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
2. This action is in response to the amendment filed June 11, 2024.
3. Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 18 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending with this action.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20, previously are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeman (US 10,055,560 B2) in view of Brustoloni et al. (US 2001/0034831 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Katz (US 9,633,201 B1). Katz has been cited to better teach the claim limitations as amended. Please see new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
6. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 9,633,201 B1) in view of Brustoloni et al. (US 2001/0034831 A1).
INDEPENDENT:
As per claim 1, Katz teaches a communication platform comprising:
one or more computer processors (see Katz, col.3, lines 61-65: “Systems may include a processor that may execute a program capable of performing one or more of the steps. In some instances, one or more of the steps may be performed manually and/or may involve human interaction.”); and
one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the communication platform to perform operations (see Katz, col.4, lines 20-25: “The memory may include storage for data, which may include non-transitory computer readable media such as code, logic, or instructions for performing one or more step. Algorithms may be stored in memory. The processor may be capable of carrying out one or more steps described herein.”) comprising:
registering a first account, the first account having a first set of authentication credentials (see Katz, col.8, lines 39-47: “A fraud containment system 10 may be capable of receiving information about user accounts (e.g., logins, maintenance events), devices, and/or confirmed fraud (e.g., fraudulent transactions and/or stolen credentials). The fraud containment system may analyze and/or aggregate the data and may provide information relating to a risk score for a particular customer request, recommended groups of accounts for blocking, and/or threat-level metrics for an online channel.”; and col.25, lines 58-60: “The database table may enable the same user connecting to a different online business with the same user device to be tracked and registered in the consortium.”);
registering a second account, the second account having a second set of authentication credentials different from the first set of authentication credentials (see Katz, col.8, lines 39-47: “A fraud containment system 10 may be capable of receiving information about user accounts (e.g., logins, maintenance events), devices, and/or confirmed fraud (e.g., fraudulent transactions and/or stolen credentials). The fraud containment system may analyze and/or aggregate the data and may provide information relating to a risk score for a particular customer request, recommended groups of accounts for blocking, and/or threat-level metrics for an online channel.”; and col.25, lines 58-60: “The database table may enable the same user connecting to a different online business with the same user device to be tracked and registered in the consortium.”);
detecting, based on accounting for use of a service by a first account and a second account and shared profile information between the first account and the second account, an illicit usage pattern (see Katz, col.4, line 60-col.5, line 7: “Information about account and/or device activity may be stored in the group tracking system 100. Such information may information may include online logins 102 and online account maintenance events 104. Online logins may include times that a user logged in, characteristics of a device the user used to log in, identifying information that a user used to login, or characteristics associated with the login or authentication procedure (e.g., number of times a password was entered/login attempts made, timing of password, etc.). Online account maintenance events may include activities performed by a user in the account, how the user used the account, settings of the account, any activity associated with the account, checks performed on the account. Such user login and account information may be stored through the group tracking system, along with device information.”; col.6, lines 38-41: “Thus, devices may be profiled, not only in relation to single accounts, but in relation to circles or groups of accounts. Some devices may be found to act in a particular manner with respect to certain circles of accounts.”; col.13, lines 36-41: “A device's proximity to a fraudulent event may be based on relational proximity, temporal proximity, geographic proximity, device activity (e.g., device behavior), device settings, or any other information. A device proximity to a fraud event may be symbolic of the closeness of a device's relationship with the fraud event.”; col.13, line 64-col.14, line 7: “The fraud event may be associated with account. The fraud event may be associated with an identity or item that may be associated with an account. For example, the fraud event may include a falsified document, such as a check, which may be associated with an individual (e.g., allegedly the individual's check), that may be associated with an account (e.g., the individual's bank account). The fraud event may be directly or indirectly associated with an account. An account may be provided for services for a user of the account. A user of an account may or may not have a verified or verifiable identity.”; col.19, lines 14-15: “The interactions between various devices and accounts may be tracked and/or counted.”; col.22, lines 36-55: “Thus, the fraud repository may receive user and/or user device information from each online organization, which may collect user or user device information from each user device during an online transaction. The fraud repository may also receive information about user accounts and interactions between devices and accounts. Behavioral profiles relating to device and/or account activity may be received as well. In some instances, interaction counts between devices and individual accounts or account circles may be received at the fraud repository. Interaction counts or profiles between potential fraud perpetrator devices and individual victims and/or victim circles may be received at the fraud repository… ”; and col.23, lines 36-42: “In particular, the fraud repository may provide a centralized service utilizing this invention to identify user devices, store user and device information, track end-user logins, associate an end-user account with one or more specific devices, associate a device with one or more end-user accounts, associate a device or end-user with fraudulent activity”); and
in response to the detecting of the illicit usage pattern, preventing future interactions between the first account and the communication platform (see Katz, col.8, lines 1-8: “Moreover, blocking of corresponding devices or untrusted devices to such account(s) can be implemented as described elsewhere herein. An account circle may be associated with potential fraud perpetrator accounts. For example, if a perpetrator circle is determined to present a high threat, such accounts may be frozen to prevent the perpetrator accounts from being used in further fraudulent actions.”).
Katz does not explicitly teach that the service is a microservice.
Brustoloni teaches a microservice (see Brustoloni, [0010]: “More particularly, a method and associated apparatus is described for providing paid access accessing, via a local area network (LAN), a micro-service provider (.mu.SP). The .mu.SP establishes a secure tunnel with each client, preventing unauthorized or nonpaying users from gaining service.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Katz in view of Brustoloni by implementing a microservice. One would be motivated to do so because Katz teaches in column 12, lines 17-22, “Examples of entities may include various individuals, companies, corporations, partnerships, groups, or associations, such as financial institutions, credit card companies, commercial institutions, online communities, online service providers, web site operators, or any other groups.”, emphasis added.
As per claim 7, Katz and Brustoloni teach a method comprising:
detecting, at a communication platform, based on accounting for use of a micro-service by a first account and a second account and shared profile information between the first account and the second account, an illicit usage pattern (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
in response to the detecting of the illicit usage pattern, preventing future interactions between the first account and the communication platform (see Claim 1 rejection above).
As per claim 18, Katz and Brustoloni teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a communication platform, cause the communication platform to perform operations (see Katz, col.4, lines 20-25: “The memory may include storage for data, which may include non-transitory computer readable media such as code, logic, or instructions for performing one or more step. Algorithms may be stored in memory. The processor may be capable of carrying out one or more steps described herein.”) comprising:
detecting, based on accounting for use of a micro-service by a first account and a second account and shared profile information between the first account and the second account, an illicit usage pattern (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
in response to the detecting of the illicit usage pattern, preventing future interactions between the first account and the communication platform (see Claim 1 rejection above).
DEPENDENT:
As per claims 3, 9, and 20, which respectively depend on claims 1, 7 and 18, Katz further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the detecting of the illicit usage pattern, preventing future interactions between subaccounts of the first account and the communication platform (see Katz, col.7, line 62-col.8, line 8: “A group of accounts in such a situation may be an account circle… For example, if a perpetrator circle is determined to present a high threat, such accounts may be frozen to prevent the perpetrator accounts from being used in further fraudulent actions.”).
As per claims 4 and 10, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 7, Katz further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: calculating a fraud score from usage data for the first account; and determining whether the fraud score satisfies a fraud threshold (see Katz, col.8, lines 42-51: “The fraud containment system may analyze and/or aggregate the data and may provide information relating to a risk score for a particular customer request, recommended groups of accounts for blocking, and/or threat-level metrics for an online channel. It shall be understood that the aforementioned generation and analysis of risk score values and scales can be equally applicable to and interchangeable with other aspects of the invention herein in calculating and assessing degrees of separation, risk and proximity.”).
As per claims 5 and 11, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 7, Katz and Brustoloni further teach wherein the operations further comprise: providing the micro-service in relation to a communication session between a first communication endpoint and a second communication endpoint (see Katz, col.21, lines 11-18: “The online organizations connected to the one or more user devices may be any sort of host, such as an electronic commerce business, an online merchant, a financial institution, or any other type of website service provider that may provide a service to a user or may interact with a user device. An online organization and a user device may perform an electronic transaction, such as a purchase of a product or service, such as online banking.”; and Claim 1 rejection above for “microservice”).
As per claims 6 and 12, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 7, Katz further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: establishing, for the first account, a micro-service configuration that describes triggering conditions for initiating use of the micro-service in relation to the first account (see Katz, col.8, lines 57-62: “A fraud event may be detected 200. In some embodiments, a suspicion of a fraud event may be formulated. The fraudulent event may be confirmed. In some instances, the fraudulent event may be confirmed with a threshold certainty. In some instances, a fraudulent event may be confirmed when there is 100% certainty of fraud. Alternatively, a fraudulent event may be confirmed for any other threshold value, such as about 99% or higher, 95% or higher, 90% or higher, 85% or higher, 80% or higher, 75% or higher, or 70% or higher. In some instances, detecting a fraud event may include suspecting fraud with a certain degree of certainty.”; and col.14, lines 53-54: “Behavioral profiles may be created and/or tracked. For example, a behavior profile may be created for an account.”).
As per claims 9 and 20, which respectively depend on claims 7 and 18, Katz further teaches further comprising: in response to the detecting of the illicit usage pattern, preventing future interactions between subaccounts of the first account and the communication platform (see Katz, col.8, lines 3-8: “An account circle may be associated with potential fraud perpetrator accounts. For example, if a perpetrator circle is determined to present a high threat, such accounts may be frozen to prevent the perpetrator accounts from being used in further fraudulent actions.”).
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 12, Katz and Brustoloni teach further comprising:
detecting, based on event data of the first account, that a triggering event associated with the first account has been triggered (see Katz, col.8, lines 57-62: “A fraud event may be detected 200. In some embodiments, a suspicion of a fraud event may be formulated. The fraudulent event may be confirmed. In some instances, the fraudulent event may be confirmed with a threshold certainty. In some instances, a fraudulent event may be confirmed when there is 100% certainty of fraud. Alternatively, a fraudulent event may be confirmed for any other threshold value, such as about 99% or higher, 95% or higher, 90% or higher, 85% or higher, 80% or higher, 75% or higher, or 70% or higher. In some instances, detecting a fraud event may include suspecting fraud with a certain degree of certainty.” ; and col.14, lines 53-54: “Behavioral profiles may be created and/or tracked. For example, a behavior profile may be created for an account.”); and
processing detection of the triggering event according to the triggering conditions for use of the micro-service described by the micro-service configuration (see Katz, col.9, lines 1-3: “A fraud event may be detected when one or more conditions are fulfilled. A fraud may be detected when one or more indicators of fraud are met.”; and Claim 1 rejection above for “microservice”).
As per claim 14, which depends on claim 12, Katz and Brustoloni teach further comprising: establishing, for the second account, a second micro-service configuration that describes triggering conditions for initiating use of the micro-service in relation to the second account, the triggering conditions for use of the micro-service by the second account being different than the triggering conditions for use of the micro-service by the first account (see Claim 1 and Claim 13 rejections above).
As per claim 15, which depends on claim 14, Katz and Brustoloni teach further comprising: accounting for usage of the micro-services in association with the second account based on the second micro-service configuration established for the second account (see Katz, col.28, lines 34-39: “”).
7. Claims 2, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 9,633,201 B1) and Brustoloni et al. (US 2001/0034831 A1), and still further in view of Grube et al. (US 5,379,343).
As per claims 2, 8, and 19, which respectively depend on claims 1, 7 and 18, Katz does not explicitly teach wherein the detecting of the illicit usage pattern is further based on detecting that a communication stream that is registered for transmission of data of a first data type is used to transmit data of a second data type.
