DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
It is noted that the present application is a 371 National Phase Patent Application of PCT/JP2021/005834, for which the 371(c) filing date is February 17, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2023 has been considered by examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims appear to be directed to a program per se as the claim recites “A call warning program for causing a computer to function as the call warning device” and not to hardware embodiment, where a machine claim is directed towards a system, apparatus, or arrangement. The claim appears to be directed towards a software embodiment. Software, alone, are not physical components and thus are not statutory since software do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer programs and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer' s program functionality to be realized. Hence, the stated functions comprise software and is thus not directed to a hardware embodiment.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LU (US-20220124195-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, LU discloses A call warning device (Fig.1:104, server device), comprising:
a call signal reception unit (par.101, Fig.5:506, input/output (I/O) interface), including one or more processors, configured to receive a call signal originated in a calling side terminal for a receiving side terminal as a transmission destination (paragraph [0047], Fig.2, "In block 210, an incoming phone call is detected. For example, a device that implements method 200 (e.g., server device 104) may receive a call request for a telephone call." (i.e., server device 104 receiving a request for a telephone call.));
a call signal processing unit (par.101, Fig.5:502, processor), including one or more processors, configured to determine a warning signal is necessary (paragraph [0071], Fig.2, "In block 222, a label is assigned to the incoming phone call. In some implementations, more than one labels may be assigned to the call. In some implementations, assigning a label to the call may include assigning a label that indicates whether the incoming phone call is a spoofed call" (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.2 where the server device 104 determined adding a label is a necessary to indicated the incoming phone call is a spoofed call.))
in a case where a combination of a number conversion history (par.52, a record indicative of information about the hop) of the call signal set by a connection device (Fig.1:102, server system) that has transferred the call signal by a transfer service involving number conversion (paragraph [0052], Fig.2, "In block 214, the call header is analyzed to determine one or more call characteristics. In some implementations, the one or more characteristics may include a number of hops between a caller device and the server that received the call initiation message." and paragraph [0049], "the route information in call header may be modified at each hop in the route, e.g., each device (corresponding to a hop) that receives and forwards the call initiation message may append a record indicative of information about the hop to the call initiation message." (i.e., Analyzing the number of hops the calling side terminal has performed in order to reach the transmission destination.))
and calling side information of the calling side terminal set in the call signal meets a specific condition (paragraph [0059], Fig.2:214, "In some implementations, it may be determined that the location is spoofed if the number of hops associated with the call (determined in the one or more call characteristics from analysis of the call header in block 214) is different from the reference number of hops. For example, if the number of hops associated with the call is greater than the reference number of hops, it may indicate that the call passed through more intermediate devices than usual." (i.e., Analysis the call header characteristics and when the characteristics is unusual then a label is assigned to a number to alert to the destination terminal. Par.53-55 show the different types of characteristics analyzed for determining if a label is necessary.)); and
a warning processing unit, including one or more processors, configured to transmit the warning signal to the receiving side terminal before transmitting the call signal to the receiving side terminal according to the determination of the call signal processing unit (paragraph [0071], "In block 222, a label is assigned to the incoming phone call. In some implementations, more than one labels may be assigned to the call. In some implementations, assigning a label to the call may include assigning a label that indicates whether the incoming phone call is a spoofed call." and paragraph [0077], Fig., "In block 228, the label is sent to the callee device, e.g., along with a notification of the incoming phone call. The label may be usable by the callee device, e.g., by call application 152, to provide a user alert that indicates that the incoming phone call is the spoofed call and/or the robocall." and paragraph [0078], "In block 230, user feedback regarding the incoming phone call may be received. For example, the user feedback may indicate whether the label associated with the call was correct or incorrect, e.g., a robocall not identified by the label, a genuine call labeled as spoofed, etc." (i.e., Examiner reading the label alert is sent to user before the call par.77 "to provide a user alert that indicates that the incoming phone call is the spoofed call" and also “the incoming phone call may be received”. Examiner points to par.88 wherein the label is provided together with the incoming call as another embodiment.)).
Regarding Claim 6, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU (US-20220124195-A1) in view of Singh (US-20110211682-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, LU discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, LU does not disclose wherein in addition to a case where the specific condition is met, the call signal processing unit is configured to determine that the warning signal is necessary when the calling number of a call is a calling number listed in a black list registered in advance.
Singh discloses wherein in addition to a case where the specific condition is met, the call signal processing unit is configured to determine that the warning signal is necessary when the calling number of a call is a calling number listed in a black list registered in advance (paragraph [0038], Fig., "In the event that the caller ID is found on the blacklist, the user is warned against answering the call. The verification server 8 may also keep a record of the vishing attack occurring from the caller ID, including the date, time, and called number." (i.e., The server device 104 of LU can be modified to check if the call is in the blacklist to send a warning signal.)).
LU and Singh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LU to incorporate an addition case to determine a warning signal is necessary by checking if the caller ID is found in the blacklist to have additional verification to create a more accurate label for the user by determining if the caller is found in the blacklist in order to further discourage the user from picking up the call (Singh, paragraph [0016], "Preferably the blacklist contains telephone numbers known to be associated with malicious parties.").
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU (US-20220124195-A1) in view of Kanayama (JP-2011135328-A).
Regarding Claim 5, LU discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, LU does not disclose wherein in addition to a case where the specific condition is met, the call signal processing unit is configured to determine that the warning signal is necessary when a keyword extracted from call content of the call signal by voice recognition matches a problem word registered in a database in advance.
Kanayama discloses wherein in addition to a case where the specific condition is met, the call signal processing unit is configured to determine that the warning signal is necessary when a keyword extracted from call content of the call signal by voice recognition matches a problem word registered in a database in advance (page 4, paragraph [0004], "(2) The communication system 103 automatically responds to an incoming call…" and paragraph [0005], "(3) Thereafter, the communication system 103 monitors the content of the call…recognizes and analyzes the voice during the call…" and paragraph [0006], "(4) When the communication system 103 detects a dangerous keyword registered in the keyword table during the voice recognition analysis," and paragraph [0009], "(7)…if the password entered by the caller does not match. The caller is prompted to re-enter the password, and the responder 107 is alerted that the current call is a risk of fraud…"(i.e., Examiner points to the text of Fig.4 steps 1-7 of a communication system 103 responding to the incoming call and listen for dangerous keyword registered and if there is a match states enter a password and when the caller can't be authenticating the system alerts the caller.)).
LU and Kanayama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving the same issue of caller verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LU to incorporate Kanayama of authenticating the caller (Kanayama, Fig.4) in order to have authentication that detects keywords that is used for fraud and provides authentication to stop potential fraud callers connecting with the user (Kanayama, Abstract, "If the caller's voiceprint and the PIN code entered by the caller are used to authenticate the caller and the caller cannot authenticate, the current call may be fraudulent to the responder. Listen to a sound that calls attention to being dangerous.").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648