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 .
Note: The claims are statutory as the concept recites user request for content is relevant based on other user profiles and determining whether it is fraudulent and taking remedial actions is patent eligible.
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 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12255903 and 11876812. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the said parent patents anticipate the instant application.
Instant App. 19082131
Patent #: 12255903
Patent #: 11876812
1. A method, comprising:receiving a request for content from a device;generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles associated with one or more different users than the device;determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; andperforming one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent.
2. The method of claim 1, comprising:determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:presenting a content item via the resource.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the second resource is a second internet resource.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the second resource corresponds to a web page of a website.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second resource corresponds to an application.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the second resource corresponds to a game.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise submitting an indication of a fraud probability to a bidding system.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource corresponds to at least one of a web page of a website, an application or a game.
10. A computing device comprising:a processor; andmemory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:receiving a request for content from a device;generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles;determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; andperforming one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent.
11. The computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising:determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
12. The computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising:presenting a content item via the resource.
13. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the resource corresponds to at least one of:a web page of a website; or an application.
14. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the resource corresponds to a game.
15. A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:receiving a request for content from a server associated with a resource, wherein the request for content is associated with a device;generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles;determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; andperforming one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent.
16. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising:determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
17. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein a user profile of the set of user profiles indicates one or more languages associated with at least one device.
18. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the generating the relevance score is based upon one or more behaviors.
19. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one or more actions comprising:not transmitting a content item to the device.
20. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one ormore actions comprising:discarding the request for content.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a request for content from a device;
determining, based upon the request for content, an internet resource associated with the request for content;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the request for content to identify a set of user profiles associated with one or more different users than the device;
generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses the internet resource, the generating the relevance score based upon the set of user profiles associated with one or more different users than the device;
determining a fraud probability, corresponding to a probability that user associated with the device knowing, based upon
performing one or more actions based upon the fraud probability.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, comprising:
determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:
presenting a content item via the internet resource.
4. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the second resource is a second internet resource.
5. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to a web page of a website.
6. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to an application.
7. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to a game.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise submitting an indication of the fraud probability to a bidding system
9. The method of claim [[8]] 1, wherein the internet resource corresponds to at least one of a web page of a website, an application or a game.
10. A computing device comprising:
a processor; and
memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request for content from a device;
determining, based upon the request for content, an internet resource associated with the request for content;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the request for content to identify a set of user profiles;
generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses the internet resource, the generating the relevance score based upon the set of user profiles;
determining a fraud probability, corresponding to a probability that the first user accesses the internet resource; and
performing one or more actions based upon the fraud probability.
11. (Original) The computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising:
determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
12. The computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising:
presenting a content item via the internet resource.
13. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the
a web page of a website; or
an application.
14. The computing device of claim 10, wherein the corresponds
15. A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request for content from a server associated with an internet resource, wherein the request for content is associated with a device;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the request for content to identify a set of user profiles;
generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses the internet resource, the generating the relevance score based upon the set of user profiles;
determining a fraud probability, corresponding to a probability that request for content without the first user associated with the device knowing, based upon
performing one or more actions based upon the fraud probability.
16. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising:
determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content.
17. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein a user profile of the set of user profiles indicates one or more languages associated with at least one device.
18. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the generating the relevance score is based upon one or more behaviors.
19. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one or more actions
20. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one or more actions
1. A method, comprising:
detecting user activity performed using a first device associated with a first user account;
generating a first user profile associated with the first user account;
receiving a request for content from a second device associated with the first user account;
determining, based upon the request for content, a resource associated with the request for content;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the first user profile to identify a set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and associated with one or more different users than the first user profile;
generating a relevance score corresponding to a probability that a first user with the first user profile accesses the resource and associated with the request for content, the generating the relevance score based upon (i) the resource determined based upon the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and associated with one or more different users than the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first user account associated with the second device from which the request for content was received; and
determining whether the request for content is fraudulent by comparing:
the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user with the first user profile accesses the resource, associated with the request for content and generated based upon (i) the resource determined based upon the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and associated with one or more different users than the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first user account associated with the second device from which the request for content was received, with a threshold relevance,
wherein at least one of:
the resource is an internet resource corresponding to a game; or
the method comprises:
receiving a second request for content from a third device; and
responsive to a determination that the second request for content is not fraudulent, transmitting a content item, associated with the second request for content, to the third device.
