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 .
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) 1-9, 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wicker (US 11,418,642 B2) in view of Rao et al. (US 2019/0020757 A1).
Consider claim 1, Wicker teaches a device (abstract), comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Fig. 1, devices would have a processor and memory), the operations comprising:
retrieving call detail record (CDR) data for a plurality of devices, each device of the plurality of devices using a subscriber identity module (SIM) to access a mobility network (col. 1, lines 34-47, retrieving CDR data and it is known for a mobile device to use a SIM to access a mobility network);
identifying data anomalies for the plurality of devices, wherein the identifying the data anomalies is based on the CDR data, wherein the data anomalies may be indicative of inappropriate usage of the mobility network;
initiating a modification of the device to prevent subsequent anomalies (col. 13, lines 29-39, blocking the phone number).
Wicker does not teach identifying data anomalies for the plurality of devices, wherein the identifying the data anomalies is based on the CDR data, wherein the data anomalies may be indicative of inappropriate usage of the mobility network and identifying a device associated with a data anomaly.
Rao further teaches identifying data anomalies for the plurality of devices, wherein the identifying the data anomalies is based on the CDR data, wherein the data anomalies may be indicative of inappropriate usage of the mobility network (paragraph 77, using CDR to determine data anomalies);
identifying a device associated with a data anomaly (paragraph 14, identifies and builds fraud watch lists).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively determine data animalities.
Consider claim 2, Wicker also teach wherein the identifying data anomalies for the plurality of devices comprises: identifying a session anomaly based on the CDR data (col. 12, lines 59-62).
Consider claim 3, Wicker also teach wherein the identifying a session anomaly comprises: retrieving historical session statistics for the plurality of devices; comparing session statistics for the plurality of devices for a current time period with the historical session statistics; and identifying the session anomaly based on the comparing (col. 1, lines 37-47, relevant CDR data includes both current CDR data… and historical CDR data… comparing the current CDR data and the historical CDR data).
Consider claim 4, Wicker also teach wherein the operations further comprise: comparing an average session duration for the device for the current time period with a historical mean of session duration for the plurality of devices (col. 12, lines 59-62, comparison of current and historical CDR datasets to detect anomalies. The historical comparison inherently covers comparison of metrics like duration for calls/sessions).
Consider claim 5, Wicker also teach wherein the identifying data anomalies for the plurality of devices comprises: identifying a volumetric anomaly based on the CDR data col. 8, lines 48-52.
Consider claim 6, Rao further teach wherein the identifying a volumetric anomaly comprises: identifying patterns of relatively high data usage for a selected device based on the CDR data; identifying similar devices among the plurality of devices; comparing the patterns of relatively high data usage by the similar devices with the patterns of relatively high data usage for the selected device; and identifying the volumetric anomaly based on the comparing (paragraph 14 and 84, high data usage is determined and fraud watch lists are built).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively determine data animalities.
Consider claim 7, Rao further wherein the operations further comprise: identifying one or more device that, over a time period, use a relatively large amount of data, wherein the identifying is based on the CDR data; and reporting the one or more devices for further investigation of a potential volumetric anomaly (paragraph 14 and 84, high data usage is determined and fraud watch lists are built).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively determine data animalities.
Consider claim 10, Wicker also teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprises a plurality of connected vehicles, each connected vehicle of the plurality of connected vehicles including a subscriber identity module (SIM) configured to access the mobility network to receive and transmit data with the mobility network (Fig. 1, the devices can be located in vehicles and can use SIM to access mobility network).
Consider claim 11, Wicker teaches non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (abstract), the operations comprising:
retrieving, from a database, session data for a plurality of communication sessions between connected vehicles of a fleet of connected vehicles and a mobility network, each connected vehicle including a subscriber identity module (SIM) to enable communication with the mobility network (col. 1, lines 34-47, retrieving CDR data and it is known for a mobile device to use a SIM to access a mobility network);
producing a visual report indicating information about the one or more data anomalies for a user associated with the fleet of vehicles (col. 13, lines 10-21, col. 14, lines 11-24 and 37-50, a report is generated and can be reviewed by an engineer); and
initiating a procedure to modify a SIM associated with the one or more data anomalies to prevent subsequent data anomalies (col. 13, lines 29-39, blocking the phone number).
Wicker does not teach identifying, in the session data, one or more data anomalies, the data anomalies being indicative of potential inappropriate use of the mobility network.
Rao further teaches identifying, in the session data, one or more data anomalies, the data anomalies being indicative of potential inappropriate use of the mobility network (paragraph 77, using CDR to determine data anomalies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively determine data animalities.
Consider claim 12, Wicker also teaches wherein the producing a visual report comprises: displaying graphical and tabular information including historical anomaly data and current anomaly data (col. 13, lines 10-21 and col. 14, lines 11-24, the report is provided to an engineer therefore it must be visible).
Consider claim 13, Wicker also teaches wherein the producing a visual report comprises: identifying a session anomaly; and displaying information about historical session duration and current session duration associated with the session anomaly (col. 13, lines 10-21 and col. 14, lines 11-24, the report is provided to an engineer therefore it must be visible).
Consider claim 14, Wicker also teaches wherein the producing a visual report comprises: identifying a volumetric anomaly; and displaying graphical information about a usage spike in data consumption corresponding to the volumetric anomaly (col. 8, lines 48-52).
Consider claim 16, Wicker also teaches wherein the retrieving session data comprises: retrieving call detail record information for the connected vehicles of a fleet of connected vehicles, the call detail record collected by the mobility network for the plurality of communication sessions (col. 1, lines 34-47, retrieving CDR data).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 8-9 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN YE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5258. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-8:00.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JUSTIN Y LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 2/5/26