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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues the prior art to Brewer fails to disclose determining, based on a correspondence between a plurality previous of communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device, that the originating device identifier is associated with an autodialing system because Brewer only discloses the determination step based on a single communication session, not a “plurality of previous communication sessions”.
Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive as Brewer’s determination step is based on the plurality of sessions as detailed in at least col. 21:45-67 which describes the detection as based on a plurality of sessions and includes a corresponding count of the previous call sessions received (see also Brewer at col. 2:41-67, col. 3:1-35, col. 21:1-67).
Applicant argues that the motivation to include Karpey’s teachings with Brewer are not supported because Brewer teaches away from using previous call records (Remarks, pg. 10). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Brewer includes the use of call records in its determination processes and therefore cannot be held to teach away from using call records (Brewer, col. 21:45-67, col. 22:1-67, auto-dialer detection based on call records).
Applicant argues that Brewer teaches away from Karpey (Remarks, pg. 10). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Brewer does not constitute a teaching away because Brewer’s disclosure dose not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.
Applicant argues that Brewer does not suffer the problem alleged by Office. The problem alleged by the office is that Brewer fails to disclose the determination step includes determining a correspondence between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device. If these features are present in Brewer, applicant is requested to cite the portions of Brewer applicant would rely upon to support that these features are taught by the primary reference.
Applicant further argues that Brewer would have no need to authenticate authorized parties by utilizing Karpey’s audio matching technology. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this regard as 1) applicant’s assertion lacks evidentiary support and the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record; and 2) one would be motivated to include Karpey’s audio-based authentication technology in a call-based system such as Brewer’s because Karpey’s technology would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the authentication of authorized parties (Karpey, col. 12:35-40, 55-65).
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9729586 to Brewer in view of US 9396730 to Karpey.
Regarding claim 1,
Brewer teaches a method comprising:
determining, based on a correspondence between a plurality previous of communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device, that the originating device identifier is associated with an autodialing system (abstract, col. 2:41-67, col. 3:1-35, col. 21:1-45, auto-dialer detection);
determining, based on one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, the autodialing system is invalid (abstract, col. 2:41-67, col. 3:1-35, col. 21:1-45, determination of invalidity, denied auto-dialers); and
blocking, based on determining that the autodialing system is invalid, one or more future communication sessions associated with the originating device identifier (abstract, col. 2:41-67, col. 3:1-35, col. 21:1-45, blocking).
Brewer fails to teach wherein the correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device.
Karpey discloses determining a correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device (Karpey, 6:15-43, customer profile including phone number of originating device, network address, or device identification numbers; voice identification and authorization system associated with voice prints associated with customer profile; col. 7:25-67, col. 8:1-50, col. 10:10-30, col. 12:45-61, identification of authorized system based on determined correspondence between threshold portion of audio data to stored voice prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Karpey’s audio threshold comparison technology with Brewer’s auto-dialer determining system. 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 2,
Brewer fails to teach: wherein determining the autodialing system is invalid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; 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 plurality of communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with an invalid system, the 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 3,
Brewer fails to teach but Karpey teaches: wherein the correspondence between the plurality of previous communication sessions comprises determining a correspondence between a portion of audio data associated with a first communication session of the plurality of previous communication sessions and a second portion of audio data associated with a second communication session of the plurality of previous communication sessions (col. 7:60-67, col. 8:1-34, col. 10:15-30, col. 12:45-61).
Brewer fails to teach where in the correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device.
Karpey discloses determining a correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device (Karpey, customer profile including phone number of originating device, network address, or device identification numbers; voice identification and authorization system associated with voice prints associated with customer profile; col. 7:25-67, col. 8:1-50, col. 10:10-30, col. 12:45-61, identification of authorized system based on determined correspondence between threshold portion of audio data to stored voice prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Karpey’s audio threshold comparison technology to the auto-dialer determining system of Brewer. 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 4,
Brewer teaches:
storing the originating device identifier in a database of invalid autodialing
system (abstract, col. 2:41-67, col. 3:1-35, col. 21:1-45, determination of invalidity, storing identifiers).
Regarding claim 5,
Brewer 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 (col. 24:30-50, allowed list).
Regarding claim 6,
Brewer 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 (col. 22:1-25, col. 23:1-45, col. 29:1-15, receiving and blocking subsequent sessions).
Regarding claim 7,
Brewer fails to teach: wherein determining the autodialing system is invalid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a valid autodialing system, the autodialing system is invalid.
However Karpey teaches: wherein determining a system is invalid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a valid system, the system is invalid (col. 7:60-67, col. 8:1-34, col. 10:15-30, col. 12:45-61).
Brewer fails to teach where in the correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device.
Karpey discloses determining a correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device (Karpey, customer profile including phone number of originating device, network address, or device identification numbers; voice identification and authorization system associated with voice prints associated with customer profile; col. 7:25-67, col. 8:1-50, col. 10:10-30, col. 12:45-61, identification of authorized system based on determined correspondence between threshold portion of audio data to stored voice prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Karpey’s audio threshold comparison technology to the auto-dialer determining system of Brewer. 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 8,
Brewer teaches a method comprising:
determining, based on a correspondence between a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device, that the originating device identifier is associated with an autodialing system (col. 6:10-18, col. 22:1-25, auto-dialer detection);
determining, based on one or more communication sessions of the plurality of previous communication sessions, the autodialing system is valid (col. 22:1-25, identification of valid auto-dialer systems); and
establishing, based on determining the autodialing system is valid, one or more future communication sessions associated with the originating device identifier (col. 23:10-30, col. 23:30-55, establishing call session with valid systems).
Brewer fails to teach where in the correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device.
Karpey discloses determining a correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device (Karpey, customer profile including phone number of originating device, network address, or device identification numbers; voice identification and authorization system associated with voice prints associated with customer profile; col. 7:25-67, col. 8:1-50, col. 10:10-30, col. 12:45-61, identification of authorized system based on determined correspondence between threshold portion of audio data to stored voice prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Karpey’s audio threshold comparison technology to the auto-dialer determining system of Brewer. 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 9,
Brewer teaches:
receiving the plurality of previous communication sessions (col. 23:10-30, col. 23:30-55, establishing call session with valid systems).
Regarding claim 10,
Brewer fails to teach: wherein determining the autodialing system is valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a valid autodialing system, the autodialing system is valid.
However, Karpey teaches: wherein determining the system is valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with a valid system, the system is 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.
Regarding claim 11,
Brewer fails to teach: wherein determining the autodialing system is valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with an invalid autodialing system, the autodialing system is valid.
However, Karpey teaches: wherein determining the system is valid comprises: determining, based on the one or more of the plurality of previous communication sessions, text data of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of communication sessions; and determining, based on comparing the text data to keywords associated with an invalid system, the system is 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.
Regarding claim 12,
Brewer fails to teach but Karpey teaches: wherein the correspondence between the plurality of communication sessions comprises determining a correspondence between a portion of audio data associated with a first communication session of the plurality of previous communication sessions and a second portion of audio data associated with a second communication session of the plurality of communication sessions (col. 7:60-67, col. 8:1-34, col. 10:15-30, col. 12:45-61).
Brewer fails to teach where in the correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device.
Karpey discloses determining a correspondence is between a threshold portion of audio of a plurality of previous communication sessions associated with an originating device identifier associated with an originating device (Karpey, customer profile including phone number of originating device, network address, or device identification numbers; voice identification and authorization system associated with voice prints associated with customer profile; col. 7:25-67, col. 8:1-50, col. 10:10-30, col. 12:45-61, identification of authorized system based on determined correspondence between threshold portion of audio data to stored voice prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Karpey’s audio threshold comparison technology to the auto-dialer determining system of Brewer. 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 13,
Brewer teaches:
determining, based on one or more attributes of the one or more communication sessions of the plurality of previous communication sessions, 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).
Regarding claim 14,
Brewer 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 (col. 22:1-25, col. 23:1-45, col. 29:1-15, receiving and blocking subsequent sessions).
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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