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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 2025-12-17 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Status of the Claims
In an amendment filed 2025-12-17 (“Remarks”), applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 19 and added new claims 21-26. Thus, claims 1-16 are present for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 19, and the dependent claims, 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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because it appears that “generate, based at least on part…” in line 11, should read, “generate, based at least in part…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0324297 to Kent et al. (“Kent”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0182490 to Anand.
As to claim 1, Kent discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1, 2, 8; ¶0049, "FIG. 2 is a block diagram that illustrates an example embodiment of a telephony provider system and an endpoint communication device configured for conducting automatic risk assessments of incoming calls") for assigning reputation scores to telecommunications identifiers (Fig. 1; ¶0048, "a 'risk rating matrix.' Each cell in the risk rating matrix may be associated with a reputation score that ranges from −4 (worst possible reputation, high risk) to +4 (excellent reputation, little to no risk). An example of a risk rating matrix is illustrated in FIG. 1. With these categories, the system can approach the qualification of calling numbers by history, and characterization of the caller's reputation, e.g., Compliant-Robocaller, Non-Compliant Robocaller, Scammers, Spammers, Spoofers and, in general, reputable entities"), the apparatus comprising: a first data interpretation circuit (Fig. 2; ¶0051, "information gathering engine 224") structured to interpret first data from a first database, the first data corresponding to at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity"); a second data interpretation circuit (Fig. 2; ¶0051, "information gathering engine 224") structured to interpret second data from a second database distinct from the first database, the second data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Examiner notes that the reference provides for "one or more additional data sources 226" (emphasis added), therefore it is clear that second data from a second database, distinct from the first data from the first database, could be obtained from additional data sources 226. Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0069, "Statistics regarding transactions associated with the calling number, including but not limited to an average daily volume, an outbound volume, and an inbound volume"); a data analysis circuit (Fig. 2; ¶0051, "risk processing engine 214") structured to determine, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, one or more attributes for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call"); a scoring circuit (Fig. 2; ¶0051, "model consuming engine 216") structured to generate … a reputation score for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0106, "At block 528, the risk processing engine 214 provides the features to a model consuming engine 216 of the risk assessment system 212, and at block 530, the model consuming engine 216 applies the model to the features to determine a category and a likelihood value". Examiner notes that it is clear that the category and/or likelihood value is understood to be a reputation score for the telecommunications identifier; see Fig. 1 and ¶0048, "a 'risk rating matrix.' Each cell in the risk rating matrix may be associated with a reputation score that ranges from −4 (worst possible reputation, high risk) to +4 (excellent reputation, little to no risk). An example of a risk rating matrix is illustrated in FIG. 1. With these categories, the system can approach the qualification of calling numbers by history, and characterization of the caller's reputation, e.g., Compliant-Robocaller, Non-Compliant Robocaller, Scammers, Spammers, Spoofers and, in general, reputable entities"); and a score provisioning circuit (Fig. 2; ¶0051, "risk processing engine 214") structured to transmit the reputation score (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0108, "At block 534, the risk processing engine 214 transmits the category and likelihood value to a risk processing engine 206 of the endpoint communication device 204"). Examiner makes note of reference paragraph ¶0052, "In general, the word “engine,” as used herein, refers to logic embodied in hardware and/or software instructions, which can be written in a programming language, such as C, C++, C#, COBOL, JAVA™, PHP, Perl, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, VBScript, ASPX, Microsoft .NET™, and/or the like. An engine may be compiled into executable programs or written in interpreted programming languages. Engines may be callable from other engines or from themselves. Generally, the engines described herein refer to logical components that can be merged with other engines, or can be divided into sub engines. The engines can be stored in any type of computer readable medium or computer storage device and be stored on and executed by one or more general purpose computers, thus creating a special purpose computer configured to provide the engine". As such, it is abundantly clear that the cited information gathering engine 224 "can be divided into sub engines" to provide for the first and second data interpretation circuits; similarly, risk processing engine 214 "can be divided into sub engines" to provide for the data analysis circuit and the score provisioning circuit.
Kent does not disclose: that the scoring circuit is structured to generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value.
However, Anand discloses: that the scoring circuit is structured to generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value (Fig. 2; ¶¶0054-0063, ¶0072, and ¶¶0081-0084).
Kent and Anand are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent to incorporate the teachings of Anand to include: that the scoring circuit is structured to generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value. Doing so would allow for "automatically detect[ing] the likelihood of a fraudulent caller without the need for significant resources at the call centre" (Anand, ¶0006).
As to claim 2, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising the first database (Fig. 2; ¶0058, "The illustrated telephony provider system 202 also includes one or more additional data sources 226").
As to claim 3, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first database comprises records associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with an entity (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity").
As to claim 5, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first database comprises records associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with one or more authorized services (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0083, "Traffic characteristics including but not limited to a number of query sources and a number of services").
As to claim 7, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising the first database and the second database (Fig. 2; ¶0058, "The illustrated telephony provider system 202 also includes one or more additional data sources 226").
As to claim 8, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the first database comprises records associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with an entity (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226 (i.e. the first database), e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity"); and the second database comprises records associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with one or more authorized services (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226 (i.e. the second database), e.g. ¶0083, "Traffic characteristics including but not limited to a number of query sources and a number of services").
As to claim 11, Kent discloses a method for assigning scores to telecommunications identifiers (Figs. 5A-D; ¶0103, "FIGS. 5A-5D are a flowchart that illustrates an example embodiment of a method of determining a reputation score for incoming calls using a machine-learning model according to various aspects of the present disclosure"), the method comprising: interpreting, via at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶0130, "at least one processor 802"), first data from a first database, the first data corresponding to at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity"); interpreting, via the at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶0130, "at least one processor 802"), second data from a second database, the second data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Examiner notes that the reference provides for "one or more additional data sources 226" (emphasis added), therefore it is clear that second data from a second database, distinct from the first data from the first database, could be obtained from additional data sources 226. Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0069, "Statistics regarding transactions associated with the calling number, including but not limited to an average daily volume, an outbound volume, and an inbound volume"); determining, via the at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶0130, "at least one processor 802") and based at least in part on the first data and the second data, one or more attributes for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call"); generating, via the at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶0130, "at least one processor 802") … a reputation score for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0106, "At block 528, the risk processing engine 214 provides the features to a model consuming engine 216 of the risk assessment system 212, and at block 530, the model consuming engine 216 applies the model to the features to determine a category and a likelihood value". Examiner notes that it is clear that the category and/or likelihood value is a reputation score for the telecommunications identifier; see Fig. 1 and ¶0048, "a 'risk rating matrix.' Each cell in the risk rating matrix may be associated with a reputation score that ranges from −4 (worst possible reputation, high risk) to +4 (excellent reputation, little to no risk). An example of a risk rating matrix is illustrated in FIG. 1. With these categories, the system can approach the qualification of calling numbers by history, and characterization of the caller's reputation, e.g., Compliant-Robocaller, Non-Compliant Robocaller, Scammers, Spammers, Spoofers and, in general, reputable entities"); and transmitting, via the at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶0130, "at least one processor 802"), the reputation score (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0108, "At block 534, the risk processing engine 214 transmits the category and likelihood value to a risk processing engine 206 of the endpoint communication device 204").
Kent does not disclose: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value.
However, Anand discloses: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value (Fig. 2; ¶¶0054-0063, ¶0072, and ¶¶0081-0084).
Kent and Anand are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent to incorporate the teachings of Anand to include: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value. Doing so would allow for "automatically detect[ing] the likelihood of a fraudulent caller without the need for significant resources at the call centre" (Anand, ¶0006).
As to claim 12, Kent in view of Anand discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising: associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with an entity in a database (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity").
As to claim 15, Kent in view of Anand discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising: associating the at least one telecommunications identifier with one or more authorized service in a database (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226 (i.e. the second database), e.g. ¶0083, "Traffic characteristics including but not limited to a number of query sources and a number of services").
As to claim 19, Kent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that adapt at least one processor (Fig. 8; ¶, "Those of ordinary skill in the art and others will recognize that system memory 804 typically stores data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible to and/or currently being operated on by the processor 802. In this regard, the processor 802 may serve as a computational center of the computing device 800 by supporting the execution of instructions" and ¶0009, "a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon is provided. The instructions, in response to execution by one or more processors of a risk assessment system, cause the risk assessment system to perform actions for automatically conducting risk assessments for telephony communications") to: interpret first data from a first database, the first data corresponding to at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity"); interpret second data from a second database, the second data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 4, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call. Depending on the features used, the risk processing engine 214 may be able to obtain the features using information already stored in the new call log record, or may provide the information stored in the new call log record to the information gathering engine 224 in order to obtain the features from one or more additional data sources 226. The actions of the information gathering engine 224 at this step may be similar to the actions described above in block 404" and ¶0069, "At block 404, the information gathering engine 224 augments the call log records in the call log data store 220 with additional information from one or more additional data sources 226". Examiner notes that the reference provides for "one or more additional data sources 226" (emphasis added), therefore it is clear that second data from a second database, distinct from the first data from the first database, could be obtained from additional data sources 226. Additionally, examiner notes that ¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0069, "Statistics regarding transactions associated with the calling number, including but not limited to an average daily volume, an outbound volume, and an inbound volume"); determine, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, one or more attributes for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0105, "block 526, where a risk processing engine 214 of the risk assessment system 212 obtains a set of features based on the information representing the incoming call"); generate … a reputation score for the at least one telecommunications identifier (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0106, "At block 528, the risk processing engine 214 provides the features to a model consuming engine 216 of the risk assessment system 212, and at block 530, the model consuming engine 216 applies the model to the features to determine a category and a likelihood value". Examiner notes that it is clear that the category and/or likelihood value is a reputation score for the telecommunications identifier; see Fig. 1 and ¶0048, "a 'risk rating matrix.' Each cell in the risk rating matrix may be associated with a reputation score that ranges from −4 (worst possible reputation, high risk) to +4 (excellent reputation, little to no risk). An example of a risk rating matrix is illustrated in FIG. 1. With these categories, the system can approach the qualification of calling numbers by history, and characterization of the caller's reputation, e.g., Compliant-Robocaller, Non-Compliant Robocaller, Scammers, Spammers, Spoofers and, in general, reputable entities"); and transmit the reputation score (Figs. 2, 5A-D; ¶0108, "At block 534, the risk processing engine 214 transmits the category and likelihood value to a risk processing engine 206 of the endpoint communication device 204").
Kent does not disclose: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value.
However, Anand discloses: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value (Fig. 2; ¶¶0054-0063, ¶0072, and ¶¶0081-0084).
Kent and Anand are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent to incorporate the teachings of Anand to include: generate a weighted aggregate value of the one or more attributes and that the reputation score is generated based at least in part on the weighted aggregate value. Doing so would allow for "automatically detect[ing] the likelihood of a fraudulent caller without the need for significant resources at the call centre" (Anand, ¶0006).
As to claim 20, Kent in view of Anand discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the stored instructions further adapt the at least one processor to: associate the at least one telecommunications identifier with an entity based at least in part on the first data (¶0069-84 describe examples of data corresponding to the at least one telecommunications identifier that may be obtained from the additional data sources 226, e.g. ¶0076, "Whether the calling number appears in domain registry information associated with a web site of an associated business entity").
Claims 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Anand and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0276255 to Fogel et al. (“Fogel”).
As to claim 4, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry.
However, Fogel discloses: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry (Fig. 1; ¶0031, "toll-free database 108").
Kent, Anand, and Fogel are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Fogel to include: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry. Doing so would "allow a communications carrier organization to improve the signal quality of calls made to a toll-free number, reduce the number of dropped calls, and/or reduce downtime or any other issues that arise in routing toll-free calls" (Fogel, ¶0024).
As to claim 13, Kent in view of Anand discloses the method of claim 12.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the database is a toll-free number registry.
However, Fogel discloses: wherein the database is a toll-free number registry (Fig. 1; ¶0031, "toll-free database 108").
Kent, Anand, and Fogel are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Fogel to include: wherein the database is a toll-free number registry. Doing so would "allow a communications carrier organization to improve the signal quality of calls made to a toll-free number, reduce the number of dropped calls, and/or reduce downtime or any other issues that arise in routing toll-free calls" (Fogel, ¶0024).
As to claim 14, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising: operating the Toll-Free Number Registry (Fogel, Fig. 4; ¶0055, "process 400 for configuring and managing a toll-free database").
Claims 6 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Anand and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0312979 to Sharma.
As to claim 6, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry.
However, Sharma discloses: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (Fig. 10; ¶0463, "Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (TSS) 1000").
Kent, Anand, and Sharma are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to include: wherein the first database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry. Doing so would allow for the "use [of] toll-free telephone numbers for providing customers with a convenient and cost-free means of communicating with them and their various departments, such as customer service and technical support representatives" (Sharma, ¶0004) and would "allow users to search for, receive recommendations for, and make reservations of toll-free numbers" (Sharma, ¶0244).
As to claim 16, Kent in view of Anand discloses the method of claim 15.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry.
However, Sharma discloses: wherein the database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (Fig. 10; ¶0463, "Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (TSS) 1000").
Kent, Anand, and Sharma are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to include: wherein the database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry. Doing so would allow for the "use [of] toll-free telephone numbers for providing customers with a convenient and cost-free means of communicating with them and their various departments, such as customer service and technical support representatives" (Sharma, ¶0004) and would "allow users to search for, receive recommendations for, and make reservations of toll-free numbers" (Sharma, ¶0244).
As to claim 17, Kent in view of Anand and Sharma discloses the method of claim 16 further comprising: operating the Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (Sharma, Fig. 10; ¶0463, "The TSS 1000 may include several components such as, but not limited to, number administration, call control and route provisioning, as well as number status assessment. The number administration function may provide number assignment for toll-free subscribers as well as provide services to manage the toll-free numbering plan. This component may provide for toll-free number portability as well as managing the mapping of toll-free numbers to geographic numbers. The number administration function may also open new number plan administration codes. The number administration function may forecast the exhaustion of codes and demand for codes for use by organizations such as the FCC").
As to claim 18, Kent in view of Anand discloses the method of claim 11.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein the first database is at least one of an IoT Device Registry, a Network Device Registry, or a Fraud Registry.
However, Sharma discloses: wherein the first database is at least one of an IoT Device Registry, a Network Device Registry, or a Fraud Registry (Sharma, Figs. 8-9; ¶¶0395-0412).
Kent, Anand, and Sharma are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to include: wherein the first database is at least one of an IoT Device Registry, a Network Device Registry, or a Fraud Registry. Doing so would allow for the "use [of] toll-free telephone numbers for providing customers with a convenient and cost-free means of communicating with them and their various departments, such as customer service and technical support representatives" (Sharma, ¶0004) and would "allow users to search for, receive recommendations for, and make reservations of toll-free numbers" (Sharma, ¶0244).
Claims 9, 10, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma.
As to claim 9, Kent in view of Anand discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Kent in view of Anand does not disclose: wherein: the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry; and the second database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry.
However, Fogel discloses: wherein: the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry (Fig. 1; ¶0031, "toll-free database 108").
Additionally, Sharma discloses: wherein: the second database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (Fig. 10; ¶0463, "Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (TSS) 1000").
Kent, Anand, Fogel, and Sharma are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: arrangements for screening incoming calls, i.e. evaluating the characteristics of a call before deciding whether to answer it; aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to network data storage and management, including call history, statistics, and/or databases; and/or aspects of automatic or semi-automatic exchanges related to security aspects in telephonic communication systems, i.e. fraud preventions. As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Fogel to include: wherein: the first database is a Toll-Free Number Registry. Doing so would "allow a communications carrier organization to improve the signal quality of calls made to a toll-free number, reduce the number of dropped calls, and/or reduce downtime or any other issues that arise in routing toll-free calls" (Fogel, ¶0024).
As such, 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 Kent in view of Anand to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to include: wherein: the second database is a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry. Doing so would allow for the "use [of] toll-free telephone numbers for providing customers with a convenient and cost-free means of communicating with them and their various departments, such as customer service and technical support representatives" (Sharma, ¶0004) and would "allow users to search for, receive recommendations for, and make reservations of toll-free numbers" (Sharma, ¶0244).
As to claim 10, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 9 further comprising: a fraud network, wherein the data analysis circuit is further structured to determine the one or more attributes based at least in part on fraud data available via the fraud network (Sharma, Figs. 8-9; ¶¶0395-0412).
As to claim 21, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the one or more attributes include a historical attribute based on historical data that includes data in at least one of the first data or the second data corresponding to a time period based at least in part on a first timestamp and a second timestamp; the first timestamp corresponds to an earliest available date that at least one of the first data and the second data was collected (Kent, ¶0031; ¶¶0067-0068, date and/or time of the call); and the second timestamp corresponds to a most recent calculation date of the reputation score (Sharma, ¶0406, "Date/time of abuse Date/time of report" and ¶0718, "the call score may be updated during low activity periods with a date/time stamp associated with it").
As to claim 22, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the scoring circuit is further structured to generate the reputation score (Kent, Figs. 1, 2, 5A-D; ¶0106 and ¶0048) further based at least in part on an amount of the historical data (Sharma, ¶0718, "a toll-free number that may experience a season high-demand may begin to operate less efficiently, this metadata 3412 may be tagged to the toll-free number for use in, for example, predictive analytics provided by the TFMP regarding temporal changes in call activities and the optimization of certain call routes", i.e., an amount of historical data (high call volume) is used in analytics).
As to claim 23, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the one or more attributes further include a churn rate of the at least one telecommunications identifier (Kent, ¶0093, ¶0099).
As to claim 24, Kent in view of Anand and further in view of Fogel and Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the one or more attributes further include a score for a responsible organization to which the at least one telecommunications identifier has been assigned (Kent, ¶0092, ¶0094).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and is objected to for the same reasons as claim 25.
References Cited
Anand, Abhinav (2022). Fraud detection system (US 2022/0182490 A1). Filed 2019-12-20.
Fogel, Christopher et al. (2018). System and method for managing a database having a size limit (US 2018/0276255 A1). Filed 2017-03-21.
Kent, Sean J. et al. (2018). Systems and methods for automatically conducting risk assessments for telephony communications (US 2018/0324297 A1). Filed 2017-11-01.
Sharma, Sriram (2019). Toll-tree numbers metadata tagging, analysis and reporting (US 2019/0312979 A1). Filed 2018-11-01.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bandyopadhyay, Raj et al. (2017). Call detail record analysis to identify fraudulent activity (US 2017/0111515 A1). Filed 2016-10-14.
Birch, Christopher Daniel (2022). Voice communication network defense system (US 2022/0294890 A1). Filed 2021-03-11.
Charlson, Joseph A. (2023). System, method, and apparatus for initiating outbound communications from a user device (US 2023/0224402 A1). Filed 2023-01-13.
Degeorgis, Marybeth C. et al. (2021). Systems and methods for providing calling party information (US 10,887,457 B1). Filed 2018-06-27.
Grogan, Annalyce et al. (2022). Techniques for managing an aging telephone number before returning to active service (US 11,431,842 B1). Filed 2022-01-24.
Joshi, Harsha Ramamurthy et al. (2022). Fraudulent call detection (US 2022/0377171 A1). Filed 2021-07-23.
Kalaboukis, Chris et al. (2023). Holistic fraud cocoon (US 11,599,890 B1). Filed 2016-12-22.
Nachenberg, Carey (2016). Systems and methods for determining a reputation of at least one telephone number associated with an unclassified source (US 9,253,010 B1). Filed 2010-12-14.
Richards, Carissa et al. (2015). System and method for real-time analysis of network traffic (US 8,966,074 B1). Filed 2014-09-12.
Rybak, Alexander et al. (2014). Reputation based message analysis (US 8,781,093 B1). Filed 2012-04-18.
Sharma, Gaurav et al. (2022). End-to-end management of authenticated communications (US 2022/0182487 A1). Filed 2020-12-09.
Sharma, Sriram et al. (2017). Toll-free telecommunications and data management platform (US 2017/0180567 A1). Filed 2017-03-03.
Somes, Brian et al. (2015). Methods and systems for determining whether an identity associated with a telephone call is fake (US 9,071,683 B1). Filed 2014-04-25.
Tatourian, Igor et al. (2016). Collaborative phone reputation system (US 2016/0182716 A1). Filed 2014-12-23.
Woirhaye, Brendon et al. (2020). Systems and methods for identifying unsolicited communications on a computing device (US 10,778,840 B1). Filed 2019-03-05.
Wong, Suk Yee et al. (2016). Routing tree enhancements based on real time performance statistics (US 2016/0127808 A1). Filed 2015-12-30.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649