DETAILED ACTION
Office Action Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102.
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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murynets et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No: 2014/0004892) hereinafter referred to as Murynets.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Murynets teaches … collecting connection trace data including connection characteristics for each of a plurality of mobile devices in communication with a communications network; (Murynets, [0015] teaches “In one embodiment, mobile originating and/or mobile terminating call detail records (CDRs) (e.g., obtained from the originating and terminating access networks) are analyzed for the purpose of identifying potential SMS spam sources”, the connection trace data is the CDR)
aggregating the connection trace data; (Murynets, [0015], teaches “DR records contain multiple fields, including a time stamp for the start of a call, a call duration, the sender and caller phone numbers, the disposition of the call, the call type, and other call related information. In one embodiment, CDRs from voice, SMS as well as Internet Protocol (IP) traffic are queried. At least any one or more of the following fields/features are analyzed: sender number, receiver number, account type (pre-paid, contract, etc.), age of the contract, mobile equipment identifier (MEID) and/or international mobile equipment identity (IMEI)”, multiple fields are analyzed/combined to form a conclusion i.e. aggregated)
determining performance characteristics for each of a plurality of groups of the plurality of mobile devices, wherein each of the plurality of groups corresponds to mobile devices having a type approval code; (Murynets, [0015], teaches “(e.g., to compare to a "blacklist" or "device watch list"), a type allocation code (TAC) which identifies a particular manufacturer and model type of the sending device, coordinates of the base station that handled the message in the uplink and the downlink, LACCI (Location Area Code/Cell ID) indicative of the geographic location of the origin and/or destination(s) of a message/call, geographic coordinates, which are also indicative of the geographic location of the origin and/or destination(s), time stamp, message length, duration of voice calls, and amount of data per IP session (uplink and downlink).”, manufacture, model type are examples of different groups)
comparing the performance characteristics for each of the plurality of groups; and (Murynets, [0015], teaches “(In addition, multiple CDRs from different calls may be analyzed collectively to detect patterns indicative of SMS spam activity.” And “More generally, one or more features are derived from one or more CDR fields that are used to obtain a feature set. The feature set is then analyzed and parsed to obtain a profile for SMS spam traffic in the network and to identify potential SMS spam sources.”, the feature set for instance the manufacturers are grouped/compared)
based on a determination that the performance characteristics of one of the plurality of groups deviate from the performance characteristics of a remaining set of the plurality of groups by more than a first threshold amount, designating the type approval code associated with the one of the plurality of groups as a rogue type approval code. (Murynets, [0046], teaches “a watch list for SMS message blocking that looks to the IMEI/MEID number associated with the device. In contrast to the IMSI number, the IMEI/MEID number is not easily changed and is effectively permanently associated with the device. Thus, even if a spammer substitutes a SIM card into a device when an account associated with the SIM card is blocked, if IMEI/MEID blocking is employed, the spammer's SMS messages will still be blocked. In addition, the account associated with the new SIM card and new IMSI number will also be blocked based upon an association with the IMEI/MEID number that is known to be associated with SMS spam activity.” AND [0052], teaches “[0052] For example, a threshold number may be set above which the SMS spam detection engine determines a potential SMS spam source exists. Each node in the decision tree may correspond to a particular CDR feature.”)
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Murynets teaches … further comprising modifying a serial number of an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) number of the connection trace data. (Murynets, [0015], teaches “international mobile equipment identity (IMEI)” as part of the CDR (calling data record))
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Murynets teaches … wherein designating the type approval code associated with the one of the plurality of groups as the type approval code device causes the type approval code to be added to a blacklist of the communications network. (Murynets, [0046], teaches “a watch list for SMS message blocking that looks to the IMEI/MEID number associated with the device. In contrast to the IMSI number, the IMEI/MEID number is not easily changed and is effectively permanently associated with the device. Thus, even if a spammer substitutes a SIM card into a device when an account associated with the SIM card is blocked, if IMEI/MEID blocking is employed, the spammer's SMS messages will still be blocked. In addition, the account associated with the new SIM card and new IMSI number will also be blocked based upon an association with the IMEI/MEID number that is known to be associated with SMS spam activity.”)
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Murynets teaches … wherein designating the type approval code associated with the one of the plurality of groups as the rogue type approval code causes an anomaly report to be transmitted to a manufacturer associated with the type approval code. (Murynets, [0059], teaches “ It can be observed that, for certain manufacturers, the probability of an account being associated with a spammer is very high” and [0033], teaches “the SMSC 265 may provide various reports to the sender and or recipient with respect to the submission, status and delivery of a SMS message. In this regard, it should be noted that aspects of such reports may be reflected in fields in one or more call detail records (CDRs)”, so reports are generated however transmitting them do the manufacturer is a design choice of who the reports could benefit)
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Murynets teaches … wherein the anomaly report includes the performance characteristics for the one of the plurality of groups. (Murynets, [0046], teaches “a watch list for SMS message blocking that looks to the IMEI/MEID number associated with the device. In contrast to the IMSI number, the IMEI/MEID number is not easily changed and is effectively permanently associated with the device. Thus, even if a spammer substitutes a SIM card into a device when an account associated with the SIM card is blocked, if IMEI/MEID blocking is employed, the spammer's SMS messages will still be blocked. In addition, the account associated with the new SIM card and new IMSI number will also be blocked based upon an association with the IMEI/MEID number that is known to be associated with SMS spam activity.” And [0059], teaches “ It can be observed that, for certain manufacturers, the probability of an account being associated with a spammer is very high” and [0033], teaches “the SMSC 265 may provide various reports to the sender and or recipient with respect to the submission, status and delivery of a SMS message. In this regard, it should be noted that aspects of such reports may be reflected in fields in one or more call detail records (CDRs)”, so reports are generated however transmitting them do the manufacturer is a design choice of who the reports could benefit)
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Murynets teaches further comprising: monitoring an active connection between a first mobile device having a first type approval code and the communications network; obtaining the performance characteristics for a group of mobile devices having the first type approval code; and based on a determination that one or more connection characteristics of the active connection deviate from the performance characteristics for the group of mobile devices having the first type approval code by more than a second threshold amount, designating the first mobile device as a rogue device. (Murynets, [0046], teaches “a watch list for SMS message blocking that looks to the IMEI/MEID number associated with the device. In contrast to the IMSI number, the IMEI/MEID number is not easily changed and is effectively permanently associated with the device. Thus, even if a spammer substitutes a SIM card into a device when an account associated with the SIM card is blocked, if IMEI/MEID blocking is employed, the spammer's SMS messages will still be blocked. In addition, the account associated with the new SIM card and new IMSI number will also be blocked based upon an association with the IMEI/MEID number that is known to be associated with SMS spam activity.” AND [0052], teaches “[0052] For example, a threshold number may be set above which the SMS spam detection engine determines a potential SMS spam source exists. Each node in the decision tree may correspond to a particular CDR feature.”)
As per claims 7 and 14, Murynets teaches wherein designating the first mobile device as the rogue device causes an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) number of the first mobile device to be added to a blacklist of the communications network. (Murynets, [0045], teaches “may maintain blacklists of device identifiers/account identifiers that are blocked or prohibited from sending and receiving messages. Thus, an IMEI or other identifier associated with the identified potential SMS spam source may be added to the blacklist”)
Other Art of Record
Kim et al. (US 20230189004 A1) [0021] teaches “IMEI which includes TAC. This may be used by the system to group the devices based on functionality. Although the invention is described using device type, device manufacturer, device functionality, etc. as grouping parameters, a person skilled in the art may readily recognize that using other grouping parameters that can classify the devices similar to that using device type and/or functionality is also within the scope of this invention and is covered by the present disclosure.”
Zhang et al. (US 20210400537 A1) teaches [0906] “, Group ID for Network Selection (GIN), Generic Public Subscription Identifier (GPSI), Globally Unique AMF Identifier (GUAMI), Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI) and/or 5G-GUTI, International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), IMEI Type Allocation Code (IMEA/TAC)”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3906. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7AM-4PM).
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached on (571) 272-1183. 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.
/SIMON P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights