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.
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
Priority claimed to US provisional application # 63/267,580, filed 02/04/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of application# 17/813,892, now patent# 12,164,635 B2 (referred to as ‘635 hereinafter). Claims 1 and 14 of ‘635 patent claim limitations set forth in the instant claims 1-3, 8-11 and 15-17.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated and covered by similar subject matter as that of generally narrower claims 1 and 14 of ‘635 as also shown below.
Claim Comparison Table
Patent#
12,164,635
Instant Application
18/938,328
1. A system for user-centric security classifications for sets of cryptographic tokens, the system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: configure a first model for generating a predictive classification for a given token set from input user-specific data associated with the given token set, wherein the first model is trained using historical ground-truth training data (i) that indicates whether or not each of a plurality of historical token sets were determined to perform malicious operations and (ii) that includes historical user-specific data associated with the plurality of historical token sets;
identify, based on parsing an immutable distributed consensus ledger on which user activity events for a particular token set are recorded, a plurality of particular users linked to cryptographic tokens of the particular token set; for each particular user of the identified plurality of particular users: identify, via the immutable distributed consensus ledger, a plurality of user activity events that involve the particular user across a plurality of token sets, the plurality of token sets including the particular token set, and from the plurality of user activity events, obtain time data for the particular user that includes, for each of the plurality of token sets, a length of time during which the particular user is contiguously linked to a cryptographic token of each of the plurality of token sets;
generate, using at least the time data for each user as a model input for the first model, a predictive security classification for the particular token set that represents a likelihood that the particular token set is configured for performing malicious operations, wherein the predictive security classification is a positive a positive predictive security classification based on the time data for each user including lengths of time longer than a threshold length; and automatically update a
graphical display of a list of token sets that includes the particular token set according to the predictive security classification for the particular token set.
1. A system for security predictions for cryptographic tokens, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
identifying one or more users that are linked to cryptographic tokens of a particular token set according to an immutable distributed consensus ledger that is configured for managing the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set;
parsing the immutable distributed consensus ledger to determine a contiguous time length that each of the one or more users has been linked to the cryptographic tokens;
determining a security classification for the particular token set based on an evaluation of the contiguous time length of each of the one or more users against one or more thresholds; and communicating the security classification for the particular token set to at least one user not presently linked to the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set according to the immutable distributed consensus ledger.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more users that are linked to the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set comprises determining a trust factor for each of the one or more users based on historical activity of each of the one or more users with one or more other token sets, the historical activity being identified from the immutable distributed consensus ledger.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a trust factor associated with each of the one or more users based on the security classification determined for the particular token set.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the security classification for the particular token set is communicated via a listing of a plurality of token sets in a graphical display provided to the at least one user.
As shown above, the claimed limitations in claims 1 and 14 of ‘635 are narrower detailed limitations that anticipate claims 1-3, 8-11 and 15-17 of the instant application. The instant independent claims 9 and 15 are anticipated similar to instant claim 1; and instant claims 9-11 and 16-17 (parallel to instant claims 2-3) are also anticipated by claims 1 and 14 of ‘635. Further, a system claim may carry out method steps in a computing environment of the system with elements such as processor and memory. Therefore, it would be obvious to be able to carry out steps of a method, using a device or a system and executed by a processor of the system.
This is a non-provisional obviousness type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andon et al. (US 20200273048 A1, Andon hereinafter).
For claim 1, Andon teaches a system for security predictions for cryptographic tokens, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 3; para 0016, 0082-0083, 0144-0146) that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more users that are linked to cryptographic tokens of a particular token set according to an immutable distributed consensus ledger that is configured for managing the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set (Abstract; para 0008-0009, 0011-0014, 0016, 0072, 0074 - users linked to tokens, based on blockchain with associated immutable ledger managing tokens);
parsing the immutable distributed consensus ledger to determine a contiguous time length that each of the one or more users has been linked to the cryptographic tokens (para 0016, 0021, 0025, 0047-0050, 0063, 0072 - time of association of asset or token with the user as also tracked in the immutable distributed ledger);
determining a security classification for the particular token set based on an evaluation of the contiguous time length of each of the one or more users against one or more thresholds (para 0023, 0025, 0124, 0140, 0142 - security or constrain determination of the user and in turn the associated token, and grouping, based on time of association); and
communicating the security classification for the particular token set to at least one user not presently linked to the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set according to the immutable distributed consensus ledger (para 0025 - security or compliance constraint notification sent to the manufacturer who is not linked to the cryptographic token in view of user activities associated with products/tokens as also recorded in the ledger).
For claim 5, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the evaluation of the contiguous time length of each of the one or more users against the one or more thresholds is performed via a machine learning model that is trained using historical training data in which a plurality of historical token sets are labeled as malicious or not (para 0008, 0025, 0045, 0089, 0091, 0118, 0142 - assets associated with users, and secured, wherein the time of custody of assets by the users with minimum limits are tracked, indicating thresholds, and data utilized in machine learning).
For claim 6, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the one or more users includes a first user that is linked to a minting of at least one cryptographic token of the particular token set (para 0052, 0077, 0099, 0133 - token provisioning or new token assignment associated with user asset).
For claim 7, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the one or more users includes a first user that is associated with creating a smart contract corresponding to the particular token set, the smart contract being defined on the immutable distributed consensus ledger (para 0020-0021, 0025, 0085, 0092).
For claim 8, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the security classification for the particular token set is communicated via a listing of a plurality of token sets in a graphical display provided to the at least one user (para 0031, 0043, 0053, 0089).
As to claim 9, the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1 except claim 9 is drawn to a method with steps that are performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore claim 9 is rejected according to claim 1 above.
For claim 13, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the evaluation of the contiguous time length of each of the one or more users against the one or more thresholds is performed via a machine learning model that is trained using historical training data in which a plurality of historical token sets are labelled as malicious or not (para 0008, 0025, 0045, 0089, 0091, 0118, 0142 - assets associated with users, and secured, wherein the time of custody of assets by the users with minimum limits are tracked, indicating thresholds, and data utilized in machine learning).
For claim 14, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the one or more users includes a first user that is linked to a minting of at least one cryptographic token of the particular token set (para 0052, 0077, 0099, 0133 - token provisioning or new token assignment associated with user asset), or associated with creating a smart contract corresponding to the particular token set, the smart contract being defined on the immutable distributed consensus ledger (para 0020-0021, 0025, 0085, 0092).
As to claim 15, the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1 except claim 15 is drawn to at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions thereon, the instructions configured to cause at least one processor to perform operations (Andon - Fig. 3; para 0016, 0082-0083, 0144-0146) as performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore claim 15 is rejected according to claim 1 above.
For claim 19, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the evaluation of the contiguous time length of each of the one or more users against the one or more thresholds is performed via a machine learning model that is trained using historical training data in which a plurality of historical token sets are labelled as malicious or not (para 0008, 0025, 0045, 0089, 0091, 0118, 0142 - assets associated with users, and secured, wherein the time of custody of assets by the users with minimum limits are tracked, indicating thresholds, and data utilized in machine learning).
For claim 20, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the one or more users includes a first user that is linked to a minting of at least one cryptographic token of the particular token set (para 0052, 0077, 0099, 0133 - token provisioning or new token assignment associated with user asset), or associated with creating a smart contract corresponding to the particular token set, the smart contract being defined on the immutable distributed consensus ledger (para 0020-0021, 0025, 0085, 0092).
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, 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 2-3, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al. (US 20200273048 A1, Andon hereinafter), in view of Soderstrom (US 20220067799 A1).
For claims 2, 10 and 16, Andon teaches wherein identifying the one or more users that are linked to the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set comprises determining a trusted action for each of the one or more users based on historical activity of each of the one or more users with one or more other token sets, the historical activity being identified from the immutable distributed consensus ledger (para 0063, 0124 - transaction history and time of association identified; para 0023, 0025, 0124, 0140, 0142 - security or constrain determination of the user and in turn the associated token, and grouping, and authenticating ownership of the user, thereby implying trusted ownership grant to the user and tracked in the immutable distributed ledger). Although implying trusted action associated with the user/token, Andon does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Soderstrom teaches wherein identifying the one or more users that are linked to the cryptographic tokens of the particular token set comprises determining a trust factor for each of the one or more users based on historical activity of each of the one or more users with one or more other token sets (para 0088-0089 - trusted leaders are determined from the leaderboard based on length of association). Based on Andon in view of Soderstrom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Soderstrom in the system of Andon, in order to incorporate associating readily available trust factors identifying trusted users that may be entrusted with crucial tasks in the system or identifying those users as trusted users for allowing or denying them access rights in the system, thereby improving robustness and security of the system.
For claims 3, 11 and 17, Andon teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Andon further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a trusted action associated with each of the one or more users based on the security classification determined for the particular token set (para 0023, 0025, 0124, 0140, 0142 - security or constrain determination of the user and in turn the associated token, and grouping, based on time of association, and the trust aspect adjustment includes authenticating ownership implying trusted ownership grant to the user, wherein adjusting or modifying trusted action associated with the user/token implies adjustment of trustworthiness of the user thereby allowing or denying actions). Andon does not appear to explicitly disclose, however Soderstrom teaches a trust factor for each of the one or more users based on historical activity (para 0088-0089 - trusted leaders are determined from the leaderboard based on length of association). Based on Andon in view of Soderstrom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize teachings of Soderstrom in the system of Andon, in order to incorporate associating readily available trust factors identifying trusted users that may be entrusted with crucial tasks in the system or identifying those users as trusted users for allowing or denying them access rights in the system, thereby improving robustness and security of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if incorporated in their respective base claims 1, 9 and 15 including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the above rejections associated with their parent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH JHAVERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYESH M JHAVERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433