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 office correspondence is in response to the amendment filed on April 7, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in new grounds of rejection.
Allison discloses preventing and discarding delivering unwanted short message service (SMS) to their intended recipient. A network operator can quickly and easily control which SMS type messages are delivered to an SMS service subscriber. The signaling message for processing and routing node to transmit and receive SMS data and not deliver unwanted messages to the intended recipient. Mobile subscribers and network nodes are shielded from unwanted SMS traffic. Various criteria can be used to determine whether SMS message should be identified and discriminated, considering the number of receiving and sending messages of party email address identifier with associated delivery action, such as “Reject”, along with other criteria. In doing so, SMS message discrimination module within the SG node determines that an unwanted or spam SMS message is being sent and the SMS message is discarded to be not delivered to the intended destination. Intercepting and discarding unwanted SMS messages at an SMS message routing node, thereby preventing the delivery of unwanted SMS messages to an SMS subscriber. The discarding of the SMS message eliminates unnecessary SMS message traffic at critical locations in the network and reduce processing demands on network resources and such load shedding is a key beneficial attribute of the present invention. Thereby, prior arts in combination discloses discarding unwanted messages and not delivering to their destination.
Jie discloses filtering spam directed at mobile phones in a short message system (SMS). A short message includes message content, and both a mobile phone number and a first authentication code of a destination mobile phone. A second authentication code of the destination mobile phone is stored in a memory. The short message is received and the first authentication code and the second authentication code are extracted from the short message and the memory, respectively. If it is ascertained that the extracted first authentication code does not match the extracted second authentication code, then the short message is determined to be SMS spam and is prevented from being subsequently received by the destination mobile phone. Otherwise the short message is determined to not be SMS spam and is not prevented from being subsequently received by the destination mobile phone. An authentication apparatus within the SMS performs filtering spam.
Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts in view of the claim limitations, the rejection is sustained.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 9 and 17 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 each depend from one of the independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of Allison and Murtagh for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison et al. (US Publication 2003/0083078) hereafter Allison, in view of Edwards et al. (US Publication 2014/0128047) hereafter Edwards, in further view of Jie et al. (US Publication 2007/0254683) hereafter Jie.
As per claim 1, Allison discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a network device from an end device, an application layer message that includes a source address of the end device (paragraphs 17, 52-54), wherein the source address includes a value, that indicates that the end device is subject to a blocking delivery, and a destination address (paragraphs 0048-49, 0052-55: identify unwanted message from the source and prevent from routing); and blocking, by the network device based on the source address and the destination address, delivery of the application layer message (paragraphs 0055, 0067, 0079: unwanted SMS not delivered to the intended destination). Although, Allison discloses preventing the delivery of unwanted SMS to a subscriber, he fails to expressly disclose wherein the source address includes a value, which is represented by a portion of the source address that indicates that the end device is subject to a blocking delivery.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Edwards discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the source address includes a value, which is represented by a portion of the source address that indicates that the end device is subject to a blocking delivery (paragraphs 72-73, 159-160, 165, 181: detect, identify, and block with the value in the message to the destination device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Edwardss’ teaching with Allison. One would be motivated to incorporate blocking delivery service based on many criteria to provide necessary information to determine whether information should allow through or blocked, thus enhancing flexibility of communication service.
Although, Edwards-Allison discloses call and SMS blocking, but fails to expressly disclose end device is subject to a blocking delivery service of application layer messages from the end device, and a destination address.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jie discloses the claimed limitation of end device is subject to a blocking delivery service of application layer messages from the end device, and a destination address (Fig. 3, paragraphs 42, 54: end device subject to blocking delivery).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jies’ teaching with Edwards-Allison. One would be motivated to incorporate the blocking delivery service based on valid or invalid determination of unmatched messages. Screening unwanted SMS messages using filtering method to identify whether the SMS message should be delivered or not or conclude as SMS SPAM, thus improving the ability of the delivery system.
As per claim 2, Allison discloses a method further comprising: storing, by the network device, one or more criteria that indicate when to block delivery of the application layer messages, and wherein the blocking further comprises: blocking, by the device based on the source address, the destination address, and the one or more criteria, the delivery of the application layer message (paragraphs 0055, 0067, 0079). Although, Allison discloses preventing the delivery of unwanted SMS to a subscriber, he fails to expressly disclose blocking, by the device based on the identifier, the value, the destination address.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murtagh discloses the claimed limitation of blocking, by the device based on the identifier, the value, the destination address (paragraphs 0108, 110-111: detect and block the message to the destination device).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 3, Allison discloses a method wherein the one or more criteria indicate to block delivery of the application layer messages that have at least one of a domestic intercarrier destination or an international destination (paragraphs 0010, 0037, 0049).
As per claim 4, Allison discloses a method further comprising: determining, by the network device, that the end device and the destination address are associated with different carriers (paragraphs 0049, 0052, 0062).
As per claim 5, Allison discloses a method wherein the source address of the end device is a Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN) (paragraphs 0011, 0050). Although, Allison discloses
However, in the Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN) that has a length greater than 10 digits (paragraphs 159-160, 163, 181).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 5.
As per claim 6, Allison discloses a method further comprising: transmitting, by the network device to the end device, a message indicating that delivery of the application layer message was blocked (paragraphs 0055, 0067, 0079).
As per claim 7, Allison discloses a method further comprising: analyzing, by the network device, the value; and determining, by the network device based on the analyzing, that one or more criteria regarding when to block delivery apply to the end device (paragraphs 0055, 0067, 0079). Although, Allison discloses preventing the delivery of unwanted SMS to a subscriber, he fails to expressly disclose analyzing, that one or more criteria regarding when to block delivery apply to the end device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murtagh discloses the claimed limitation of analyzing, that one or more criteria regarding when to block delivery apply to the end device (paragraphs 0108, 110-111: detect and block the message to the destination device).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
As per claim 8, Allison discloses a method wherein the network device includes at least one of a Short Messaging Service Center (SMSC) device or a Multimedia Messaging Service Center (MMSC) device (paragraphs 0017, 0022).
Claim 9 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 10-16 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-8 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-8 apply equally as well to claims 10-16, respectively.
Claim 17 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 18-20 are listed all the same elements of claims 4-6 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 4-6 apply equally as well to claims 18-20, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights