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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are directed to “A computer-readable storage medium”.
The specification broadly includes media that is “not limited to information-delivery media” in [0016], which is broad enough to include transitory media. According to the Official Gazette 1351 OG 212 of 23 Feb 2010, “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media”, the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such as variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium, particularly when the specification is silent.” “When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.” “A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the term “non-transitory” to the claim.”
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) 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet (US Pub No. 2017/0332281) in view of Wane (US Pub No. 2020/0236533).
Claim1, Bouvet discloses a device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (See Fig. 1a; item 1a): obtain data associated with a plurality of phone calls made in a network (par [0045] “for controlling a phone call initiated by a first terminal connected to a communication network 20, 22”); determine, based on the data (par [0045] “a data processing module configured it includes”), a first set of phone calls that satisfy a first criteria (par [0136] “a first criteria as defined roaming calls when the call between the terminal to connect networks, for example the calling terminal 1a is connected via a 3GPP access such as 3G, 4G, 5G in par [0137-0138], and the calling terminal 1a is connected via a non-3GPP access”); determine, based on the data associated with the first set of phone calls, one or more identities that satisfies a second criteria ([0146] a second criteria as defined number of visited as indicated for different networks locations of roaming in (par [0072, 0136-0138]); However, Bouvet does not disclose that the one or more identities are associated with a virtual subscriber identity module (vSIM) fraud. In the same field of invention, Wane discloses one or more identities are associated with a virtual subscriber identity module (vSIM) fraud (See Fig. 5; and par [0093] “disclosed in specially of a phone call by the end-user using, the end-user initiates a call with a given virtual SIM card using a Dialer App. In operation 504). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide of Wane to the system of Bouvet in order to provide for virtualizing reprogrammable universal integrated circuit chip. In a connected device’s operating system.
Claim 2, 9, 16, Bouvet further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first criteria indicates that a particular phone call is an inbound roaming call with an unknown identity (par [0128] “the identifier of the device is required the IMSI number when roaming”).
Claim 6, 13, 20, Bouvet further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the plurality of phone calls include per call measurement data (PCMD) (par [0074]” attachment, provision of location information is routed from the first terminal 1a to the eNodeB then to the MME, and the data associated as shows in par [0079]”).
Claim 7, 14, Bouvet further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more identities include International Mobile Subscriber Identities (IMSIs) (par [0128] “the identifier of the device is required include the IMSI number when roaming”).
Claim 8, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 15, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-12, 17-19 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.
The prior art of the record either alone or in combination fail to discloses:
Claim3. The device of claim 1, wherein the second criteria is associated with number of initial attach attempts made from a particular identity, and the omputer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine, based on the data associated with the particular identity, that the number of initial attach attempts made from the particular identity equals to or greater than a first threshold; and based on determining that the number of initial attach attempts from the particular identity equals to or greater than a first threshold, determine the particular identity is associated with the vSIM fraud.
Claim 4. The device of claim 1, wherein the second criteria is associated with a number of locations where a particular identity called from in a time period, and the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine, based on the data associated with the particular identity, that the number of locations where the particular identity called from in the time period equals to or greater than a second threshold; and based on that the number of locations where the particular identity called from in the time period equals to or greater than the second threshold, determine the particular identity is associated with the vSIM fraud.
Claim 5. The device of claim 1, wherein the second criteria is associated with a number of devices that a particular identity called from in a time period, and the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: determine, based on the data associated with the particular identity, that the number of devices that the particular identity called from in the time period equals to or greater than a third threshold; and based on that the number of devices that the particular identity called from in the time period equals to or greater than the third threshold, determine the particular identity is associated with the vSIM fraud.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bolon et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0374528) discloses location intelligence management system for border security.
Ye et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0302822) discloses terminal device, interactive voice response device, missed call reminding system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC HUU DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7920. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MATTHEW ANDERSON can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/PHUOC H DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646