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 is in response to Application #19/140,256 filed on 06/17/2025 in which Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-17 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-17 are pending, of which Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-17 would be considered allowable over prior art if it were not for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections on Claim 15, 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections on Claim 17, and Claim Objections on Claims 1, 13, 16, 17.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 06/17/2025
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 06/17/2025 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 16, 17 these claims are objected to for lack of antecedent basis. These claims recite various acronyms that are not defined in the Claims: IP, CV, OS, Oss, CITTs. These must be spelled out the first time the acronym is used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 1:
network information acquisition unit that acquires
network fraud detection unit that performs, to acquire
site information acquisition unit that acquires
site fraud detection unit that performs, to acquire
IP address information acquisition unit that acquires
IP address fraud detection unit that performs, to acquire
output unit that outputs
network information acquisition unit acquires
network fraud detection unit uses to perform, thereby acquiring
site information acquisition unit acquires
site fraud detection unit uses to perform, thereby acquiring
IP address information acquisition unit acquires
IP address fraud detection unit uses to perform, thereby acquiring
In Claim 2:
user operation information acquisition unit that acquires
user fraud detection unit that performs, to acquire
output unit further outputs
In Claim 4:
network information acquisition unit acquires
network fraud detection unit uses to perform, thereby acquiring
In Claim 5:
network fraud detection unit uses acquires, to acquire
legitimate information update unit that updates
In Claim 8:
site fraud detection unit acquires, to acquire
legitimate information update unit that updates
In Claim 9:
site information acquisition unit acquires
site fraud detection unit uses to perform, thereby acquiring
In Claim 10:
site fraud detection unit clusters, judges, acquires
In Claim 11:
site information acquisition unit acquires
site fraud detection unit performs, to judge, performs, to judge, thereby acquiring
In Claim 13:
IP address information acquisition unit acquires
IP address fraud detection unit acquires
In Claim 14:
user operation information acquisition unit acquires
user fraud detection unit acquires
In Claim 15:
user fraud detection unit acquires
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 15, this claim is rejected under 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, which renders the claim indefinite.
The phrase “a legitimate information storage unit in which frequency legitimate information indicating a legitimate frequency of the pieces of operation information indicating the specific operation,” in claim 15 Lines 3-4 is unclear and indefinite as to the meaning of this phrase. Apparently, a portion of the intended words of the phrase were inadvertently left out by applicant. For the purposes of this examination, although the examiner would normally construe this phrase to an apparent intended meaning, the wording surrounding this phrase are so muddled that it is impossible for the examiner to even take a guess as to what the intentions of the applicant where, thereby creating an indefiniteness issue with Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding Claim 17, “A recording medium” comprising computer-executable instructions that perform various functions is recited. The claim fails to identify the recording medium as a “non-transitory” computer readable “storage” medium that always falls into a statutory class of invention. In addition, as a signal stores information as it propagates, applicant's specification fails to exclude signals as a form of media. As a result, the “recording medium” in the claims can be interpreted as including various types of transmission media including signals or carrier waves which are not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture” or a “composition of matter,” as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, therefore the claim is not statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-17 are considered allowable over prior art.
The instant invention is directed to fraud detection in a network and in network components connected to the network.
