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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has considered and placed of record in file.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15, recites, “obtaining a first communication request that includes an identifier; determining that the identifier is included in a first plurality of unassigned identifiers, resulting in a first determination, wherein the first plurality of unassigned identifiers is associated with a plurality of networks; and based on the first determination, rejecting the first communication request”.
Step 1: Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Step 2A, prong 1- Judicial exception recited ? Yes. The claim recites “determining that the identifier is included in a first plurality of unassigned identifiers, resulting in a first determination, wherein the first plurality of unassigned identifiers is associated with a plurality of networks” and “rejecting a request”. These are mental steps by simply comparing the incoming call to the database or list and can be performed in mind and rejecting the request is simply blocking or hang up the call based on spoof calls are detected as organizing human activity or mental process. Also, blocking the call which can be done manually and therefore, its abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2- Integrated into practical application ? No. The claim has additional limitations like “obtaining a first communication request that includes an identifier”. There is merely gathering information which is the form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Claim recites significantly more ? No. There are no additional elements which is significantly more than merely reciting abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16 describes receiving a first portion of the first plurality of unassigned identifiers from a first network included in the plurality of networks; and receiving a second portion of the first plurality of unassigned identifiers from a second network included in the plurality of networks, wherein the first portion and the second portion are encrypted. Is merely gathering information and form of insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 17 describes the repository is merely database and nothing significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale claim 15 is rejected. See, claim rationale for rejection of claim 15.
Claim 19, recites, “receiving, by a processing system including a processor, a first communication request pertaining to a first voice call, the first communication request including a first telephone number; determining, by the processing system, that the first telephone number is included in a plurality of unassigned telephone numbers contributed by a plurality of telephone communication system operators, resulting in a first determination; and marking, by the processing system and based on the first determination, the first voice call as a first spoofing attempt”.
Step 1: Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Step 2A, prong 1- Judicial exception recited ? Yes. The claim recites “determining, by the processing system, that the first telephone number is included in a plurality of unassigned telephone numbers contributed by a plurality of telephone communication system operators, resulting in a first determination” and marking step. These are mental steps by simply comparing the incoming call to the database or list can be performed in mind and marking the call as spoofing attempt as person can merely mark on the list, which is piece of paper, when the number is not in the list. Thus, claim recite a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2- Integrated into practical application ? No. The claim has additional limitations like “receiving, by a processing system including a processor, a first communication request pertaining to a first voice call, the first communication request including a first telephone number” there is merely gathering information which is the form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Claim recites significantly more ? No. there are no additional elements which is significantly more than merely reciting abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 is eligible as claim 20 has additional limitations like “receiving, by the processing system, a second communication request pertaining to a second voice call, the second communication request including a second telephone number; determining, by the processing system, that the second telephone number is not included in the plurality of unassigned telephone numbers, resulting in a second determination; determining, by the processing system and based on the second determination, that the second communication request traverses a path that is excluded from a plurality of permissible paths, resulting in a third determination; and marking, by the processing system and based on the third determination, the second voice call as a second spoofing attempt” which is significantly more than abstract idea itself and therefore, claim 20 is eligible.
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) 1 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltom et al. (US 2023/0088868)(hereafter Haltom) in view of Way et al. (US2021/0289071)(hereafter Way).
Regarding claim 1, Haltom discloses a device, 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, the operations comprising:
obtaining a first communication request (see, Fig. 2, see, para [0010], [0019]);
determining that a first identifier associated with the first communication request is assigned (see, para [0009], [0043]), resulting in a first determination, wherein the first identifier is associated with a first network (see, Fig. 1A, [0043], the called party may have more (or less) confidence that the calling party is in fact associated with the caller identification that is being displayed by the user device. For example, if the carrier’s name displayed with the caller identification is a carrier the called party does not trust, the called party can assume the caller identification is likely to be spoofed and ignore the call. If the carrier’s name displayed is a carrier the called party does trust, the called party can assume the displayed caller identification is accurate, and may choose to answer the call with the terminating user device or perform other processing actions (e.g., blocking, forwarding, etc.) and the device is associated with a second network, and wherein the first network is different from the second network (see, Fig. 1A, the, originating network, and terminating network as shown);
But, does not explicitly disclose, determining, based on the first determination, that a first communication path involving the first communication request is valid, resulting in a second determination and permitting, based on the second determination, the first communication request.
However, in same field of endeavor, Way teaches [0113] As shown by reference number 410, the machine learning system may receive a new observation (or a set of new observations), and may input the new observation to the machine learning model 405. As shown, the new observation may include a first feature of whether a caller is listed in a contact list, a second feature of an amount of funds requested by the caller, a third feature of a location of the caller, and so on, as an example. The machine learning system may apply the trained machine learning model 405 to the new observation to generate an output (e.g., a result). The type of output may depend on the type of machine learning model and/or the type of machine learning task being performed. For example, the output may include a predicted (e.g., estimated) value of target variable (e.g., a value within a continuous range of values, a discrete value, a label, a class, a classification, and/or the like), such as when supervised learning is employed. Additionally, or alternatively, the output may include information that identifies a cluster to which the new observation belongs, information that indicates a degree of similarity between the new observations and one or more prior observations (e.g., which may have previously been new observations input to the machine learning model and/or observations used to train the machine learning model), and/or the like, such as when unsupervised learning is employed. [0114] In some implementations, the trained machine learning model 405 may predict a value of 70 for the target variable of “Fraud Score” for the new observation, as shown by reference number 415. Based on this prediction (e.g., based on the value having a particular label/classification, based on the value satisfying or failing to satisfy a threshold, and/or the like), the machine learning system may provide a recommendation, such as to not perform the action requested by the caller.