2. The method of claim 1, comprising:
determining, based upon the second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content
3. The method of claim [[2]] 1, wherein the content item is presented via the resource.
4. The method of claim [[1]] 2, wherein the second resource is a[[n]] second internet resource.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to a web page of a website.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to an application.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the second internet resource corresponds to a second game.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first device is the same as the second device.
9. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first device is different than the second device.
10. A computing device comprising:
a processor; and
memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request for content from a first device;
identifying a first user profile associated with the first device;
determining, based upon the request for content, a resource associated with the request for content;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the first user profile to identify a set of user profiles similar to the first user profile;
generating a relevance score corresponding to a probability that a first user with the first user profile accesses the resource and associated with the request for content, the generating the relevance score based upon (i) the resource determined based upon the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first device from which the request for content was received; and
determining whether the request for content is fraudulent by comparing:
the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user with the first user profile accesses the resource, associated with the request for content and generated based upon (i) the resource determined based upon the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first device from which the request for content was received, with a threshold relevance,
wherein at least one of:
the resource is an internet resource corresponding to a game; or
the operations comprise:
receiving a second request for content from a second device; and
responsive to a determination that the second request for content is not fraudulent, transmitting a content item, associated with the second request for content, to the second device.
11. The computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising:
determining, based upon the second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content
12. The computing device of claim [[11]] 10, wherein the content item is presented via the resource.
13. The computing device of claim [[10]] 11, wherein the second resource is a[[n]] second internet resource corresponding to at least one of:
a web page of a website; or
an application.
14. The computing device of claim [[10]] 11, wherein the second resource is a[[n]] second internet resource corresponding to a second game.
15. A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request for content from a server associated with a resource, wherein the request for content is associated with a first device;
identifying a first user profile associated with the first device;
analyzing a user profile database based upon the first user profile to identify a set of user profiles similar to the first user profile;
generating a relevance score corresponding to a probability that a first user with the first user profile accesses the resource and associated with the request for content, the generating the relevance score based upon (i) the resource associated with the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first device associated with the request for content; and
determining whether the request for content is fraudulent by comparing:
the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user with the first user profile accesses the resource, associated with the request for content and generated based upon (i) the resource associated with the request for content, (ii) the set of user profiles similar to the first user profile and (iii) the first user profile associated with the first device associated with the request for content, with a threshold relevance,
wherein at least one of:
the resource is an internet resource corresponding to a game; or
the operations comprise:
receiving a second request for content from a second device; and
responsive to a determination that the second request for content is not fraudulent, transmitting a content item, associated with the second request for content, to the second device.
16. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising:
determining, based upon the second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content
17. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the first user profile indicates one or more languages associated with the first device.
18. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the generating the relevance score is based upon one or more behaviors.
19. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising:
responsive to the determination that the request for content is fraudulent, not transmitting a content item to the first device.
20. (Original) The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising:
responsive to the determination that the request for content is fraudulent, discarding the request for content.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9 – 13, 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casillas et al (US 9,203,860), Cas and Varghese et al (US 7908645), hereafter Varg.
Claim 1: Cas teaches a method, comprising: receiving a request for content from a device; (C1L54-55: receiving, from the user, a request to engage in an activity (C3L47-61) for accessing various content and/or information).
generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles associated with one or more different users than the device; (C1L55-58: determining an activity trust threshold required for the activity, determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information, (C7L16-19) The events are related to a particular user, or the events may relate to all users. This information may impact the activity trust threshold required for an activity globally).
and performing one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent. (C2L44-45: rejecting the request to engage in the activity comprises associated a fraud alert with the user).
Cas is silent on determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource;
But analogous art Varg teaches determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; (C11L4-7: FAAS evaluation preferably begins with retrieving forensic information related to the characteristics of the current request that are apparent in the input request information, (C23L56-59) employs uses historical data to establish normal for specific days, times, users, devices, workflows, and the like. It then assesses whether the current behavior is deviating from what is normally in similar circumstances).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cas to include the idea of fraudulent request determination as taught by Varg so that enabling of a selection of levels of secure user graphical authentication as a function of predetermined usability and/or security concerns (C4L48-51).
Claim 2: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content. (Cas: C4L46-67: a user is requesting to view an account (the activity) via an internet portal (the channel) ... In another example (i.e., second request), a user wishing to engage in the activity of transferring money from one bank account to another bank account via a mobile application).
Claim 3: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: presenting a content item via the resource. (Cas: C4L46-47: a user is requesting to view an account (the activity) via an internet portal (the channel), (C3L53-54) various channels may include face to face contact (video telephones, Skype™, etc.)).
Claim 4: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second resource is a second internet resource. (Cas: C3L53-59: The various channels may include face to face contact (video telephones, Skype™, etc.), internet portals, mobile applications, voice communication, instant messaging systems, for example, and each channel may accept unique verifying information. C6L17-19: users may interact with organization via different channels using various points of interaction).
Claim 5: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second resource corresponds to a web page of a website. (Cas: C12L17-18: The activity may be to view a particular webpage of the organization).
Claim 6: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second resource corresponds to an application. (Cas: C4L46-67: In another example (i.e., second request), a user wishing to engage in the activity of transferring money from one bank account to another bank account via a mobile application).
Claim 9: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resource corresponds to at least one of a web page of a website, an application or a game. (Cas: C12L17-18: The activity may be to view a particular webpage of the organization).
Claim 10: Cas teaches a computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising (Fig. 6): receiving a request for content from a device; generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles; and performing one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent. (C1L54-55: receiving, from the user, a request to engage in an activity (C3L47-61) for accessing various content and/or information; C1L55-58: determining an activity trust threshold required for the activity, determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information, (C7L16-19) The events are related to a particular user, or the events may relate to all users. This information may impact the activity trust threshold required for an activity globally; C2L44-45: rejecting the request to engage in the activity comprises associated a fraud alert with the user).
Cas is silent on determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource;
But analogous art Varg teaches determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; (C11L4-7: FAAS evaluation preferably begins with retrieving forensic information related to the characteristics of the current request that are apparent in the input request information, (C23L56-59) employs uses historical data to establish normal for specific days, times, users, devices, workflows, and the like. It then assesses whether the current behavior is deviating from what is normally in similar circumstances).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cas to include the idea of fraudulent request determination as taught by Varg so that enabling of a selection of levels of secure user graphical authentication as a function of predetermined usability and/or security concerns (C4L48-51).
Claim 11: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising: determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content. (Cas: C4L46-67: a user is requesting to view an account (the activity) via an internet portal (the channel) ... In another example (i.e., second request), a user wishing to engage in the activity of transferring money from one bank account to another bank account via a mobile application).
Claim 12: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the computing device of claim 10, the operations comprising: presenting a content item via the resource. (Cas: C4L46-47: a user is requesting to view an account (the activity) via an internet portal (the channel), (C3L53-54) various channels may include face to face contact (video telephones, Skype™, etc.)).
Claim 13: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the computing device of claim 10, wherein the resource corresponds to at least one of: a web page of a website; or an application. (Cas: C12L17-18: The activity may be to view a particular webpage of the organization).
Claim 15: Cas teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising (C15L25-40): receiving a request for content from a server associated with a resource, wherein the request for content is associated with a device; generating a relevance score, associated with the request for content, corresponding to a probability that a first user associated with the device accesses a resource, the generating the relevance score based upon a set of user profiles; and performing one or more actions based upon the determination of whether the request for content is fraudulent. (C1L54-55: receiving, from the user, a request to engage in an activity (C3L47-61) for accessing various content and/or information; C1L55-58: determining an activity trust threshold required for the activity, determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information, (C7L16-19) The events are related to a particular user, or the events may relate to all users. This information may impact the activity trust threshold required for an activity globally; C2L44-45: rejecting the request to engage in the activity comprises associated a fraud alert with the user).
Cas is silent on determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource;
But analogous art Varg teaches determining whether the request for content is fraudulent based upon the relevance score corresponding to the probability that the first user accesses the resource; (C11L4-7: FAAS evaluation preferably begins with retrieving forensic information related to the characteristics of the current request that are apparent in the input request information, (C23L56-59) employs uses historical data to establish normal for specific days, times, users, devices, workflows, and the like. It then assesses whether the current behavior is deviating from what is normally in similar circumstances).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cas to include the idea of fraudulent request determination as taught by Varg so that enabling of a selection of levels of secure user graphical authentication as a function of predetermined usability and/or security concerns (C4L48-51).
Claim 16: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, the operations comprising: determining, based upon a second request for content, a second resource associated with the second request for content. (Cas: C4L46-67: a user is requesting to view an account (the activity) via an internet portal (the channel) ... In another example (i.e., second request), a user wishing to engage in the activity of transferring money from one bank account to another bank account via a mobile application).
Claim 17: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein a user profile of the set of user profiles indicates one or more languages associated with at least one device. (Cas: C2L14-17: Information in connection with the channel may include …, language, …).
Claim 18: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the generating the relevance score is based upon one or more behaviors. (Cas: C4L26-29, 60-63: identifying information includes … historic user behavior; the user's behavior impacts the identity trust score. For example, if the user exhibits the same behaviors as the user has done in the past, the identity trust score may be recalculated to reflect this identifying information).
Claim 19: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one or more actions comprising: not transmitting a content item to the device. (Cas: C11L1-5: the request may simply be rejected because the activity trust threshold
determined by the activity trust threshold module is simply unattainable).
Claim 20: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, the one or more actions comprising: discarding the request for content. (Cas: C11L1-5: the request may simply be rejected because the activity trust threshold determined by the activity trust threshold module is simply unattainable).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cas and Varg as applied to claims above, and further in view of Shah et al (US 20150235275), Sha.
Claim 7: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 4, but silent on wherein the second resource corresponds to a game.
But analogous art Sha teaches wherein the second resource corresponds to a game. ([0108] Publishers may provide any suitable type of displayable, executable, audible, or visual media content to users/audience via a user's device or on the publisher's device or system. For example, media content may include games, etc).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined inventions of Cas and Varg to include the idea of access resource is game as taught by Sha so that different user characteristics can be merged together across related or aggregated devices to determine performance by users having merged characteristics [103].
Claim 14: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the computing device of claim 10, but silent on wherein the resource corresponds to a game.
But analogous art Sha teaches wherein the resource corresponds to a game. ([0108] Publishers may provide any suitable type of displayable, executable, audible, or visual media content to users/audience via a user's device or on the publisher's device or system. For example, media content may include games, etc).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined inventions of Cas and Varg to include the idea of access resource is game as taught by Sha so that different user characteristics can be merged together across related or aggregated devices to determine performance by users having merged characteristics [103].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cas and Varg as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wagner (US 20180144345), Wag.
Claim 8: the combination of Cas and Varg teaches the method of claim 1, but silent on wherein the one or more actions comprise submitting an indication of a fraud probability to a bidding system.
But analogous art Sha teaches wherein the one or more actions comprise submitting an indication of a fraud probability to a bidding system. ([52-53] transaction processing system transmits the transaction data and a credit score for user to first coverage entity and may transmit the transaction data and a fraud profile for resource provider computer to second coverage entity. After transmitting the transaction data and specific authentication data to first coverage entity, second coverage entity, third coverage entity, and Nth coverage entity, each coverage entity may determine a bidding value for the transaction based on the transaction data and specific authentication data).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined inventions of Cas and Varg to include the idea of access resource is game as taught by Wag therefore allowing for an authorizing entity computer to authorize a higher volume of authentic transactions over prior authorization and authentication systems as the risk associated with each transaction has been shifted to a coverage entity that is willing to accept liability [059].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Badri Champakesan whose telephone number is (571)270-3867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30am-4.30pm (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, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/BADRINARAYANAN /Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494.
Prosecution Insights