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
Claims 20-39 are pending.
This action is response to the application filed on November 06, 2024.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 20-39 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12165025 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12165025 B2 (hereinafter, "Patent"), contains every element of claim 20-39 of the instant application (hereinafter, "Instant Applicant") and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 20-39 should have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. US 12165025 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Patent No. US 12165025 B2
20. A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising:
obtaining, with a computer system, an entity log, wherein:
the entity log comprises events involving the entity, a first subset of the events are actions by the entity, and the events are labeled according to an ontology of events having a plurality of event types;
36. the entities include consumers, the events include communications to consumers by an enterprise, the events include purchases by consumers from the enterprise, the events include non-purchase interactions by consumers with the enterprise, and the entity logs are obtained from a customer relationship management system of the enterprise
and determining, with the computer system, based on a predictive machine learning model, for the entity characterized by the entity log a likelihood that the entity will engage in a target action in a given duration of time in the future;
wherein the predictive machine learning model is an autoencoder with attention.
19. A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising:
obtaining, with a computer system, an entity log, wherein:
the entity log comprises events involving the entity, a first subset of the events are actions by the entity, the events are labeled according to an ontology of events having a plurality of event types,
the entities include consumers, the events include communications to consumers by an enterprise, the events include purchases by consumers from the enterprise, the events include non-purchase interactions by consumers with the enterprise, and the entity logs are obtained from a customer relationship management system of the enterprise;
and determining, with the computer system, based on a predictive machine learning model, for the entity characterized by the entity log a likelihood that the entity will engage in a target action in a given duration of time in the future
3. the predictive machine learning model is an autoencoder with attention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis [R-01.2024]
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended. A claim which refers to "said aluminum lever," but recites only "a lever" earlier in the claim, is indefinite because it is uncertain as to the lever to which reference is made. Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("controlled stream of fluid" provided reasonable antecedent basis for "the controlled fluid"). Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves. For example, the limitation "the outer surface of said sphere" would not require an antecedent recitation that the sphere has an outer surface. See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitation of "an ellipse" provided antecedent basis for "an ellipse having a major diameter" because "[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter").
I. EXAMINER SHOULD SUGGEST CORRECTIONS TO ANTECEDENT PROBLEMS
Antecedent problems in the claims are typically drafting oversights that are easily corrected once they are brought to the attention of applicant. The examiner’s task of making sure the claim language complies with the requirements of the statute should be carried out in a positive and constructive way, so that minor problems can be identified and easily corrected, and so that the major effort is expended on more substantive issues. However, even though indefiniteness in claim language is of semantic origin, it is not rendered unobjectionable simply because it could have been corrected. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1384, 1388 n.5, 166 USPQ 209, 213 n.5 (CCPA 1970).
II. A CLAIM TERM WHICH HAS NO ANTECEDENT BASIS IN THE DISCLOSURE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDEFINITE
The mere fact that a term or phrase used in the claim has no antecedent basis in the specification disclosure does not mean, necessarily, that the term or phrase is indefinite. There is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure. Applicants are given a great deal of latitude in how they choose to define their invention so long as the terms and phrases used define the invention with a reasonable degree of clarity and precision.
III. A CLAIM IS NOT PER SE INDEFINITE IF THE BODY OF THE CLAIM RECITES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR IN THE PREAMBLE
The mere fact that the body of a claim recites additional elements which do not appear in the claim’s preamble does not render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Larsen, 10 Fed. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (The preamble of the Larsen claim recited only a hanger and a loop but the body of the claim positively recited a linear member. The examiner rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the omission from the claim’s preamble of a critical element (i.e., a linear member) renders that claim indefinite. The court reversed the examiner’s rejection and stated that the totality of all the limitations of the claim and their interaction with each other must be considered to ascertain the inventor’s contribution to the art. Upon review of the claim in its entirety, the court concluded that the claim at issue apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 2.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Because claim 20 recites, "…. for the entity characterized by the entity log a likelihood that the entity will engage in a target action in a given duration of time in the future;….”, which render indefinite claimed invention scope. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
Examiner Note: May be renders the claim indefinite by failing to point out that is being performed. Applicants are advised to amend the claim so solve the 112 rejection set forth in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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 20, 22-36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stockdale et al (US 20190260793 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Stockdale et al teaches
obtaining, with a computer system, an entity log, wherein: the entity log comprises events involving the entity, a first subset of the events are actions by the entity ([0020] FIG. 3 user interface showing a cluster of event subset label. [0012] Identifying patterns of behavior within the plotted events. [0048] clicking log of all relevant events), and the events are labeled according to an ontology of events having a plurality of event types ([0020] FIG. 3 user interface showing a cluster of event label of what the similar characteristics are); and
determining, with the computer system, based on a predictive machine learning model ([0119] predictive function. [0014] Applying machine learning models), for the entity characterized by the entity log a likelihood that the entity will engage in a target action in a given duration of time in the future ([0013] Clustering events that analysis of that cluster of events. [0164] thresholds indicative of the threshold likelihood);
wherein the predictive machine learning model is an autoencoder with attention (model ([0119] predictive function. [0014] Applying machine learning models. [0032] events in the distinct item of clustering the events. machine learning models, then that distinct item of the cluster of alerts and/or events. output module onto the user interface to be brought to a viewer's attention).
With respect to claim 22, STOCKDALE et al teaches dimensions of the vector representation correspond to a predicted likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action in the given duration of time in the future ([0045] to predict and catch sophisticated cyber-attack vectors. machine learning constantly revisits assumptions about behavior, using probabilistic mathematics).
With respect to claim 23, STOCKDALE et al determining for the entity characterized by the embedded space a likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action in the given duration of time in the future ([0045] to predict and catch sophisticated cyber-attack vectors. machine learning constantly revisits assumptions about behavior, using probabilistic mathematics).
With respect to claim 24, STOCKDALE et al teaches determining a likelihood that the entity will engage in sequence of events including the target action ([0045] to predict and catch sophisticated cyber-attack vectors. machine learning constantly using probabilistic mathematics).
With respect to claim 25, STOCKDALE et al teaches training the predictive machine learning mode ([0045] to predict and catch sophisticated cyber-attack vectors. machine learning constantly using probabilistic mathematics).
With respect to claim 26, STOCKDALE et al teaches determining for the entity the likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action in a given geographic locale ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 27, STOCKDALE et al teaches determining the likelihood that the entity will engage in the in the target action in the given geographic locale based on the sequence of geographic locales ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 28, STOCKDALE et al teaches to map geographic locales of the entity log into a vector representation and wherein at least some dimensions of the vector representation correspond to a predicted likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action in the given geographic locale in the given time in the future ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 29, STOCKDALE et al teaches geographic locales are divided into geographic bins corresponding to an entity's trajectory ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 30, STOCKDALE et al teaches multiple events associated with geographic locales which are within a threshold distance are combined into a single event ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 31, STOCKDALE et al teaches to map a sequence of geographic locales of the entity log into a vector representation and wherein proximity in at least some dimensions of the vector representation corresponds to similarity of given sequences of geographic locales ([0018] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of a cyber threat defense system configured to protect a system against cyber security threats that includes a mapping module, a clustering module, one or more machine learning models, and an output module).
With respect to claim 22, STOCKDALE et al teaches determining a similarity of the sequence of geographic locales of the entity log to other sequences of geographic locales for a plurality of entities ([0018] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of a cyber threat defense system configured to protect a system against cyber security threats that includes a mapping module, a clustering module, one or more machine learning models, and an output module).
With respect to claim 33, STOCKDALE et al teaches sequence of geographic locales is a Geo-Temporal Sentence (GTS) ([0018] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of a cyber threat defense system configured to protect a system against cyber security threats that includes a mapping module, a clustering module, one or more machine learning models, and an output module).
With respect to claim 34, STOCKDALE et al teaches determining for the entity the likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action in a given sequence of geographic locales ([0018] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of a cyber threat defense system configured to protect a system against cyber security threats that includes a mapping module, a clustering module, one or more machine learning models, and an output module).
With respect to claim 35, STOCKDALE et al teaches third subset of events are actions taken on the entity by others and wherein determining for the entity the likelihood that the entity will engage in the target action based on the actions taken on the entity by others ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 36, STOCKDALE et al teaches events include communications to consumers by an enterprise, the events include purchases by consumers from the enterprise, the events include non-purchase interactions by consumers with the enterprise, and the entity logs are obtained from a customer relationship management system of the enterprise ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 38, STOCKDALE et al teaches predicting whether an entity will engage in a target behavior in the future ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
With respect to claim 39, STOCKDALE et al teaches to adjust model parameters as new entity log entries are obtained ([0020] FIG. 3 illustrates a diagram of an embodiment of user interface showing a cluster of alerts and/or event from the unusual pattern and a label of what the similar characteristics are).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 37 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC M WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-4043. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/ISAAC M WOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163