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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the verification request" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2021/0329117)(hereafter Yang).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Yang discloses a network element, comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
detect a call received by a wireless network (see, Fig. 2, the receiving incoming call, para [0027], incoming call processing, [0031]);
transmit, to a server, a query for verifying whether a user equipment (UE) authorized to use a calling number associated with the call placed the call (para [0052], the mobile terminal sends a first query request carrying the calling number and/or the mobile equipment identity of the calling terminal to the server, and receives the first query result returned by the server after querying the preset malicious call database based on the calling number and/or the mobile equipment identity of the calling terminal);
receive, from the server and in response to the query, a response indicating whether the UE authorized to use the calling number placed the call (see, para [0052], the mobile terminal sends a first query request carrying the calling number and/or the mobile equipment identity of the calling terminal to the server, and receives the first query result returned by the server after querying the preset malicious call database based on the calling number and/or the mobile equipment identity of the calling terminal, see, also, para [0053] and [0054]); and
perform an action based on the response (see, Fig. 5, S3011, para [0167], The prompting module 204 is configured to prompt the user whether the incoming call is a malicious call and whether to add the incoming call to the blacklist database. The recording module 205 is configured to add the detailed information of the incoming call to the blacklist database).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Jing et al. (US2021/0344730) (hereafter Jing).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Yang does not explicitly disclose the network element, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to block the call based on the response indicating that the UE authorized to use the calling number did not place the call.
However, in same field of endeavor, Jing teaches, in para [0041], when indicating an Event type of “Spam_70” and receiving (e.g., via a body of a SIP 200 OK message) a “Block Notify” response, MAS 101 may not attempt to further establish the call, and may further provide a notification to the calling party that the call was blocked. On the other hand, when indicating an Event type of “Spam_70” and receiving (e.g., via a body of a SIP 200 OK message) an “Allow” response, MAS 101 may proceed with establishing the requested call (e.g., may send a SIP INVITE and/or one or more other suitable messages to UE 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jing with the Yang, as a whole, so as to block the placed call upon verification with server, the motivation is to handle call request according to the particular action to reject the call request or proceed with the call.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the combined teachings further disclose the network element wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to allow the call based on the response indicating that the UE authorized to use the calling number did place the call (Jing, para [0014] Embodiments described herein provide for UE-implemented messaging that allows the UE to specify whether certain incoming calls, for the UE, are allowed to be connected to the UE. For example, as described herein, the UE may utilize received user inputs and/or UE-implemented logic to determine whether a given incoming call for the UE should be allowed or rejected. Para [0041], On the other hand, when indicating an Event type of “Spam_70” and receiving (e.g., via a body of a SIP 200 OK message) an “Allow” response, MAS 101 may proceed with establishing the requested call (e.g., may send a SIP INVITE and/or one or more other suitable messages to UE 103). [0046] As additionally shown in FIG. 4, in which UE 103 may indicate to MAS 101 or some other network device that calls should not be allowed to be placed to UE 103, which may include forgoing providing a SIP INVITE to UE 103, causing UE 103 to ring, etc., para [0020], [0021]).
13. Claim(s) 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Algard et al. (US2018/0176372) (hereafter Algard).
Regarding claim 12, Yang does not explicitly disclose the network element of claim 9, wherein the query is an application programming interface (API) query. However, in same field of endeavor, Algard teaches in para [0039], In the push embodiment, the verification receiving module 312 provides a secure API by which it can receive verification messages from the caller verification server 130 at arbitrary times. Any such messages received via the API are forwarded to other modules within the verification processing module 122. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Algard with the Yang, as a whole, so as to perform verification using secure API, the motivation is to perform receive call verification.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the verification request includes an indication of a signer associated with an originator of the call (see, Algard, para [0021], the calling module 112 identifies the calling party 110 using a calling number. The calling module 112 can associate different calling numbers with different placed communications. The calling module 112 may place communications on-demand and/or on a schedule).
14. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Jothipragasam (US 2006/0135144) (hereafter Jothipragasam).
Regarding claim 15, Yang does not explicitly disclose the network element of claim 9, wherein the wireless network is associated with a first carrier and the server is associated with a second carrier. However, in same field of endeavor, Jothipragasam teaches , see, Fig. wireless device, 200 establish connection with the network, 208. in para [0021], parameters 206 control operation of device 200 specifically with respect to the device's communication with network 208 and with respect to the device's interaction with the user. In order to use device 200 in conjunction with a second carrier's wireless network 210, the device's carrier-specific parameters 206 need to be modified according to the requirements of the second carrier. [0022], server, 214 connected to the second carrier network 210. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jothipragasam with the Yang, as a whole, so as to send the query to the server associated with the second network, the motivation is to perform authentication of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14 and 20 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.
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art, fail to explicitly disclose, receiving, by a network element, information indicating a list of user equipment (UEs) that are not registered with respective home wireless networks; receiving, by the network element, a verification request to verify a call received by a wireless network from another wireless network; determining, by the network element in response to the verification request, and based on the information, whether a UE authorized to use a calling number associated with the call is on the wireless network; and transmitting, by the network element, an indication of whether the UE is on the wireless network, render the claims allowable over prior arts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Danis (US9277049) discloses system and method for caller ID and call destination authentication.
Danis (US 9060057) discloses caller ID authentication, Spoof detection and list based call handling.
Chang et al. (US 2012/0155332) discloses original calling identification with mobile phone.
Takatura et al. (US2022/0272621) discloses network node, user equipment and method.
Bharatia (US2017/0332226) discloses roaming support for next generation slice architecture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631