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
This action is in response to the communication filed on 2/5/2025.
Claims 2-21 are examined and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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) as explained below. 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 non-statutory 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.
Double Patent Analysis of Instant application 19,025,433 and US Patent 12,250,228.
Claims 2-21 of instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent 12,250,228. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is covered by the U.S. Patent 12,250,228.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection. The assignee of the application and the patent is the same.
Exemplary claim 2 with the substantive differences between the conflicting claim 1 identified in bold / underlined is outlined below in the following comparison table.
Claim Comparison Table
Instant Application
19,025,433
US Patent
12,250,228
2. A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining an action of a user requiring authentication of the user; in response to the action, analyzing user information for the user;
determining an authentication query based in part on the user information, wherein the authentication query includes a challenge for a correct response associated with the user information;
providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response;
transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user; receiving a response to the authentication query; and
determining whether to perform the action of the user based on the response.
1. A system comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining that a correct response to an authentication query is required to authenticate a user;
analyzing user information for the user; determining the authentication query based in part on the user information, wherein the authentication query includes a challenge for the correct response associated with the user information;
providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response;
transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user;
receiving a response to the authentication query; and determining whether the response is the correct response.
Claim 2 and independent claim(s) of the instant application is broader in all respects than conflicting claim 1 and independent claim(s) of Patent No. U.S. Patent 12,250,228. It is clear that all the elements of independent claims of the instant application are to be found in the patent of independent claims. The difference between the instant application claims and claims of patent claims lies in the fact that the patented claim includes more elements and is thus more specific.
For example, in the instant application claim 2 recites “ providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response; transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user .. along with other steps’ ‘. Thus, independent claim(s) of instant application are broader than US Patent ‘228 claim 1.
This is non-statutory obvious type double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have been patented.
Double Patent Analysis of Instant application 19,025,433 and US Patent 11,818,140.
Claims 2-21 of instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,818,140. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is covered by the U.S. Patent 11,818,140.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection. The assignee of the application and the patent is the same.
Exemplary claim 2 with the substantive differences between the conflicting claim 1 identified in bold / underlined is outlined below in the following comparison table.
Claim Comparison Table
Instant Application
19,025,433
US Patent
11,818,140
2. A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining an action of a user requiring authentication of the user; in response to the action, analyzing user information for the user;
determining an authentication query based in part on the user information, wherein the authentication query includes a challenge for a correct response associated with the user information;
providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response;
transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user; receiving a response to the authentication query; and
determining whether to perform the action of the user based on the response.
1. A system comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to:
retrieve information associated with a user of a device;
analyze the information retrieved to determine an authentication query used to identify the user of the device;
generate a priming message associated with at least a past event of the user from the information retrieved, wherein the priming message comprises event information for the past event that indicates a correct answer to the authentication query used to identify the user of the device;
determine the authentication query based in part on a user biometric obtained with the information retrieved and the event information, wherein the authentication query is determined to have a plurality of incorrect answers and the correct answer; and
transmit, over a network connection, the priming message and the authentication query to the user associated with the device, wherein the priming message is configured to prompt the user via the device for the correct answer to the authentication query.
Claim 2 and independent claim(s) of the instant application is broader in all respects than conflicting claim 1 and independent claim(s) of Patent No. U.S. Patent 11,818,140. It is clear that all the elements of independent claims of the instant application are to be found in the patent of independent claims. The difference between the instant application claims and claims of patent claims lies in the fact that the patented claim includes more elements and is thus more specific.
For example, in the instant application claim 2 recites “ providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response; transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user .. along with other steps’ similarly in the patent claim 1 the ‘ determine the authentication query based in part on a user biometric obtained with the information retrieved and the event information, wherein the authentication query is determined to have a plurality of incorrect answers and the correct answer and other steps’ of patent ‘140 claims. Thus, independent claim(s) of instant application are broader than US Patent ‘140 claim 1.
This is non-statutory obvious type double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have been patented.
The pending claims of the instant application are generic to the species of patent
‘140. Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention and the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim. Therefore, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Double Patent Analysis of Instant application 19,025,433 and US Patent 11,075,924.
Claim 2 and independent claim(s) of the instant application is broader in all respects than conflicting claim 1 and independent claim(s) of Patent No. U.S. Patent 11,075,924. It is clear that all the elements of independent claims of the instant application are to be found in the patent of independent claims. The difference between the instant application claims and claims of patent claims lies in the fact that the patented claim includes more elements and is thus more specific.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection. The assignee of the application and the patent is the same.
Exemplary claim 2 with the substantive differences between the conflicting claim 1 identified in bold / underlined is outlined below in the following comparison table.
Claim Comparison Table
Instant Application
19,025,433
US Patent
11,075,924
2. A system comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions;
and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining that a correct response to an authentication query is required to authenticate a user; analyzing user information for the user;
determining the authentication query based in part on the user information, wherein the authentication query includes a challenge for the correct response associated with the user information;
providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response; transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user;
receiving a response to the authentication query; and determining whether the response is the correct response.
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, with program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable memories, the one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more activities corresponding to a first user; generating a first user history corresponding to the first user based on the monitored one or more activities and associating the first user history with a first identifier corresponding to the first user;
receiving an authentication request from a device of the first user, wherein the authentication request includes the first identifier;
utilising the first identifier to determine that the first user history corresponds to the authentication request; generating an authentication query based on the first user history;
receiving a response to the authentication query from the first user; and determining whether to authenticate the first user based on the received response from the first user.
Claim 2 and independent claim(s) of the instant application is broader in all respects than conflicting claim 1 and independent claim(s) of Patent No. U.S. Patent 11,075,924. It is clear that all the elements of independent claims of the instant application are to be found in the patent of independent claims. The difference between the instant application claims and claims of patent claims lies in the fact that the patented claim includes more elements and is thus more specific.
For example, in the instant application claim 2 recites “ providing priming content to the user, wherein the priming content assists the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response; transmitting, over a network connection, the authentication query to a device requesting an authentication of the user .. along with other steps’ similarly in the patent claim 1 the ‘ utilizing the first identifier to determine that the first user history corresponds to the authentication request; generating an authentication query based on the first user history and other steps’ of patent ‘924 claims. Thus, independent claim(s) of instant application are broader than US Patent ‘924 claim 1.
This is non-statutory obvious type double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have been patented.
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 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).
This is non-statutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later cl1aim 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 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).
This is non-statutory obvious type double patenting rejection.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steele et al US Patent 8566248
Calhoun et al US Patent 7342906
Duane et al US Patent 7111172
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Examiner finds claims dated 2/5/2025 are persuasive for reason of allowance.
The search for amended claim(s) does not explicitly disclose, in light of other features recited in independent claims as follows:
ROA – where none of the prior art reference’s or combination of do not teach –
User authentication based on determining that a correct response to an authentication query is required to authenticate a user with analyzing user information for the user further, determining the authentication query includes a challenge for the correct response associated with the user information along with providing priming content to the user, including assisting the user in responding to the challenge with the correct response and determining whether the response is the correct response along with other steps in independent claims.
However, each of the cited references or reference from the updated search, at least, fails to teach or suggest in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim(s).
None of the previous cited prior art references or reference(s) from the updated search yield any specific references that would reasonably, either singularly or in combination with previous cited reference, result a reasonable and proper rejection for each of the cited feature limitations of the independent claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 with proper motivation.
Dependent claims depend on allowed independent claims, therefore they are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRAL S LAKHIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3363. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 am - 6 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, Pappas, Peter-Anthony can be reached on 571-272-7646. 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.
/VIRAL S LAKHIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights