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 non-final action is responsive to application filed on 03/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 11 and 18 being independent.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/402,394, filed January 2, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17 /365,642, filed July 1, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,377. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are anticipated by patent claims. For instance, claim 1 of the application is anticipated by patent claim 1 as shown below.
Examined Application
US 11,900,377
1. A method comprising:
determining, based on a plurality of transactions associated with a user and using a machine learning model, a first spending pattern associated with the user;
determining a deviation between:
the first spending pattern associated with the user, and
a second spending pattern, wherein the second spending pattern was generated based on spending activity by one or more different users;
generating, based on the deviation, an authentication question;
causing display, in a user interface of a user device, of the authentication question during authentication of a request for access to an account associated with the user; and
providing, to the user device and based on a response to the authentication question received via the user interface, access to the account.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request for access to an account associated with a user;
retrieving transaction data for the account, wherein the transaction data indicates a plurality of transactions;
generating, based on the transaction data, for each transaction of the plurality of transactions, machine learning inputs;
providing the machine learning inputs to a machine learning algorithm to yield one or more machine learning outputs;
generating, based on the one or more machine learning outputs, a spending pattern associated with the user;
determining a deviation between:
the spending pattern associated with the user, and
a spending pattern for an average user;
generating, based on the deviation, a question to authenticate the user;
receiving, from the user device, a response to the question; and
providing, to the user device and based on the response to the question, access to the account.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are anticipated by patent claims. For instance, claim 1 of the application is anticipated by patent claim 1 as shown below.
Examined Application
US 12,282,922
1. A method comprising:
determining, based on a plurality of transactions associated with a user and using a machine learning model, a first spending pattern associated with the user;
determining a deviation between:
the first spending pattern associated with the user, and
a second spending pattern, wherein the second spending pattern was generated based on spending activity by one or more different users;
generating, based on the deviation, an authentication question;
causing display, in a user interface of a user device, of the authentication question during authentication of a request for access to an account associated with the user; and
providing, to the user device and based on a response to the authentication question received via the user interface, access to the account.
1. A method comprising:
retrieving transaction data for an account associated with a user, wherein the transaction data indicates a plurality of transactions;
determining, based on the plurality of transactions and using a machine learning model, a spending pattern associated with the user;
determining a deviation between:
the spending pattern associated with the user, and
a spending pattern for an average user;
generating, based on the deviation, a question to authenticate the user; and
providing, to a user device and based on a response to the question, access to the account.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9514407 B1; Question Generation In Knowledge-based Authentication From Activity Logs
An improved technique involves generating KBA questions based on facts from fact sources pointed to by an activity log. A KBA system obtains an activity log from a computer of a user in an organization. For example, the computer records the user's web browsing history. The KBA system then considers each entry in the activity log as a source of facts for deriving KBA questions. In the case of a web browsing history, the KBA system generates facts from web pages that the user visited. The KBA system then derives new KBA questions from the facts so derived.
US 20150161366 A1; Methods And Systems For Leveraging Transaction Data To Dynamically Authenticate A User
A system and method for authenticating a candidate user accessing a host computing device as an authentic user is provided. The host computing device is in communication with an authenticating computing device. The method includes receiving, by the authenticating computing device, a request to authenticate the candidate user as an authentic user. The authentication request includes a user identifier. The method also includes retrieving, by the authenticating computing device, transaction data including payment transactions performed by the authentic user based on the user identifier. The method also includes generating, by the authenticating computing device, a challenge question and a correct answer based on the transaction data associated with the authentic user, and transmitting the challenge question for display on a candidate user computing device used by the candidate user.
US 10755281 B1; Payment Transaction Authentication System And Method
This disclosure describes, in part, techniques for validating a payment transaction between a customer and a merchant via challenge questions. For instance, the method includes determining, by a payment processing system, a level of risk associated with a current payment transaction between the merchant and the customer; in response the level of risk being higher than a threshold, obtaining a query for the customer, wherein the query is based at least on the current payment transaction or one or more past transactions involving the customer; receiving, from a customer device associated with the customer, a response to the query; and validating the current payment transaction based on the response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANG DO whose telephone number is (571)270-7837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/KHANG DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights