on Dec. 12, 2022 – now US Patent No. 12,244,608), which is a continuation application of US 16/664,420 (filed on Oct. 29, 2019 – now US Patent No. 11,539,713). The prosecution history and references cited in the above application have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,539,713 in view of US 2018/0310171 to Whitaker et al. Claims 1-4 of the conflicting patent anticipate each and every limitations of claims 17-19 of the instant application except for features of generating feedback information comprising indications of the content item and first user Turing score. Whitaker discloses providing feedback to a user when access is granted to resources and passing a challenge. See [Whitaker, ¶0052, 0062-0063]. Both independent claims 1 and 17 of the conflicting patent and the instant application, respectively, are directed to limitations of obtaining signals from multiple devices (“second” and “third”) to produce a Turing score for distributing content. The Turing score represents a likelihood that a user is human. In other words, user interactions are obtained from multiple devices to determine (i.e., a challenge) if a user is a human or a bot. Whitaker’s challenge is similarly directed to determining if a user is a human or a bot prior to granting access to a resource. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include some form of feedback when a user is deemed to be human in accordance to a Turing score and granted access (distributing) to content. Such feedback explicitly informs that the user has passed the challenge and granted access.
Claims 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,608 in view of US 2018/0310171. The same response provided above in regards with U.S. Patent No. 11,539,713 is also applicable herein.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 in both U.S. Patent No. 11,539,713/U.S. Patent No. 12,244,608 in view of US 2015/0310196 to Turgeman et al. Claims 20 and 21 further define the signals from the first/second monitoring as “user response time information” and “cursor movement information”, respectively. Turgeman discloses analogous art of monitoring input devices for user interactions and using them to distinguish humans and bots. See [Turgeman, Abstract]. Turgeman obtains user interaction timings and mouse movement from those input devices [Turgeman, ¶0334, 0344, 0348-0349]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to monitor any user input interactions to determine if a user is human through any computer input devices – such as a conventional keyboard and mouse.
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.
Claims 17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0310196 to Turgeman et al. (hereinafter, “Turgeman”) in view of US 2018/0310171 to Whitaker et al. (hereinafter, “Whitaker”).
As per claim 17: Turgeman discloses: A method (a system 580 located on a server computer or an end-user device [Turgeman, ¶0342; Fig. 5]): receiving a first signal from a first device, the first signal being associated with a first user, the first signal comprising first monitoring information generated by monitoring the first user's interaction with the first device; receiving a second signal from a second device, the second signal being associated with the first user, the second signal comprising second monitoring information generated by monitoring the first user's interaction with the second device (a user interactions tracking module 581 in the system monitors and tracks all the input-unit(s) interactions of a user [Turgeman, ¶0343]; these interactions include mouse-clicks and gestures (i.e., from a mouse, or “first device”), and keyboard keystrokes (i.e., from a keyboard, or “second device”) [Turgeman, ¶0063]; furthermore, fluencies are determined from interactions of a keyboard and a mouse [Turgeman, ¶0330]); generating a first user Turing score, the first user Turing score indicating a likelihood that the first user is a human user, the first user Turing score being generated based, at least in part, on the first monitoring information and the second monitoring information (determining a score based on fluencies of typing 591, clicking 593, and pointer-movement 592 to create a combined/weighted fluency score which is used to determine if a session is operated by a Remote Access user or estimate the existence of fraud [Turgeman, ¶0344]; distinguishing bots using Remote Access mechanisms and a legitimate human user attempting to access a computerized service [Turgeman, ¶0339-0340, 0347]); .
Turgeman is directed to a “differentiat[ing] among users of a computerized service; or in order to differentiate between: (A) a legitimate human user, and (B) unauthorized users, or “bot” or automatic script” [Turgeman, ¶0347]. Specifically, [Turgeman, ¶0027] discloses techniques to distinguish between a genuine local user and fraudsters (bots, automatic scripts) attempting to access a service. Turgeman does not explicitly describe the service as accessing (“distributing”) content. However, such computerized services were common in the art. For example, Whitaker is directed to analogous art of determining whether a user is human or a robot [Whitaker, ¶0004]. Whitaker discloses granting access to a resource (“distributing a content item…”) to a user that passes a challenge [Whitaker, ¶0052] and providing feedback to the user that the challenge was passed and access was granted (“generating feedback information…”) [Whitaker, ¶0052].
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilized the techniques of Turgeman for any type of computerized services, such as distribution and access to a digital resource disclosed in Whitaker. Digital content was known to occasionally contain sensitive information, and it would have been advantageous to limit access of such content to malicious bots.
As per claim 20: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, Turgeman discloses: wherein at least one of the first monitoring information and the second monitoring information comprises user response time information (timing user interactions [Turgeman, ¶0334]).
As per claim 21: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, Turgeman discloses: wherein at least one of the first monitoring information and the second monitoring information comprises cursor movement information (movements of the mouse [Turgeman, ¶0344, 0348-0349]).
As per claim 22: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, Turgeman discloses: wherein the first monitoring information comprises first location information, the first location information indicating a location of the first device during a first interaction with the first user (the proximity of the an input-device, such as a mouse, to a human user can be determined based on computed values of the interactions [Turgeman, ¶0350-0353]), and the second monitoring information comprises second location information, the second location information indicating a location of the second device during a second interaction with the first user (the geospatial location of a user can be estimated by analyzing key-typing interactions by the user [Turgeman, ¶0086, 0089]).
As per claim 23: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, Turgeman discloses: wherein the device associated with the first user comprises at least one of the first device and the second device (a user of a service (content access in view of Whitaker) interacts with an input unit, such as a mouse, keyboard, etc. that the user utilizes for interactions [Turgeman, ¶0030]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeman in view of Whitaker and in further view of US 10,284,530 to Kuo et al. (hereinafter, “Kuo”).
As per claim 18: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Turgeman in view of Whitaker do not explicitly disclose but Kuo discloses: wherein the first signal is securely associated with the first device (a peripheral device establishes a secure connection with a secure application such that a user typing on a keyboard and/or moving and clicking on a mouse encrypts the input(s) [Kuo, col. 12, lines 14-25]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure (or encrypt) the interactions from the input-units of Turgeman, such as described in Kuo. Kuo improves the security of computer peripheral devices to protect input data from said devices from being manipulated.
As per claim 19: Turgeman in view of Whitaker disclose all limitations of claim 17. Turgeman in view of Whitaker do not explicitly disclose but Kuo discloses: wherein the second signal is securely associated with the second device (a peripheral device establishes a secure connection with a secure application such that a user typing on a keyboard and/or moving and clicking on a mouse encrypts the input(s) [Kuo, col. 12, lines 14-25]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure (or encrypt) the interactions from the input-units of Turgeman, such as described in Kuo. Kuo improves the security of computer peripheral devices to protect input data from said devices from being manipulated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The most relevant prior arts are Turgeman and Whitaker as discussed in the current 103 rejection. At best, feedback information provided in Whitaker is merely an indication that a challenge (to determine if a user is human or a bot) was passed (“an indication of the fist user Turing score”, when in view of Turgeman, a score indicates legitimate user or a bot; see the 103 rejection to claim 17) and that access to a resource is granted (“an indication of the content item”). See [Whitaker, ¶0052, 0062-0063].
Furthermore, additional relevant prior art includes US 2013/0110648 to Raab et al. (hereinafter, “Raab”). Raab discloses the topic of click fraud where sham clicks performed by automatic click software (e.g., bots) to pump up an advertiser’s pay-per-click (PPC) fees, but never generate sales (i.e., compensation data, or “remuneration information1”). See [Raab, ¶0028].
However, none of the cited prior arts disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest the feedback comprising “remuneration information, the remuneration information being generated based, at least in part, on the first user Turing score” as recited in claim 24. Dependent claims 25-34 are allowable based on their dependency to claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
1 As interpreted in light of [0061] & [0069] of the originally filed specifications