Grube teaches wherein the detecting of the illicit usage pattern is further based on detecting that a communication stream that is registered for transmission of data of a first data type is used to transmit data of a second data type (see Grube, col.5, line 61-col.6, line 7: “The present invention allows a monitoring computer to monitor channel activity of multiple communication systems to compare the types of communications used by the plurality of communication units to a predetermined database of authorized types of communication. A report can be issued in the event that the types of communication used by at least one communication unit do not match the predetermined list of authorized types of communication. This process is also applicable to communication units that are referenced according to their group's ID codes. By monitoring communications in this manner, the unauthorized use and duplication of software applications in communication units can be detected without physically investigating each communication unit.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Katz and Brustoloni in view of Grube so that the detecting of the illicit usage pattern is further based on detecting that a communication stream that is registered for transmission of data of a first data type is used to transmit data of a second data type. One would be motivated to do so because Grube teaches above that such an implementation enables unauthorized use detection without physically investigating each connected device.
8. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 9,633,201 B1) and Brustoloni et al. (US 2001/0034831 A1), and still further in view Sirota et al. (US 7,801,771 B1).
As per claim 16, which depends on claim 8, Katz and Brustoloni do not explicitly teach wherein a first billing profile for the first account defines a pricing of usage at a first tier of usage and a second billing profile for the second account defines the pricing of usage at a second tier of usage.
Sirota teaches wherein a first billing profile for the first account defines a pricing of usage at a first tier of usage and a second billing profile for the second account defines the pricing of usage at a second tier of usage (see Sirota, col.3, lines 48-64: “As discussed in greater detail below, various types of use prices may be specified for WS usage models by service providers, such as based on predefined use price types provided by the WSM. For example, types of use prices may in at least some embodiments include a price to be charged on a per-use basis for each use, a price for a subscription that is valid for a specified length of time and/or number of uses, tiered pricing to reflect different costs for different volumes of use, multiple related prices to reflect specified criteria or conditions (e.g., different prices for peak and off-peak use, or for different quality-of-service levels provided), a promotional price available for a temporary time, a discounted price to reflect use of a discount coupon provided by the provider of the WS and/or the WSM, etc. In addition to use prices, various price-related use conditions may similarly be specified by service providers for WS usage models in at least some embodiments”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Katz and Brustoloni in view of Sirota so that a first billing profile for the first account defines a pricing of usage at a first tier of usage and a second billing profile for the second account defines the pricing of usage at a second tier of usage. One would be motivated to do so because it well-known, routine, and conventional to have varying pricing schemes for varying levels of services.
As per claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Katz and Brustoloni do not explicitly teach wherein the pricing of usage at the second tier of usage is higher than the pricing of usage at the first tier of usage.
Sirota teaches wherein the pricing of usage at the second tier of usage is higher than the pricing of usage at the first tier of usage (see Sirota, col.17, lines 7-26: “… information regarding the timing of multiple charges that are to be made (e.g., when a single use price is to be charged multiple times, such as during an indicated billing cycle), information regarding how use prices are to be charged (e.g., allowed payment instrument types and/or allowed currencies), details regarding a multi-tiered usage model is structured (e.g., the parameters of each tier, such as based on usage volume, amount of time, etc.), details regarding different use prices and/or use conditions for different situations or criteria (e.g., higher prices for indicated peak usage time or conditions than for non-peak time or conditions), restrictions on the number of users allowed to share a multi-use subscription, instructions for aggregation of payments, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Katz and Brustoloni in view of Sirota so that the pricing of usage at the second tier of usage is higher than the pricing of usage at the first tier of usage. One would be motivated to do so because it well-known, routine, and conventional to have varying pricing schemes for varying levels of services for varying level of conditions.
Conclusion
9. For the reasons above, claims 1-20 have been rejected and remain pending.
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y WON whose telephone number is (571)272-3993. The examiner can normally be reached on Wk.1: M-F: 8-5 PST & Wk.2: M-Th: 8-7 PST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/Michael Won/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights