DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 5/7/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/14/2025 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 §§ 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12386932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the 12386932contain every element of claims of the instant application. Application claims 1-20 are anticipated by the patent claims 1-20.
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 four 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 35 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).
Instant Application No. 19/200,782
Patent No. 12386932
Claim 1
Claim 1 and 2
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3-11
Claim 3-11
Similar for claim 12-20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 17, the prior art:
Kim (US 20240155000 A1) teaches detection of data misappropriation attempts across electronic communication platforms.
Verma (US 20250094856 A1) teaches determining resource misappropriation using an advanced computational model for data analysis and automated decision-making.
However, the prior art – individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach the invention described in the claims as a whole.
“apply the current data transmission to a user account misappropriation AI engine;
determine, by the user account misappropriation AI engine, a misappropriation likelihood of the current data transmission;
determine the misappropriation likelihood for the current data transmission, wherein the misappropriation likelihood comprises a misappropriation score;
identify a misappropriation attempt threshold; and
generate a misappropriation attempt attribute for the current data transmission,”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240370554 A1, "Systems, methods, and apparatuses for threat indexing and implementing ai to detect malfeasant user activity in an electronic environment", by Williams.
US 20250007940 A1, "Data generation and analysis engine for identification and monitoring of endpoint activity response", by Philip.
US 11968130 B2, "Real-time adjustment of resource allocation based on usage mapping via an artificial intelligence engine", by Dintenfass.
US 12248606 B2, "Systems, methods, and apparatuses for identifying unauthorized use of a user's authentication credentials to an electronic network based on non-public data access", by Landy.
US 20240048506 A1, "System and method for autonomous conversion of a resource format using machine learning", by Baransky.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN YANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached on 571-272-3862. 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.
/HAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights