DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on July 06th, 2025.
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.
In the instant Amendment, claims 36, 44 & 50 are independent; and claims 1-35 were canceled; and claims 36-55 have been added . Claim 36-55 has been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(3) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 over Khanwalker in view of Ranganathan.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 36-55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,778,059 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Claims 36-55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent Number 10,873,641 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 36-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanwalker et al. (Khanwalker), U.S. Patent Number 10,091,312, in view of Ranganathan et al. (Ranganathan), U.S. Pub. Number 2015/0095990.
Regarding claim 36; Khanwalker discloses a computer implemented method, comprising:
storing, in a database, one or more groups of device attribute values respectively corresponding to one or more client devices (col. 25, lines 25-28; fig. 3; device profiles may be stored over time as new device identifiers and identifier types are provided to the ID Resolution System 100.);
receiving a set of device attribute values corresponding to a first client device (col. 27, line 65 – col. 28, line 27; fig. 4; receives one or more device identifiers associated with a device.);
comparing the set of device attribute values to the one or more groups of device attribute values (col. 28, lines 41-64; fig. 4; the obtained information may be considered device identifiers that can be used in the device matching process and stored with a matching device profile to further enrich the device profile; the ID Resolution System 100 accesses a matching algorithm which may comprise a rule set including multiple prioritized matching rules to be applied to the received device identifiers; the device profile matching rules may be accessed from the matching algorithm data source.);
in response to the comparing, identifying a second client device corresponding to a group of device attribute values having one or more device attribute values that match one or more device attributes values from the set of device attribute values corresponding to the first client device (col. 31, lines 45-54; fig. 5A; in response identifying a matching device profile, the ID Resolution System 100 provides the DPID associated with the matching device profile to the client requesting entity; some or all of the matching device profile may be provided along with or in association with the DPID; the client requesting entity may use the DPID and device profile for various purposes such as user/device authentication, determining targeted content to provide to the device.).
Khanwalker fails to explicitly disclose each of the one or more groups of device attribute values includes a device identifier a unique device identifier (DID) generated randomly independent of the one or more groups of device attributes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ranganathan discloses device reputation wherein each of the one or more groups of device attribute values includes a device identifier a unique device identifier (DID) generated randomly independent of the one or more groups of device attributes (par. 0085 & claim 1; a UUID is generated randomly and assigned for the communication device using at least one device parameter/ device attribute.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ranganathan into the device of Khanwalker wherein each of the one or more groups of device attribute values includes a device identifier a unique device identifier (DID) generated randomly independent of the one or more groups of device attributes to better determine the authenticity or trustworthiness of a transaction request made through a user device (Ranganathan: par. 0006).
Regarding claim 37; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, Khanwalker further discloses comprising: in response to the comparing, identifying a plurality of client devices respectively corresponding to groups of device attribute values having one or more device attribute values that match one or more device attributes values from the set of device attribute values corresponding to the first client device (Khanwalker: col. 32, lines 3-15; fig. 5A; in response to the matching algorithm not identifying any matching profiles, ID Resolution System 100 generates a new device profile and DPID to be associated with the received event data (e.g., multiple device identifiers); the new device profile and DPID mapping may be stored, in the device profile data sources for later access, retrieval, and subsequent device profile matching in response to further request from the requesting entities.).
Regarding claim 38; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, wherein Khanwalker further discloses the set of device attribute values is received from the first client device (Khanwalker: col. 27, line 65 – col. 28, line 27; fig. 4; receives one or more device identifiers associated with a device.).
Regarding claim 39; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, Khanwalker further discloses comprising: in response to the receiving, generating a risk score indicative of a potential attack corresponding to the set of device attribute values (Khanwalker: col. 27, lines 37-40; generate a fraud risk score.).
Regarding claim 40; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, wherein Khanwalker further discloses the set of attribute values is organized as a tuple (Khanwalker: col. 36, lines 39-45; a last ID array including the last identifier associated with the profile which may be stored as part of the device profile.).
Regarding claim 41; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, Khanwalker further discloses comprising: updating a record for second client device to include the DID as an attribute (Khanwalker: col. 25, lines 25-28; device profiles may be updated over time as a new device identifiers and identifier types are provided to the ID Resolution System 100.).
Regarding claim 42; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, wherein Khanwalker discloses the identify steps further comprises updating a record for second client device to include the DID as an attribute (Khanwalker: col. 25, lines 25-28; device profiles may be updated over time as a new device identifiers and identifier types are provided to the ID Resolution System 100.).
Regarding claim 43; Khanwalker and Ranganathan disclose the computer implemented method of claim 36, wherein Ranganathan discloses in step of receiving includes receiving the device attribute values in a secured object, the secured object including at least one header object (Ranganathan: par. 00028; the UUID may be stored on the user’s system using both standard browser cookies and Flash local shared objects (LSOs).); the header object including at least one of an anti-replay and an anti-tamper header (Ranganathan: par. 0028; in case the user deletes either one of those, the respective other is automatically recreated; in cases the user clears both storage mechanisms at the same time, the system may be able to retrieve the UUID based on the user’s fingerprint, taking additional security measures into account, such as matching IP addresses.); validating the secured object using the header object prior to the step of comparing (Ranganathan: par. 31, a device profile may be represented as a score or other formats, so that a system can determine a trust level based on the profile or be able to accurately compare one device profile to other devices with similar or same profiles.).
Regarding claim 44; Claim 44 is directed to a system which has similar scope as claim 36. Therefore, claim 44 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 45-49; Claims 45-49 are directed to the system of claim 44 which have similar scope as claims 37-44. Therefore, claims 45-49 remain un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 50; Claim 50 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable device which has similar scope as claim 36. Therefore, claim 50 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 51-55; Claims 51-55 are directed to the non-transitory computer-readable device of claim 50 which has similar scope as claims 37-44. Therefore, claims 51-55 remain un-patentable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
