2023Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/392,752 filed on 12/21/23. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 2023/0164180, Singh hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches One or more computing systems, comprising:
memory storing computer program instructions (the memory may contain programming instructions, paragraph 58); and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to (when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform one or more operations according to the programming instructions. As used in this description, a “computing device” or “electronic device” may be a single device, or any number of devices having one or more processors that communicate with each other and share data and/or instructions. Examples of computing devices or electronic devices include, without limitation, personal computers, servers, mainframes, gaming systems, televisions, and portable electronic devices such as smartphones, personal digital assistants, cameras, tablet computers, laptop computers, media players and the like, paragraph 58):
monitor text messages (Fig. 1; the collection of labelled url and textual data 20 or Fig. 2, 70) sent and/or received by a mobile device, audio recorded by a microphone of the mobile device, or both (Following processing of the feature extraction operations shown at block 18, batch training data as indicated by arrow 19 can be subject to an operation involving the collection of labeled URL, images, attachments, textual data and other labeled features, as depicted at block 20, paragraph 70; Fig. 2 corresponding paragraphs),
provide the text messages and/or recorded audio to one or more artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) models as input (Next, as illustrated at block 22 Fig. 1 or 72 Fig. 2, the data can be subject to AI (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning training (e.g., batch/live) as shown at block 22, paragraph 70; Examples of machine learning algorithms that can be utilized to implement machine learning with respect to the step or operation shown at block 22 can include supervised learning, unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning, self learning, feature learning, sparse dictionary learning, anomaly detection and association rules, paragraph 72; Fig. 2 corresponding paragraphs),
receive and analyze output from the one or more AI/ML models (final results for all features are considered with results from machine learning models, 26 of Fig. 1 or 76 of Fig. 2),
detect, based on the analysis, that a user of the mobile device is potentially experiencing an issue or is engaged in unpermitted behavior (confirmed phish/suspicious/denign email; Next, as shown at decision block 28, a step or operation can be implemented in which phishing and/or suspicious email and/or a benign email message is confirmed. Depending on the outcome of the step or operation illustrated at the decision block 28 or Fig. 2 step 78; paragraph 74; Fig. 2 corresponding paragraphs), and
send a message pertaining to the potential issue or the unpermitted behavior via a roaming network or an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to a home network core (then as shown at block 30 or Fig. 2 step 80, a step or operation can be implemented in which the user who reported the email can be notified with the assessment results. Assuming the company account path, as shown at arrow 33, a step or operation can be implemented in which the user who reported the email and the administration of the organization can be notified of the assessment results, paragraph 75; Fig. 2 corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, The one or more computing systems of claim 1, wherein the message comprises a voice call with a recording, a voicemail message, a Short Message Service (SMS) message, an email, or any combination thereof (email, Fig. 1 - 2).
Regarding claim 6, The one or more computing systems of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more AI/ML models is located on the mobile device or a computing system of the home network core (As used in this description, a “computing device” or “electronic device” may be a single device, or any number of devices having one or more processors that communicate with each other and share data and/or instructions. Examples of computing devices or electronic devices include, without limitation, personal computers, servers, mainframes, gaming systems, televisions, and portable electronic devices such as smartphones, personal digital assistants, cameras, tablet computers, laptop computers, media players and the like, paragraph 58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2023/0164180, Singh hereafter) in further view of Sanjeev et al. (US 2015/0074802, Sanjeev hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, Singh teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically disclose wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to: send one or more additional notifications to domestic and/or international authorities pertaining to the potential issue or the potentially unpermitted behavior.
Sanjeev teaches wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to: send one or more additional notifications to domestic and/or international authorities pertaining to the potential issue or the potentially unpermitted behavior (In some implementations, the condition may indicate that an identifier associated with the message is of a particular type (e.g., an email address, an identifier of a particular length, etc.). For example, the condition may indicate that the message type includes a ten-digit MDN. In some implementations, a condition that requires a ten-digit MDN may exclude messages associated with a short code (e.g., an MDN of fewer than ten digits) from being identified as spam. For example, a message associated with a short code may permit a user of user device 210 to opt-out of receiving future messages associated with the short code (e.g., by texting "stop" to the short code). A condition that requires a ten-digit MDN may permit user device 210 to receive a message from which the user may opt-out (e.g., a message for which blocking future messages may not be necessary). Additionally, or alternatively, the condition that requires a ten-digit MDN may exclude messages associated with a long code (e.g., an MDN greater than ten digits) from being identified as spam, such as a message associated with an international sending device, paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Sanjeev’s detecting international message/email with the system of Singh. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can detect if the number is domestic or international which can help determine if the message/email is spam.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 3 – 5, 7 - 9 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.
11. Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632