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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 12/23/2025, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue: The applicant argues that the cited combination of Verzun and Li fail do teach or suggest many of the elements of claim 1 including, for example, "generate, based on the determining, a limiting command to limit access of the first target account to the target database, wherein the second target account has at least one right associated with the target database that are unavailable to the first target account. The Office Action asserts that Verzun discusses these elements in paragraph [0050], stating "the TCP/IP protocol stack to protect their content and integrity." It appears that the Office Action is alleging that "applications... [that] offer limited or no security provisions [that] instead rely wholly on the TCP/IP protocol stack to protect ... content and integrity" somehow suggests the referenced elements of claim 1.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Verzun discloses a privacy network must, in addition to preventing hacking and surveillance, control access to personal content and private information on a need-to-know basis utilizing ‘verifiable identity’ to limit access. Then, user authentication, identity-trust-chains, assured HyperContract execution, and verifiable cryptocurrency transactions. Ensuring transaction integrity in the HyperSphere involves several important mechanisms including ensuring expedient transactional processing and resolution. I.e. using network-native CA-certificates to establish trust of persons or devices before granting user access to privileged information (¶¶ [0563][0567], from a limited access to an access to privileged information).
Issue: The applicant argues that even if combined with any portion of Verzun, Li's first and second accounts also fail to disclose or suggest at least "generate, based on the determining, a limiting command to limit access of the first target account to the target database, wherein the second target account has at least one right associated with the target database that are unavailable to the first target account" and "second memory storing second computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the database computing platform to limit, based on receipt of the limiting command, access of the first target account to the target database, wherein the database computing platform is incapable of tracking an account lineage from the first target account to the source account to verify whether the first target account is accessed by an authorized user."
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the aforementioned of Verzun allow different accounts to access different privileged information and it would be operable since Verzun allowing business and personal accounts to co-exist on a common platform (¶ [0740]) that is in line with Li’s teachings. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument of "the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" is not persuasive.
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 Ornum, 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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Pat. 12192291. Claims 1-3, 14 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of US Pat. 11778048. The claims of the patent contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verzun et al. (US Pub. 2019/0386969, hereinafter “Verzun’”) in view of Li, Yue et al. (CN 106973096, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Verzun discloses a system comprising: a computing platform, comprising: a first processor (Fig. 1); and first memory storing first computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the first processor (Fig. 1), cause the computing platform to:
receive, from a database-level interceptor associated with a target database, a first account-change message comprising information identifying a first target account as a database-level source account and identifying a second target account associated with one or more target databases, wherein the first target account is associated with a target application configured to access the target database (¶¶ [0056]- [0057], some transactions are account changes identified in a target database);
determine, based on a failure to detect a source account associated with the first target account, an incomplete account lineage chain associated with the first account-change message (¶ [0094], incomplete transactions; ¶ [0492], ¶ [0495] lineage chain);
generate, based on the determining, a limiting command to limit access of the first target account to the target database, wherein the second target account has at least one right associated with the target database that are unavailable to the first target account (¶ [0050], the TCP/IP protocol stack utilized to protect their content and integrity); and
a database computing platform comprising: a second processor; and second memory storing second computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the database computing platform to limit, based on receipt of the limiting command, access of the first target account to the target database, wherein the database computing platform is incapable of tracking an account lineage from the first target account to the source account to verify whether the first target account is accessed by an authorized user (¶ [0042], the location of the caller's cell phone can also be triangulated through the relative signal strength of the cell phone towers communicating with the device, meaning a person's device can be located and their movements tracked, even with GPS turned off; ¶ [0412], full content of the ancestral lineage)).
Verzun does not explicitly discloses first target account and second target account; however, Li discloses first target account and second target account (page 2, wherein a second target theme page corresponding to the first target theme page is displayed on the second client side after the second client side receives the target push data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li into Verzun to effectively pushing the target data for completion of transaction made to databases once allowed.
Regarding claim 2, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to:
determine a first timestamp included in the first account-change message, wherein the first timestamp indicates a time of requesting an account change from the first target account to the second target account (¶[0082], timestamped of changes);
determine a second timestamp indicating a time of accessing the target database by the first target account (¶¶ [0082], [0532]-[0533], time indications); and
track, based on a comparison of the first timestamp and the second timestamp, the source account associated with the first target account (¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 2, wherein tracking the source account associated with the first target account comprises: identifying a network identifier associated with the source account (¶ [0101]);
instructing a first computing device associated with the network identifier to install a source-level interceptor to track an account lineage from the first target account to the source account (¶¶ [0041]-[0042], information is intercepted); and
identifying, based on a communication from the installed source-level interceptor, the source account (¶¶ [0056]- [0057], account changes identified and intercepts for making pirate transactions to a database).
Regarding claim 4, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: identify a first computing device accessing the first target account (¶ [0046]; identifying an access);
instruct the first computing device to install a source-level interceptor to track an account lineage from the first target account to the source account (¶¶ [0056]- [0057], account changes identified and intercepts for making pirate transactions to a database); and
receive, from the source-level interceptor, a second account-change message, wherein the second account-change message comprises information identifying the source account and identifying the first target account (¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the second account-change message further comprises device information of the first computing device, one or more commands associated with the source account, and at least one timestamp (¶ [0082], time stamped); and
wherein the first account-change message further comprises database information of the target database, one or more commands associated with the target database, and one or more timestamps (¶ [0082], time stamped).
Regarding claim 6, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: generate, based on the first account-change message and the second account-change message, a notification comprising information associated with an account lineage between the source account and the second target account (¶ [0059] Trusting an untrustworthy certificate authority or accepting a corrupted or fraudulent CA certificate is a common means by which the integrity and security of Internet communication is compromised and the means by which network connected devices trust and accept files containing malware and spyware); and
send, to an administrator user computing device, the notification comprising the information associated with the account lineage between the source account and the second target account (¶ [0412], full content of the ancestral lineage).
Regarding claim 7, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: determine, based on the second account-change message, that the source account is not an originating account and is associated with a second source account of a second computing device (¶¶ [0041]-[0042]); and
instruct the second computing device to install a second source-level interceptor (¶¶ [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: receive, from the second source-level interceptor, a third account-change message comprising information identifying the second source account and identifying the source account (¶ [0140], allowing the interception or manipulation of data packet communication content);
generate, based on a determination that the second source account is an originating account, information indicating a complete account lineage between the second source account and the second target account (¶ [0412]); and
store the information indicating the complete account lineage between the second source account and the second target account (¶ [0412]).
Regarding claim 9, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the information indicating the complete account lineage between the second source account and the second target account indicates: a first account lineage segment between the second source account and the source account (¶ [0412];
a second account lineage segment between the source account and the first target account (¶ [0412]); and
a third account lineage segment between the first target account and the second target account (¶ [0412], ¶ [0492]).
Regarding claim 10, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to inhibit an account-change, based on an incomplete account lineage chain associated with the first account-change message, from the first target account to the second target account (Li, p. 2.; Verzun, ¶ [0492], leaf certificates may use pseudonymous identities to further protect user privacy. In addition to protecting personal privacy, CA- certificates also prevent fraud. All derivative CA- certificates sharing a common lineage).
Regarding claim 11, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the source account is associated with a first computing device, and wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: receive, from a source-level interceptor associated with a second computing device, a second account-change message comprising information identifying a second source account associated with the second computing device and identifying the source account associated with the first computing device (Li, p. 2.; Verzun, ¶ [0492]); and
determine, based on the first account-change message and the second account-change message, that an account lineage chain is incomplete at the first computing device (Li, p. 2.; Verzun, ¶ [0492]).
Regarding claim 12, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to instruct, based on determining that the account lineage chain is incomplete at the first computing device, the first computing device to install a second source-level interceptor (¶ [0140], allowing the interception or manipulation of data packet communication content).
Regarding claim 13, Verzun in view of Li discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the first computer-readable instructions further cause the computing platform to: based on determining that the account lineage chain is incomplete at the first computing device, generate information indicating an incomplete account lineage between the source account and the first target account (¶ [0412]); and
send, to an administrator user computing device, a notification comprising the information indicating the incomplete account lineage between the source account and the first target account (¶¶ [0412], [0704], [0704] Using quantum computing for brute force code breaking of a data packet is rendered meaningless by the incomplete data contained within the packet).
Regarding claims 14-19, see discussion of claims 2, 4-6 and 12 above for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claim 20, see discussion of claim 1 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 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 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights