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 filing of 12/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 1,4,10,11,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determine an intent of the first user” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “first device and a second device” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (a device) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional elements, “receiving first audio data provided via a first device of a first user during a call session between the first device and a second device of a second user; receiving second audio data provided via the second device during the call session” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)); and “transmitting a control message in response to determining the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user” insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity).
The additional element, “a large language model (LLM)” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine intent of user.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receiving first audio data provided via a first device of a first user during a call session between the first device and a second device of a second user; receiving second audio data provided via the second device during the call session,” and “transmitting a control message in response to determining the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (receiving/transmitting audio communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claim 4 fails to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “analyzing audio data exchanged between a plurality of devices during a call session” and “identifying an intent associated with solicitation of sensitive information based on analysis of the audio data” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (processor) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional elements, “modifying the audio data in response to identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine intent of user.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “modifying the audio data in response to identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information” is just that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, which is mere Instructions to Apply An Exception MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (analyzing, modifying audio data) using a generic computer.
Other independent claim (i.e. claim 16) recite similar claim features/language as claim 10, and thus is rejected for the same reasons as that of claim 10.
Dependent claim 11, and 17-20 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by K M et al. (2025/0030795).
Regarding claim 10:
K M discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (para 23-24; fig 1; para 44,81,84,88-91), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
analyzing audio data exchanged between a plurality of devices during a call session (para 4,11,12 [telephonic conversations]; figures; see 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; see figures; para 49 {data transferred between a customer service representative (caller) and a customer (receiver)… during a telephonic conversation}; para 88);
identifying an intent associated with solicitation of sensitive information based on analysis of the audio data (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 audio data in response to identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information (para 10 [intersect]; para 47,64; 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).
Regarding claim 11:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information by a user of a device of the plurality of devices (para 52-58; para 54 {extracting an intent from text data…}; para 113-116,128); para 2; para 42 {…with the intention to illicitly procure sensitive details… fraudulent activities}; para 65; para 73); and modifying the audio data provided via the device and/or the audio data provided toward the device in response to identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information by the user of the device (para 10 [intersect]; para 47,64; 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).
Regarding claim 12:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information by identifying a portion of the audio data comprises the sensitive information (para 42,45); modifying the audio data by removing the portion of the audio data to remove the sensitive information; and outputting the audio data with the sensitive information removed to a device of the plurality of devices (para 47,64; figures; para 63 {intersecting … replacing the sensitive segment}; and throughout).
Regarding claim 13:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and modifying the audio data by replacing the portion of the audio data with replacement audio data; and outputting the audio data that includes the replacement audio data to the device of the plurality of devices (para 63 [replacing the sensitive segment]; and throughout).
Regarding claim 14:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and modifying the audio data by overlaying with additional audio data (para 63 [an obscuring sound, as overlaying data]); and outputting the additional audio data to a device of the plurality of devices (para 73 [sound an alarm or display a pop-up message to caution the user, as output]; para 116, and throughout).
Regarding claim 15:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and attempting to authenticate a user of a device of the plurality of devices in response to identifying the intent associated with solicitation of the sensitive information based on analysis of the audio data; and modifying the audio data provided via the device of the plurality of devices in response to determining the user is unauthenticated (para 45 [of authentication or access control, and unauthorized disclosure]; para 56; para 63).
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 identifying the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user (para 10 [intersect]; para 47,64; 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).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. (2025/0030795) in view of Pascual et al. (US 2025/0111046)
Regarding claim 1:
K M discloses a system and method (abstract; figures) comprising:
receiving first audio data provided via a first device of a first user during a call session between the first device and a second device of a second user (para 4,11,12 [telephonic conversations]; figures; see para 46, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {Caller A may engage in a telephonic conversation with a Caller B}, caller A as first user of device; para 47 {detecting and/or flagging data within a conversation that is deemed to be sensitive or confidential, as disclosed herein. For instance, when a caller asks for information…}; para 49-55 [voice data]);
receiving second audio data provided via the second device during the call session (para 46,49,54 [caller B, and receiver is related to second device and audio data]; see figures; para 49 {data transferred between a customer service representative (caller) and a customer (receiver)… during a telephonic conversation}; para 88);
providing the first audio data and/or the second audio data to a language model to determine an intent of the first user (para 51 {use of any suitable voice transcription technology, such as …natural language processing (NLP)}; para 52-58; para 54 {extracting an intent from text data…}; para 113-116,128); and
transmitting a control message in response to determining 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 wherein a fraudster manipulates a victim into 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).
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching a large language model (LLM).
However, Pascual in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for scam detection where a large language model (LLM) is used (para 13 {analyzing the communication for hallmarks of being generated by a large language model (LLM)}; para 21-23; para 54-57; 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 to use teachings of Pascual in suitable language processing K M in order to identify new scam methodologies and communications for scam detection and legitimacy of communications and identities [1,57] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 2:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and transmitting the control message to modify the first audio data to create third audio data that includes an audio notification (para 65,116,120 [warning, sound, notifying; as third data]); and outputting the third audio data to the second device to provide the third audio data to the second user during the call session (para 73 [sound an alarm or display a pop-up message to caution the user, as output]; para 116, and throughout).
Regarding claim 3:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and Pascual discloses, recording additional audio data provided via the first device and/or via the second device in response to determining the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user (Pascual, see para 99 [Additional data may also need to be retrieved from the user, for example, if information regarding keystrokes or the like is not automatically included in the extracted information received at 1104 and is determined to be needed for the decisioning process. Other types of additional data may be needed from the user]).
Regarding claim 4:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and determining a score related to the intent of the first user associated with soliciting sensitive information from the second user and/or related to a severity of solicitation of the sensitive information (para 17-18,38 [risk score]); comparing the score to a threshold (para 17, [risk score meets a predetermined threshold]; para 73); and transmitting the control message based on comparison of the score to the threshold (para 17,59,73 [generating risk warning]; and throughout).
Regarding claim 5:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and determining the second audio data includes the sensitive information (para 47 {detecting and/or flagging data within a conversation that is deemed to be sensitive or confidential…}); transmitting the control message to modify the second audio data to create third audio data that excludes the sensitive information; and transmitting the third audio data to the first device to provide the third audio data to the first user during the call session (para 65,116,120 [warning, sound, notifying; as third data]; para 73 [sound an alarm or display a pop-up message to caution the user, as output]; para 116, and throughout).
Regarding claim 6:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above and determining the second audio data includes the sensitive information (para 46,47); identifying a user account associated with the sensitive information (para 56 [account numbers]); and transmitting the control message to modify the user account (para 56 [account numbers .. and take necessary actions to prevent unauthorized disclosure]; para 47,63,64; and throughout).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. (2025/0030795) in view of Pascual et al. (US 2025/0111046) as above, and further in view of Altaf et al. (US 2024/0355334).
Regarding claim 9:
K M discloses all of the subject matter as described above except updating the LLM based on a determination that the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting the sensitive information from the second user.
However, Altaf in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for scam detection where updating the LLM based on a determination that the intent of the first user is associated with soliciting the sensitive information from the second user (figure 9; para 19,41; para 198 [extractor, LLM]; para 241 [model updater]; 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 to use teachings of Altaf in K M in order to identify scam that allows the liveness detection model to adapt to new types of presentation attacks, based on the human provided feedback [7] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Albero et al. (US 2025/0055937) discloses a system and method for automated vishing detection to prevent deepfake and chatbot attacks.
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 8:00-5:00 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 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631