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 Way with the Haltom, as a whole, so as to perform the new observation depending upon the prior observation to determine the validity of the call received, the motivation is to perform custom action during call screening based on a purpose of a voice call.
Regarding claim 11, Haltom further discloses the device, wherein the permitting of the first communication request comprises: establishing a communication link (see, Fig. 1A, 120) between a first communication device (see, Fig. 1A, the originating user device) that is associated with the first identifier (see, Fig. 1A, calling party, made call to terminating user device, see, Fig. 2, the call was sent to the from carrier XYZ) and a second communication device that obtains communication services via the second network (see, Fig. 1A, the based on STIR Shaken info, this call was sent to you from carrier, XYZ), establishing a communication session between the first communication device and the second communication device, or a combination thereof (see, Fig. 2, para [0047], call session).
Regarding claim 12, Haltom further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first communication request pertains to voice communication, text messaging, or conferencing (see, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the determining that the first communication path involving the first communication request is valid is based on the first communication path being included in a plurality of paths between the first network and the second network (see, Haltom, Fig. 2, based on Stir shaken info, call was sent to the terminating device from carrier and determine to block future call from this number in the process, 220, Way, Fig. 3, the location of the caller based on different observations determine fraud score).
Regarding claim 14, Haltom further discloses the device of claim 13, wherein each path of the plurality of paths corresponds to a physical path, a logical path, a virtual path, or any combination thereof (see, Haltom, Fig. 2, based on Stir shaken info, call was sent to the terminating device from carrier and determine to block future call from this number in the process, 220).
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.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Haltom et al. (US 2023/0088868)(hereafter Haltom).
Regarding claim 15, Haltom discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (para [0061], [0062]), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining a first communication request that includes an identifier ([0011] a user device (e.g., a terminating user device) may be configured to receive a call that includes a carrier identifier, para [0074]);
determining that the identifier is included in a first plurality of unassigned identifiers (see, Fig. 2, the based on STIR SHAKEN info, this call was sent to by carrier XYZ, para [0009], [0024], The originating security system performs a caller identification authentication based on the call information. The originating security system may determine whether the calling party identity (e.g., from the SIP invite) of the call can be verified based on information associated with calling party identifier known to the originating service provider), resulting in a first determination, wherein the first plurality of unassigned identifiers is associated with a plurality of networks (para [0010], The call security system may include a carrier identifier that is associated with an authorized entity of the originating network to permit the first user device to use the carrier identifier to verify the call and/or indicate (e.g., via a user interface) that the call was authenticated by the authorized entity (e.g., to permit a user of the first user device to gain confidence that the call from the second user device is not using an unauthorized calling identity). para [0043], if the carrier name displayed with the caller identification is a carrier the called party does not trust, the called party can assume the caller identification is likely to be spoofed and ignore the call and If the carrier name displayed is a carrier the called party does trust, the called party can assume the displayed caller identification is accurate, and may choose to answer the call with the terminating user device or perform other processing actions (e.g., blocking, forwarding, etc.)); and
based on the first determination, rejecting the first communication request (see, para [0049], As shown, the user, via the user interface, may indicate whether the user wishes to report the call as spoofed, provide feedback, and/or indicate whether the user would like to block calls associated with the caller identification. The feedback may include the user's response to block future calls associated with the caller identification).
Regarding claim 19, Haltom further discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a processing system including a processor,
a first communication request pertaining to a first voice call (see, para [0010], call requests, para [0019]),
the first communication request including a first telephone number (see, para [0023], that identifies a telephony number (e.g., an E.164 number) associated with the originating user device, [0035], The verification status may indicate that the calling party identity (e.g., the telephony number of the originating user device) passed validation and authentication (e.g., TN-validation-passed));
determining, by the processing system, that the first telephone number is included in a plurality of unassigned telephone numbers contributed by a plurality of telephone communication system operators, resulting in a first determination (see, para [0043], the called party may have more (or less) confidence that the calling party is in fact associated with the caller identification that is being displayed by the user device. For example, if the carrier’s name displayed with the caller identification is a carrier the called party does not trust, the called party can assume the caller identification is likely to be spoofed and ignore the call. If the carrier’s name displayed is a carrier the called party does trust, the called party can assume the displayed caller identification is accurate, and may choose to answer the call with the terminating user device or perform other processing actions (e.g., blocking, forwarding, etc.)); and
marking, by the processing system and based on the first determination, the first voice call as a first spoofing attempt (see, para [0049], [0049] As shown, the user, via the user interface, may indicate whether the user wishes to report the call as spoofed, see, Fig. 2, the block future calls from this number).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marcus et al. (US 9998919) discloses SMS Spoofing protection.
Serban (US 11463582) discloses detecting scam callers using conversational agent and machine learning systems and methods.
Lu et al. (US 2022/0124195) discloses detection of spoofed calls using call header.
Obaidi (US 2021/0360407) discloses network based protection against scam application.
Grabowski et al. (US 11153435) discloses method and system for automatically blocking robocalls.
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