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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140119527 to Cohen.
Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches a method comprising:
determining, based on a correspondence between a threshold portion of audio data of a first communication session associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device and audio data of a second communication session associated with the originating device identifier, that the originating device identifier is associated with an autodialing system (¶ 3, 6, 10-11, determination of autodialing system based on corresponding threshold portion of audio of first and second communication sessions);
determining, based on one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session, the autodialing system is invalid (¶ 3, 6, 10-11, determination of invalid autodialing system based on session(s) ); and
blocking, based on determining that the autodialing system is invalid, one or more future communication sessions associated with the originating device identifier (¶ 6, 8-11, blocking).
Regarding claim 3, 12,
Cohen teaches:
wherein the correspondence between the threshold portion of audio data of the first communication session and the audio data of the second communication session comprises determining that a portion of audio data associated with the first communication session and a second portion of audio data associated with the second communication session comprises substantially similar content (¶ 21).
Regarding claim 4,
Cohen teaches:
storing the originating device identifier in a database of invalid autodialing
system (¶ 11, 24-26, storing identifiers related to blocked systems).
Regarding claim 5,
Cohen teaches:
determining that the originating device identifier is on an exceptions list; and processing, based on determining that the originating device identifier is on the exceptions list, the one or more future communication sessions (¶ 7, allowed list).
Regarding claim 6,
Cohen teaches:
receiving the one or more future communication sessions; and determining, based on the originating device identifier for the one or more future communication sessions, the one or more future communication sessions are associated with an invalid autodialing system (¶ 6, 8-11, 26-30, receiving and blocking subsequent sessions).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen teaches a method comprising:
determining, based on a correspondence between a threshold portion of audio data of a first communication session associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device and audio data of a second communication session associated with the originating device identifier, that the originating device identifier is associated with an autodialing system (¶ 3, 6, 10-11, determination of autodialing system based on corresponding threshold portion of audio of first and second communication sessions);
determining, based on one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session, the autodialing system is valid (¶ 3, 6, 10-11, 17, determination of valid system based on session(s) ); and
establishing, based on determining that the autodialing system is valid, one or more future communication sessions associated with the originating device identifier (¶ 6, 8-11, establishment of sessions; see also figs. 2-3; ¶ 24-27).
Regarding claim 9,
Cohen teaches:
receiving the plurality of previous communication sessions (¶ 3, 6, 10-11, 24-27, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 14,
Cohen teaches:
determining that an additional communication session initiated by the originating device is invalid; and blocking, based on determining that the additional communication session is invalid, another one or more future communication sessions associated with the originating device identifier (¶ 6, 8-11, 26-30, receiving and blocking subsequent sessions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2, 7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of US 9396730 to Karpey.
Regarding claim 2,
Cohen fails to teach: wherein determining the autodialing system is invalid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session, text data of at least one of the one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with an invalid autodialing system, the autodialing system is invalid.
However Karpey teaches determining a system is invalid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session, text data of at least one of the one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with an invalid autodialing system, the autodialing system is invalid (col. 7:60-67, col. 8:1-34, col. 10:15-30, col. 12:45-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Karpey. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Karpey would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the authentication of authorized parties (Karpey, col. 12:35-40, 55-65)
Regarding claim 7, 10-11,
Cohen fails to teach teaches wherein determining the autodialing system is invalid/valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the audio data of the first communication session or the audio data of the second communication session, text data; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a valid autodialing system, the autodialing system is invalid/valid.
However Karpey teaches: wherein determining a system is invalid/valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the audio data of the first communication session or the audio data of the second communication session, text data; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a invalid/valid autodialing system, the system is invalid/valid (col. 7:60-67, col. 8:1-34, col. 10:15-30, col. 12:45-61). Motivation to include Karpey is the same as presented above.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view US 9,729,586 to Brewer.
Regarding claim 13,
Choen fails to teach but Brewer teaches:
determining, based on one or more attributes of the one or more of the first communication session or the second communication session, that a communication threshold for the originating device identifier is satisfied, wherein the communication threshold comprises one or more of an answer seizure rate threshold, a call rate threshold, or a call hold time threshold (col. 3:12-15, col. 22:1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Brewer. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Brewer would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating autodialer detection and call prevention (Brewer, col. 3:12-15).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights