DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Action is Non-Final.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, device and medium for generating/determining a risk indicator based on weighted risk data. The generating/determining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited "processor" or “medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person could manually lookup and determine a risk indicator that can be used to control access to an entity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. The dependent claims only provide additional details towards the this generation without additional elements or with the generically claimed machine-learning. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of using a processor and medium with instructions to perform the steps. The devices performing the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identify information based on user input) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional steps of receiving and retrieving amount to an extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more than the Abstract Idea. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batchelor et al. (US 20250358291).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15 Batchelor et al. discloses a method, medium, and system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations comprising (see paragraph [0119]):
receiving a request for a risk indicator associated with a target entity, the request comprising a set of elements associated with an identity of the target entity, and each element of the set of elements associated with one or more risk attributes; for each data source in a set of data sources: retrieving identity data associated with the target entity based on the identity of the target entity; and generating, based on the identity data and one or more attribute weights determinable for a set of attribute values for the one or more risk attributes, a set of element risk scores associated with each element of the set of elements to create a data source-level element risk score for each data source (see paragraphs [0067]-[0071]);
for each element in the set of elements, determining an aggregate element risk score by combining the data source-level element risk scores for the set of data sources, the aggregate element risk score based at least in part on a first set of data source weights associated with each respective data source (see paragraphs [0067]-[0070] and [0072]-[0073]);
determining the risk indicator by combining the aggregate element risk scores of the set of elements based on a first set of element weights, each element weight of the first set of element weights associated with each respective element of the set of elements (see paragraphs [0067]-[0070] and [0074]-[0078]); and
transmitting, to a remote computing device, a responsive message comprising at least the risk indicator usable to control access of the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments (see paragraph [0065]).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16 Batchelor et al. discloses the operation of generating a data source-level element risk score for an element comprises: generating the set of attribute values for the one or more risk attributes associated with the element based on the identity data; determining, for each of the one or more risk attributes associated with the element, an attribute weight that is included in the one or more attribute weights; and based on the determination, generating the data source-level element risk score by combining the set of attribute values based on the attribute weight associated with each of the one or more risk attributes associated with the element (see paragraphs [0071]-[0073] and [0079]-[0081]).
As per claims 3 and 10, Batchelor et al. discloses each aggregate element risk score represents a risk associated with the respective element based on the identity data (see paragraphs [0071]-[0073]).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Batchelor et al. discloses normalizing each aggregated element risk score based on a number of data sources in the set of data sources and a number of types of data sources in the set of data sources (see paragraph [0076]).
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.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelor et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Venkatasubramaniam et al. (US 20220245691).
As per claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20, Batchelor et al. discloses each element weight of the first set of element weights is determinable based on an amount that each element contributes to a change the first set of element weights comprises a subset of weights associated with the identity of the target entity, and wherein each weight of the subset of weights associated with the identity of the target entity is determinable based on an amount that the identity contributes the risk indicator, and the use of multiple scores and indicators to determine the responsive message (see paragraphs [0067]-[0081]] but fails to explicitly disclose the use of machine-learning as part of the weight determination and the use of a trust score.
However Venkatasubramaniam et al. teaches the use of machine-learning as part of the weight determination and the use of a trust score as part of a risk assessment (see paragraph [0064]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the machine-learning and trust indicator of Venkatasubramaniam et al. in the Batchelor et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow for automated changes to the weights and to use both risk and trust as part of the determination thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed towards risk assessments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights