5Notice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to “receiving caller-identification data determined in response to completing the call to the recipient device”. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification and therefore is considered new matter. Examiner reviewed the entire specification and found no support for “receiving caller-identification data determined in response to completing the call …”.
The only paragraph that mentions “complete” a call is paragraph [0021]. Paragraph [0021] of the original specification reads:
“The certification authority server 110 can confirm verification and/or verify phone numbers as being associated with known entities, such as healthcare facilities. The carrier server 112 can complete the call to the mobile device 101…”
It means that after the phone number is verified, then complete the call, which is the opposite of “receiving caller-identification data determined in response to completing the call”. The limitation should be “in response to receiving caller-identification data determined, completing the call…”. Examiner will proceed with examining the amended claims based on the best interpretation from the originally filed specification.
The same/similar issues exist for claims 7, 8, 14 and 15, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
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 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(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitawdekar (US 9264536) in view of Meek et al. (US 6148070 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Saitawdekar discloses a method, a system (see Figs. 1 and 2), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for caller-identification verification, the method comprising:
generating a call to a recipient device using call source data of a call source (see Fig. 2, and col. 5, lines 51-60; col.6, lines 7-20);
receiving caller-identification data determined in response to receiving the call (see Fig. 2, and col. 5, lines 51-60);
generating comparison data based on a comparison between the caller-identification data and the call source data (see col. 3, line 65 - col. 4 line 19; col. 6, lines 7-20); and
generating an alert in response to the comparison data including a mismatch between the caller-identification data and the call source data (see col. 3, line 65 - col. 4 line 19, when a discrepancy exists, a report is transmitted to alert).
Saitawdekar fails to disclose a call is a test call and in response to receiving caller-identification data determined, completing the call to the recipient device.
However, in the similar endeavor, Meek discloses a test call and in response to receiving caller-identification data determined, completing the call to the recipient device (see Meek, col. 7, line 52, where the call type is a test call; also see Meek, Col. 12, lines 59-65, where call is completed based upon calling party identification acceptable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited reference and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation would be to allow a phone call to be a test call for testing purpose and to complete a call based on caller id being verified to be acceptable, thus providing users with more options, ease and convenience when handling calls knowing the caller id is acceptable for them.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the test call includes generating a call by a server using the call source data from the call source, the call source data including call data associated with a user of the call source (see Saitawdekar: col. 3, line 65-col. 4 line 19; see Meek, col. 7, line 52, where the call type is a test call).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising generating and receiving a plurality of calls, each of the plurality of calls generated using the call source data, and each of the plurality of test calls received at a discrete mobile device, each mobile device being associated with a different phone carrier (see Saitawdekar: col. 6 lines 21-28, “the call request can be received using various network protocols, including, but not limited to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), Time Division Mulitplexing (TDM) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) call messaging protocols.”; col. 6, line 56- col. 7, line 3, “determine what service provider is assigned the ANI and/or caller ID”; “If the service provider is a carrier, other than the carrier maintaining service provider network element 220, then a discrepancy is determined to exist”. Note: that means there are multiple service providers or carriers where the calls are originated from. Also see Meek, col. 7, line 52, where the call type is a test call).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 3 further comprising populating a corresponding database entry for each caller-identification data used in generation of one of the plurality of test calls (Saitawdekar: col. 6, line 56- col. 7, line 3; Also see Meek, col. 7, line 52, where the call type is a test call).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the comparison data is generated from a comparison between caller-identification data determined for each phone carrier, and to the call source data (Saitawdekar: col. 6, line 56- col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting the alert to a computing device indicating that the caller-identification data does not match the call source data of the call source (Saitawdekar: col. 3, line 65-col. 4 line 19).
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 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(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitawdekar in view of in view of Meek, and further in view of Clay (US 11115523).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Saitawdekar in view of Meek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the call is a first call received by a first mobile device associated with a first phone carrier, wherein the caller-identification data is first caller-identification data, but Saitawdekar in view of Meek does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises: generating a second call to a second mobile device associated with a second phone carrier using the call source data of the call source; receiving second caller-identification data determined in response to completing the second test call to the second mobile device; generating comparison data based on a comparison between the first caller-identification data and the second caller-identification data and to the call source data; and generating a second alert in response to the comparison data including a mismatch between the first and second caller-identification data or the call source data.
In a similar endeavor, Clay discloses an iterative call process where there would be a second call where caller identification data is received and compared and alert would be generated if there is no match (see Fig. 10A and Fig. 10B and their corresponding paragraphs; and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited reference and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation would be to effectively identify unwanted phone calls based on caller identification information and provide notification or alert to the user, thus enhancing user experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KATHY W WANG-HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-5371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights