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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/28/2026. Claims 1-5, 8-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to claim(s) filed 4/28 has been fully considered. In view of the amendment, claims 1-5, 8-15 are allowable over the prior art of record; but the arguments regarding claims 16-22 are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment as set forth below in this official communication.
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 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. (2025/0030795).
Regarding claim 16:
K M discloses a system and method for an apparatus (figures; abstract; para 129,135) comprising:
one or more processors (para 24, 88-90; figures); and a memory (para 69,84, 88, 93) communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (para 24,84,86,91,96), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
analyzing first audio data provided via a first device and second audio data provided via a second device during a call session between the first device and the second device (para 4,11,12 [telephonic conversations]; figures; para 46, {Caller A may engage in a telephonic conversation with a Caller B}; para 47; para 49-55 [voice data]; para 46,49,54; para 49 {during a telephonic conversation}; para 88);
identifying an intent of a first user of the first device is associated with soliciting sensitive information from a second user of the second device (para 47 {detecting and/or flagging data within a conversation that is deemed to be sensitive or confidential…caller asks for information…}; para 51; figs; para 52-58; para 54 {extracting an intent from text data…}; para 113-116,128); and
modifying the first audio data and/or the second audio data in response to failing to verify the identity of the first user via the authentication process (para 10 [intersect]; para 45,47,64; see figures; para 63 {intersecting the voice data may include preventing a transmission of the voice data… involve pausing the voice data stream, muting the microphone on the user's device, replacing the sensitive segment of the audio with an obscuring sound}; and see throughout the disclosure).
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching attempting to verify an identity of the first user via an authentication process in response to identifying the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user.
However, K M further discloses, identification and prevention of sensitive information exposure that serve as a form of authentication to identify an individual, unauthorized disclosure could lead to security breaches such as unauthorized system access or data theft (see para 45, and throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention from teachings of K M that the prevention of sensitive information exposure unauthorized disclosure is obviously preventing unauthorized and unauthentic access to the sensitive information by modifying the data in order to prevent unauthorized exposure of personally identifiable information that could lead to privacy breaches, identity theft, or financial fraud.
Regarding claim 17:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein transmitting third audio data to the second device in response to identifying the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user (para 2 {Voice phishing, also known as “vishing,” is a malicious activity ..disclosing their sensitive information over the phone}; see figures; para 42 {…with the intention to illicitly procure sensitive details… fraudulent activities}; para 65; para 73 {generating a risk warning … form of an audible alert, a visual signal}; para 120; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 18:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and receiving the first audio data provided via the first device for forwarding to the second device; and receiving the second audio data provided via the second device for forwarding to the first device (para 46 {Caller A may engage in a telephonic conversation with a Caller B}; para 46-49,54 [caller B, and receiver is related to second device and audio data]; para 49 {data transferred between a customer service representative (caller) and a customer (receiver)… during a telephonic conversation}; and throughout).
Regarding claim 19:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and receiving the first audio data provided via the first device in parallel with the second device; and receiving the second audio data provided via the second device in parallel with the first device (para 46 {Caller A may engage in a telephonic conversation with a Caller B}, in phone call real-time data is essentially provided in parallel; and see throughout).
Regarding claim 20:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and comprising the second device, wherein the second device comprises the one or more processors and the memory (para 46,49 [second device is B]; para 24,88-91 [processor, memory]; and see throughout the disclosure).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. (2025/0030795) in view of Dziuk et al. (US 12,126,765)
Regarding claim 21:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that attempting to verify the identity of the first user via the authentication process by analyzing a voice of the first user.
However, Dziuk in the same field of endeavor discloses a system for call authentication where attempting to verify the identity of the first user via the authentication process by analyzing a voice of the first user (column 3 lines 1-5 {should be able to quickly tell if the caller is their spouse based on the sound of their voice}, and lines 45-60; figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Dziuk in K M in order to improve caller authentication and authorization (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 22:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that attempting to verify the identity of the first user via the authentication process by determining an identification of the first device.
However, Dziuk in the same field of endeavor discloses a system for call authentication where attempting to verify the identity of the first user via the authentication process by determining an identification of the first device (column 6 lines 4-9 {identity of a caller based on information automatically determined about the caller, such as their phone number and/or caller ID information…}; and figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Dziuk in K M in order to improve caller authentication and authorization (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-15 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2023/0066915) discloses a system and method for obfuscation of a section of audio based on context of the audio.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is 571-270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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 S Wang can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights