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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 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 of this title, 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 2-6, 9-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidler et al (9,990,683) in view of Brown et al (5,535,261).
Consider claims 2, 9 and 16, Sidler et al teach a method, system and non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations, for monitoring an incoming communication, comprising: receiving the incoming communication (col. 4 lines 17-32; “For example, embodiments of the present invention may monitor calls for one or more criteria (e.g., a particular called number, a particular individual making or receiving a call, a particular calling feature such as three-way calling being invoked”); determining an outside party associated with the incoming communication; retrieving a list of outside parties stored in an incoming communication system (col. 37 lines 29-50; “As an example of information that may be presented in call information section 810, the illustrated embodiment includes information identifying the calling and called parties, such as may be determined from identification and/or validation of a calling or called party by controlled environment information management system 110, from accessing one or more databases (e.g., billing name and number (BNA), line information database (LIDB), etcetera), and/or the like. Moreover, the calling and/or called party information of the illustrated embodiment includes status information (e.g., inmate, family, attorney, etcetera), such as may be determined by controlled environment information management system 110 and/or from accessing one or more databases (e.g., personal allowed number (PAN) list, government records, internet search results, etcetera). The illustrated embodiment of call information section 810 further includes the called number”); detecting a three-way communication or Call event 835 may represent detection of unauthorized or undesired activity during the call, such as an attempt to invoke a three-way call, and thus may represent a somewhat atypical event in a call flow”); and triggering an alert in response to the detecting (col. 4 line 24-32; “a particular individual making or receiving a call, a particular calling feature such as three-way calling being invoked, a particular word or phrase spoken during the call) identified by an investigator to cause a notification to be communicated to the investigator to provide the investigator an opportunity listen in on the call and to barge into the call”).
Slider et al did not explicitly suggest of performing a privileged determination that the outside party is not entitled to privileged communication and recording the incoming communication based on a mismatch between the outside party and the list and the privileged determination (i.e., the call does not have privileged conversations between attorney and client). Brown et al teach system for controlling and monitoring the recording of telephone calls in institutions such as jails and correctional facilities. Calls are recorded automatically in response to the occurrence of specific triggering events, as pre-defined under software control by a system administrator. Triggering events may include, for example, use of a specific line, attempts to use particular features (such as three-way calling), attempts to dial particular telephone numbers, or use by a particular person (see abstract). An operator to pre-determine which calls should be recorded. It also allows an administrator to specify particular types of calls for which recordings should not be made, such as communications that are protected by attorney-client privilege. This reduces the possibility of illegal monitoring and/or recording of such conversations (col. 1 line 63 – col. 2 line 2). An administrator specifies 202 which telephone lines will be subject to recording, and identifies particular events that will trigger recording (col. 3 lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to apply the teaching of Brown et al into view of Slider et al and the result would have been predictable and resulted in automatically controlling which calls are to be record and not record in the controlled environment thereby improve call processing as well as provides cost savings and improved flexibility in a controlled environment.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-19 are depending upon an “OR” clause and thus are not considered.
Claims 7-8, 14-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidler et al (9,990,683) in view of Brown et al (5,535,261) and further in view of Hogg (2008/0118042).
Consider claims 7, 14 and 20, Sidler et al did not explicitly suggest wherein determining the three-way communication further comprises: sampling voice samples of the incoming communication; performing voice recognition based on the voice samples; and determining, based on a result of the voice recognition, a number of parties of the incoming communication. In the same field of endeavor, Hogg teaches the system and method for detecting three-way (number of parties) call utilizing well-known voice recognition-based system monitoring (par. 0012; 0019; 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to apply the existing monitoring system and method taught by Hogg into the “base” process of Slider et al and the result would have been predictable and resulted in detecting unauthorized callers thereby improve call processing in a controlled environment.
Consider claims 8, 15 and 21, Sidler et al did not explicitly suggest wherein determining the three-way communication further comprises: performing face detection based on the incoming communication; and determining, based on a result of the face detection, a number of parties of the incoming communication. In the same field of endeavor, Hogg teaches the system and method for detecting three-way (number of parties) call utilizing well-known face recognition-based system monitoring (par. 0012; 0019; 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to apply the existing monitoring system and method taught by Hogg into the “base” process of Slider et al and the result would have been predictable and resulted in detecting unauthorized callers thereby improve call processing in a controlled environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot.
Conclusion
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 reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.) Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC DUC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7503. 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.
/Quoc D Tran/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
March 6, 2026