The closest prior art, as recited, TSURUMI et al US Patent Application No. 2018/0294991 and KISHIKAWA et al US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0349394, are also generally directed to various aspects of providing fraud detection in a network and in network components connected to the network. However, TSURUMI et al or KISHIKAWA et al does not teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claim(s) 1, 16, 17. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the steps of:
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the combination of TSURUMI et al and KISHIKAWA et al teaches various aspects regarding providing fraud detection in a network and in network components connected to the network, TSURUMI et al or KISHIKAWA et al fails to teach a fraud detection device that includes a network information acquisition unit that acquires network information regarding a network including one or more sites, a network fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the network, using the network information acquired by the network information acquisition unit, to acquire a network detection result, a site information acquisition unit that acquires site information regarding a site, a site fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the site, using the site information acquired by the site information acquisition unit, to acquire a site detection result, an IP address information acquisition unit that acquires IP address information regarding an IP address, an IP address fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the IP address, using the IP address information acquired by the IP address information acquisition unit, to acquire an IP address detection result, an output unit that outputs the network detection result, the site detection result, and the IP address detection result, where the network information acquisition unit acquires two or more network attribute values including one or more network attribute values out of the number of application downloads in the network, the number of sites belonging to the network, the number of accesses from user terminals with a non-Japanese language setting, the number of application installations from user terminals with a non-Japanese language setting, the number of accesses from user terminals with non-Japan access origins, the number of application installations from user terminals with non-Japan access origins, the number of operation identifiers corresponding to CV operations, the number of accesses from user terminals of types identified by terminal type identifiers of terminals that satisfy a predetermined condition, and the number of accesses from user terminals equipped with OSs identified by OS type identifiers of OSs that satisfy a predetermined condition, and the network fraud detection unit uses the two or more network attribute values to perform the fraud detection targeting the network, thereby acquiring the network detection result, where the site information acquisition unit acquires site distribution information regarding the distribution of feature values of the site, and the site fraud detection unit uses the site distribution information to perform the fraud detection targeting the site, thereby acquiring the site detection result, where the site distribution information includes any one of information regarding the distribution of CTITs, information regarding the distribution of OS version shares, which are the shares of OS versions of user terminals from which the site is accessed, information regarding the distribution of user terminal shares, which are the shares of types of user terminals from which the site is accessed, information regarding the distribution of provider shares, which are the shares of types of providers from which the site is accessed, and information regarding the distribution of regional shares, which are shares of region types from which the site is accessed, where the IP address information acquisition unit acquires one or more IP address attribute values including type-specific access counts, which are the respective numbers of user terminals accessing the IP address for one or more user terminal types, and the IP address fraud detection unit uses the one or more IP address attribute values to perform the fraud detection targeting the IP address, thereby acquiring the IP address detection result.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Although the combination of TSURUMI et al and KISHIKAWA et al teaches various aspects regarding providing fraud detection in a network and in network components connected to the network, TSURUMI et al or KISHIKAWA et al fails to teach a fraud detection method using a network information acquisition unit, a network fraud detection unit, a site information acquisition unit, a site fraud detection unit, an IP address information acquisition unit, an IP address fraud detection unit, and an output unit, the fraud detection method including a network information acquisition step in which the network information acquisition unit acquires network information regarding a network including one or more sites, a network fraud detection step in which the network fraud detection unit performs fraud detection targeting the network, using the network information acquired in the network information acquisition step, to acquire a network detection result, a site information acquisition step in which the site information acquisition unit acquires site information regarding a site, a site fraud detection step in which the site fraud detection unit performs fraud detection targeting the site, using the site information acquired in the site information acquisition step, to acquire a site detection result, an IP address information acquisition step in which the IP address information acquisition unit acquires IP address information regarding an IP address, an IP address fraud detection step in which the IP address fraud detection unit performs fraud detection targeting the IP address, using the IP address information acquired in the IP address information acquisition step, to acquire an IP address detection result, and an output step in which the output unit outputs the network detection result, the site detection result, and the IP address detection result.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17:
Although the combination of TSURUMI et al and KISHIKAWA et al teaches various aspects regarding providing fraud detection in a network and in network components connected to the network, TSURUMI et al or KISHIKAWA et al fails to teach a recording medium having recorded thereon a program that enables a computer to function as a network information acquisition unit that acquires network information regarding a network including one or more sites, a network fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the network, using the network information acquired by the network information acquisition unit, to acquire a network detection result, a site information acquisition unit that acquires site information regarding a site, a site fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the site, using the site information acquired by the site information acquisition unit, to acquire a site detection result, an IP address information acquisition unit that acquires IP address information regarding an IP address, an IP address fraud detection unit that performs fraud detection targeting the IP address, using the IP address information acquired by the IP address information acquisition unit, to acquire an IP address detection result, and an output unit that outputs the network detection result, the site detection result, and the IP address detection result.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 17.
Therefore Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-17 of the instant application are considered allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pierson et al - US_20060048211 teaches network security and fraud detection.
Wyk - US_20130278437 teaches fraud detection in a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY HOLDER whose telephone number is 571-270-3789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/BRADLEY W HOLDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights