DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/22/2026, was received and entered. As the results, dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 were cancelled. New claims 21-23 were added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are pending in this application at this time. Also, each of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 was amended with the feature of “banishing the second call, wherein the banishing includes sending an error/cause code to a caller of the second call.” Based on the added feature to claims, updated searches were performed and new found reference was found. The ground of rejections with the new found reference is as followings.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botner et al. (US 10,601,986 as cited in the previous Office Action) in view of Koster (US 10,554,821).
Regarding claim 1, Botner et al. (hereinafter “Botner”) teaches a method (i.e., call parameter processing diagram, as shown in figure 5A), comprising:
receiving a first call (receiving call message data 522 from a new call and storing the received call message data in database 312 for easy reference purpose; col.15, lines 15-22; wherein the stored call message data in database 312 considered as historical data 652, as shown in figure 6B wherein the call message data basically comprised call message parameters or call data as shown in figure 6A; col.15, lines 45-52 and col.22, lines 25-35);
identifying a first telephone number associated with the first call (i.e., the historical data 652 comprising Phone A “19562691665” was identified as a first A telephone number associated with the first call or used as active filtering call parameter data for subsequent call; col.16, lines 60-64 and col.22, lines 29-35);
receiving a second call (i.e., receiving a subsequent call with a current call data 654 and a call analysis; col.16, lines 4-12);
identifying a second telephone number associated with the second call (i.e., during a call analysis, an “A” caller telephone number (as a second telephone number) may be identified during a time period, i.e., 24 hours; col.16, lines 17);
determining to banish the second call, at least in part based the second telephone number and a determination that a number of calls associated with the first telephone number exceeds a predetermined threshold (i.e., determining the “A” caller telephone number exceeded a normal threshold of calls in the allotted period of time (i.e., an hour, 24 hours, 30 days, etc.) and the “A” caller may be identified as a number that is included on a call scam list of potential scammer; col.16, lines 14-26; col.17, lines 25-40); and
banishing the second call (i.e., assigning the call to a scam prevention action, such as dropping or blocking the call, etc.; col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30).
It should be noticed that Botner teaches the feature of banishing the call by dropping or blocking the call, as discussed above. Botner failed to clearly teach the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call. However, Koster teaches a call termination treatment as call banishment to block or reject a call by returning a specific cause code to the call (col.11, lines 5-11 and col.14, lines 55-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call, as taught by Koster, into view of Botner in order to indicate to the caller the reason why the call is terminated or rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as performing analysis or interrogating of the current active call (second call) having the “A” telephone number in the subsequent call in col.16, lines 4-19; col.17, lines 30-40; and col.22, lines 35-41.
Regarding claim 7, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as dropping, blocking or ending the current active call in col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30.
Regarding claim 8, Botner teaches an apparatus (i.e., control logic platform 800 as shown in figure 8), comprising:
a network interface that receives a first call and a second call (i.e., a control logic module/840 to receive input data, such as calls 810, etc., col.25, lines 16-25 to receive call message data 522 from a new call (a first call) and storing the received call message data in database 312 for easy reference purpose; col.15, lines 15-22; wherein the stored call message data in database 312 considered as historical data 652, as shown in figure 6B wherein the call message data basically comprised call message parameters or call data as shown in figure 6A; col.15, lines 45-52 and col.22, lines 25-35) and to receive a subsequent call (as a second call) with a current call data 654 and a call analysis; col.16, lines 4-12); and
a processor configured to identify a first telephone number associated with the first call (i.e., the historical data 652 comprising Phone A “19562691665” was identified as a first A telephone number associated with the first call or used as active filtering call parameter data for subsequent call; col.16, lines 60-64 and col.22, lines 29-35), to identify a second telephone number associated with the second call (i.e., during a call analysis, an “A” caller telephone number (as a second telephone number) may be identified during a time period, i.e., 24 hours; col.16, lines 17), and to determine to banish the second call, at least in part based the second telephone number and a determination that a number of calls associated with the first telephone number exceeds a predetermined threshold (i.e., determining the “A” caller telephone number exceeded a normal threshold of calls in the allotted period of time (i.e., an hour, 24 hours, 30 days, etc.) and the “A” caller may be identified as a number that is included on a call scam list of potential scammer; col.16, lines 14-26; col.17, lines 25-40), wherein the second call is banished (i.e., assigning the call to a scam prevention action, such as dropping or blocking the call, etc.; col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30).
It should be noticed that Botner teaches the feature of banishing the call by dropping or blocking the call, as discussed above. Botner failed to clearly teach the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call. However, Koster teaches a call termination treatment as call banishment to block or reject a call by returning a specific cause code to the call (col.11, lines 5-11 and col.14, lines 55-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call, as taught by Koster, into view of Botner in order to indicate to the caller the reason why the call is terminated or rejected.
Regarding claim 13, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as performing analysis or interrogating of the current active call (second call) having the “A” telephone number in the subsequent call in col.16, lines 4-19; col.17, lines 30-40; and col.22, lines 35-41.
Regarding claim 14, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as dropping, blocking or ending the current active call in col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30.
Regarding claim 15, Botner teaches a computer-readable medium including instructions (i.e., memory 906, as shown in figure 9, stored program modules 918; col.26, lines 47-61) that, when executed by a processor, perform operations comprising:
receiving a first call (receiving call message data 522 from a new call and storing the received call message data in database 312 for easy reference purpose; col.15, lines 15-22; wherein the stored call message data in database 312 considered as historical data 652, as shown in figure 6B wherein the call message data basically comprised call message parameters or call data as shown in figure 6A; col.15, lines 45-52 and col.22, lines 25-35);
identifying a first telephone number associated with the first call (i.e., the historical data 652 comprising Phone A “19562691665” was identified as a first A telephone number associated with the first call or used as active filtering call parameter data for subsequent call; col.16, lines 60-64 and col.22, lines 29-35);
receiving a second call (i.e., receiving a subsequent call with a current call data 654 and a call analysis; col.16, lines 4-12);
identifying a second telephone number associated with the second call (i.e., during a call analysis, an “A” caller telephone number (as a second telephone number) may be identified during a time period, i.e., 24 hours; col.16, lines 17);
determining to banish the second call, at least in part based the second telephone number and a determination that a number of calls associated with the first telephone number exceeds a predetermined threshold (i.e., determining the “A” caller telephone number exceeded a normal threshold of calls in the allotted period of time (i.e., an hour, 24 hours, 30 days, etc.) and the “A” caller may be identified as a number that is included on a call scam list of potential scammer; col.16, lines 14-26; col.17, lines 25-40); and
banishing the second call (i.e., assigning the call to a scam prevention action, such as dropping or blocking the call, etc.; col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30).
It should be noticed that Botner teaches the feature of banishing the call by dropping or blocking the call, as discussed above. Botner failed to clearly teach the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call. However, Koster teaches a call termination treatment as call banishment to block or reject a call by returning a specific cause code to the call (col.11, lines 5-11 and col.14, lines 55-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of banishing a call included sending an error/cause code to a caller of the call, as taught by Koster, into view of Botner in order to indicate to the caller the reason why the call is terminated or rejected.
Regarding claim 19, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as performing analysis or interrogating of the current active call (second call) having the “A” telephone number in the subsequent call in col.16, lines 4-19; col.17, lines 30-40; and col.22, lines 35-41.
Regarding claim 20, Botner also teaches limitations of the claim, such as dropping, blocking or ending the current active call in col.16, lines 10-11 and col.17, lines 28-30.
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 23, Koster further teaches an IVR performed a function of interrogating and/or prompting the calling party to provide or enter a specific keypad sequence. If the calling party provided or entered a proper response and received at the IVR in response to the prompt, the call could be processed (answered) accordingly (col.15, lines 1-14).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botner et al. (US 10,601,986) in view of Koster (US 10,554,821) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, and further in view of Hagens et al. (US 2012/0243466 also cited in the previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Botner and Koster, in combination, teaches all subject matters as claimed above, Botner further teaches the first telephone number in call history 652 and the second telephone number of the current call 654, as shown in figure 6B. Botner failed to teach both first telephone number and second telephone number are callback number for first and second calls. However, Hagens et al. (hereinafter “Hagens”) teaches a plurality of numbers are associated with the same communication device. When emergency calls are called from the communication device, the numbers can be used as the call back numbers provided to the PSAP (para. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of wherein the first telephone number is a call back number for the first call, and the second telephone number is a call back number for the second call, as taught by Hagens, into view of Botner and Koster in order to return calls to the original caller communication device.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Hagens further teaches that the one or more of the plurality of the telephone numbers is a call back number in paragraph [0028].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 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.
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 response to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the date of this action. In the event a first response 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event will the statutory period for response expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any response to this final action should be mailed to:
BOX AF
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
Or faxed to:
(703) 872-9314 or (301) 273-8300 (for formal communications;
Please mark “EXPEDITED PROCEDURE”)
Or If it is an informal or draft communication, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand Carry Deliveries to:
Customer Service Window
(Randolph Building)
407 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22312
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7510. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-7510 and E-mail address: BINH.TIEU@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, FAN S. TSANG can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (FAIR) 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 FAIR system, see fitp://nair-direct.usoto.aqev. If you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Binh Kien Tieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Date: March 2026