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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/26 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blustein et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2025/0047788 A1, hereinafter, ‘Blustein’ in view of Ruan et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0263234 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ruan’ and further in view of US D'Evelyn US Patent Pub. No.20050282518 A1 and further in view of Meek et al US Patent No., 6148070 A.
Consider Claim 1, Blustein teaches a method implemented by a system, the method comprising: receiving a call (e.g., see at least “incoming phone call” – 0009); determining whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid (e.g., “screening call to see if call is valid” -0009); and routing the call to an agent (e.g., see “connecting valid call to a service agent” – 0009).
However, Blustein does not specifically teach wherein the determining comprises determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers;
In analogous art, Ruan teaches a system for handling received calls where the ANI number is compared with a list of ANI numbers (e.g., see at least abstract and figure 4 ‘401’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blustein as modified by Ruan to determine whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers for the purpose of number verification and validation as taught by Ruan.
However, Blustein as modified by Ruan does not specifically teach determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers, wherein the plurality of predetermined numbers are numbers for which there is not corresponding information in an automatic location identification (ALI) database, and wherein the ANI of the call is determined to be not valid when the ANI of the call is one of the plurality of predetermined numbers.
The new limitation includes determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers (As best understood by the Examiner- breaking down the language, this step would require predetermining that ANI = ABC), wherein the plurality of predetermined numbers are numbers for which there is not corresponding information in an automatic location identification (ALI) database(i.e., the database shows ABC, but there is no correlating information in the ALI database), and wherein the ANI of the call is determined to be not valid when the ANI of the call is one of the plurality of predetermined numbers(i.e., continuing with the example, ABC is a noted in the database based on the absence of corresponding information is invalid). There as best understood it appears that the technical feature here would be querying a database for information. In this particular case a location database. Based on the simple query the databased determines the ANI is invalid.
In short, the Examiner notes that the amendment involves checking and an ALI database for corresponding ANI information.
D'Evelyn in US Patent Published in 2005 teaches in, see at least paragraph 0031 (0032-0035 and 0081) “Today's ALI (Automatic Location Identification) facilities are embodied in a database that correlates a telephone number (TN) with a geographic location for the TN. When a call is received by a PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), an ANI (Automatic Number Identification) code is presented along with the voice communication. The ANI code is associated with the communication device that is used to call the PSAP and is usually the calling device's 10-digit telephone number. One may recognize that the provision of an ANI code with an incoming call to a PSAP is similar to the now-familiar Caller ID service provided by telephone companies. Because the telephone service providers knew where they installed wired telephones, the telephone company's own records formed the basis for the ALI system, using the ANI as the basis for determining location of a particular phone used to call a PSAP”. Thus D'Evelyn teaches that it was already known in the art to correlate ANI information in a ALI database.
However, D'Evelyn does not teach validating or invalidating the ANI information.
In analogous art, Meek (see also prior art cited as pertinent prior and 892), suggested a desire to validate an ANI information, e.g., see col. 8 lines 27- 47, a step of determining if ANI is available for the call is performed as indicated by block 182. If the ANI is unavailable or if the ANI is invalid (as determined in block 183), a step of determining if the subscriber accepts calls without ANI is performed as indicated by block 184… In one embodiment of the present invention, the way of determining the validity of the ANI in block 183 is performed by comparing the received ANI to a database which confirms only valid ANI combinations. If the ANI does not appear, it is invalid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to try the teaching noted above to arrive at the claimed invention as amended for the purpose of validating the ANI when routing calls.
Consider Claims 8 and 15, Blustein teaches a system (e.g., see system illustrated in figure 1), comprising: at least one network interface (e.g., see networking interface illustrated in figure 1); and at least one processor (i.e., the processor is inherent based on the processing required by the process executed by the system of figure 1) configured, with the at least one network interface, to cause the system to at least receive a call(e.g., see at least “incoming phone call” – 0009); determine whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid(e.g., “screening call to see if call is valid” -0009); and perform a routing of the call to an agent(e.g., see “connecting valid call to a service agent” – 0009).
However, Blustein does not specifically teach wherein the determining comprises determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers;
In analogous art, Ruan teaches a system for handling received calls where the ANI number is compared with a list of ANI numbers (e.g., see at least abstract and figure 4 ‘401’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blustein as modified by Ruan to determine whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers for the purpose of number verification and validation as taught by Ruan.
However, Blustein as modified by Ruan does not specifically teach determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers, wherein the plurality of predetermined numbers are numbers for which there is not corresponding information in an automatic location identification (ALI) database, and wherein the ANI of the call is determined to be not valid when the ANI of the call is one of the plurality of predetermined numbers.
The new limitation includes determining whether the ANI of the call is one of a plurality of predetermined numbers (As best understood by the Examiner- breaking down the language, this step would require predetermining that ANI = ABC), wherein the plurality of predetermined numbers are numbers for which there is not corresponding information in an automatic location identification (ALI) database(i.e., the database shows ABC, but there is no correlating information in the ALI database), and wherein the ANI of the call is determined to be not valid when the ANI of the call is one of the plurality of predetermined numbers(i.e., continuing with the example, ABC is a noted in the database based on the absence of corresponding information is invalid). There as best understood it appears that the technical feature here would be querying a database for information. In this particular case a location database. Based on the simple query the databased determines the ANI is invalid.
In short, the Examiner notes that the amendment involves checking and an ALI database for corresponding ANI information.
D'Evelyn in US Patent Published in 2005 teaches in, see at least paragraph 0031 (0032-0035 and 0081) “Today's ALI (Automatic Location Identification) facilities are embodied in a database that correlates a telephone number (TN) with a geographic location for the TN. When a call is received by a PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), an ANI (Automatic Number Identification) code is presented along with the voice communication. The ANI code is associated with the communication device that is used to call the PSAP and is usually the calling device's 10-digit telephone number. One may recognize that the provision of an ANI code with an incoming call to a PSAP is similar to the now-familiar Caller ID service provided by telephone companies. Because the telephone service providers knew where they installed wired telephones, the telephone company's own records formed the basis for the ALI system, using the ANI as the basis for determining location of a particular phone used to call a PSAP”. Thus D'Evelyn teaches that it was already known in the art to correlate ANI information in a ALI database.
However, D'Evelyn does not teach validating or invalidating the ANI information.
In analogous art, Meek (see also prior art cited as pertinent prior and 892), suggested a desire to validate an ANI information, e.g., see col. 8 lines 27- 47, a step of determining if ANI is available for the call is performed as indicated by block 182. If the ANI is unavailable or if the ANI is invalid (as determined in block 183), a step of determining if the subscriber accepts calls without ANI is performed as indicated by block 184… In one embodiment of the present invention, the way of determining the validity of the ANI in block 183 is performed by comparing the received ANI to a database which confirms only valid ANI combinations. If the ANI does not appear, it is invalid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to try the teaching noted above to arrive at the claimed invention as amended for the purpose of validating the ANI when routing calls.
Consider Claims 4, 11, and 18, Blustein teaches the claimed invention further comprising: routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if it is determined that the ANI of the call is valid (e.g., see call routing to ERU and PSAP IN 346 and 348 of figure 3).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blustein et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2025/0047788 A1, hereinafter, ‘Blustein’ in view of Ruan et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0263234 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ruan’ and further in view of US D'Evelyn US Patent Pub. No.20050282518 A1 and further in view of Meek et al US Patent No., 6148070 A and further in view of Gupta et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/0396331, hereinafter, ‘Gupta’.
Consider Claims 2, 9 and 16, Blustein teaches wherein the routing is performed if the ANI of the call is not valid.
In analogous art, Gupta teaches wherein the routing is performed if the ANI of the call is not valid (in figure 3 – 300- a call in received and authenticated. The authentication would read on the validation, if the authentication fails… “then authentication server may take remedial action. The remedial action may include, for example, dropping the call, rejecting the call from further routing, routing the call to an agent or fraud analyst…” - 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the routing is performed if the ANI of the call is not valid for the purpose of call authentication.
Consider claim 3, 10, and 17, Blustein teaches the claimed invention further comprising: transmitting an emergency confirmation request (e.g., this is met based on at least the agent prompting in figure 4a and as described in 0064).
However, Blustein does not specifically teach releasing the call, if it is determined that an emergency confirmation response to the emergency confirmation request was not received (i.e., Blustein does not explicitly teach how to handle calls that do not match expectations or fail to validate a truth. This is by definition a confirmation).
In analogous art, Gupta teaches releasing the call, if it is determined that an emergency confirmation response to the emergency confirmation request was not received (i.e., if the emergency confirmation is not received which means the value expected is not received and thus no confirmation is made, this is the equivalent of a failure to match an expected value. Gupta suggest“…responses either fail to match expected values or a negative response to message notification is received, then authentication server may take remedial action. The remedial action may include, for example, dropping the call…”-0075 and 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try releasing the call, if it is determined that an emergency confirmation response to the emergency confirmation request was not received for the purpose of call authentication.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blustein et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2025/0047788 A1, hereinafter, ‘Blustein’ in view of Ruan et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0263234 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ruan’ and further in view of US D'Evelyn US Patent Pub. No.20050282518 A1 and further in view of Meek et al US Patent No., 6148070 A and further in view of Sill et al. US Patent No.: 9,510,171 B1, hereinafter, ‘Sill’.
Consider Claims 5, 12 and 19, Blustein teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: adding an identifier of a cellular tower to the call.
In analogous art, Sill suggests in col. 8 line 56 – col. 9 line to “correlate PSAP communication addresses (or other communication addresses) with geographic locations served by the PSAPs. For instance, the address mapping data 62 may specify ranges of geographic locations (e.g., latitude/longitude coordinates) and correlate each range with a particular PSAP communication address. Alternatively, the address mapping data 62 may correlate particular base station identifiers or other RAN wireless coverage area identifiers with particular PSAP communication addresses. Other arrangements are possible as well. By reference to the address mapping data, given the location of a mobile station it may thus be possible to readily determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to try adding an identifier of a cellular tower to the call for the purpose of determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location.
Consider Claims 6, 13 and 20, Blustein teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: adding an identifier of a public safety answering point (PSAP) to the call.
In analogous art, Sill suggests in col. 8 line 56 – col. 9 line to “correlate PSAP communication addresses (or other communication addresses) with geographic locations served by the PSAPs. For instance, the address mapping data 62 may specify ranges of geographic locations (e.g., latitude/longitude coordinates) and correlate each range with a particular PSAP communication address. Alternatively, the address mapping data 62 may correlate particular base station identifiers or other RAN wireless coverage area identifiers with particular PSAP communication addresses. Other arrangements are possible as well. By reference to the address mapping data, given the location of a mobile station it may thus be possible to readily determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to try further comprising: adding an identifier of a public safety answering point (PSAP) to the call for the purpose of determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location.
Consider Claims 7 and 14, Blustein teaches the claimed invention except wherein the identifier of the PSAP is determined at least in part based on a side of a cellular tower that received the call.
In analogous art, Sill suggests in col. 8 line 56 – col. 9 line to “correlate PSAP communication addresses (or other communication addresses) with geographic locations served by the PSAPs. For instance, the address mapping data 62 may specify ranges of geographic locations (e.g., latitude/longitude coordinates) and correlate each range with a particular PSAP communication address. Alternatively, the address mapping data 62 may correlate particular base station identifiers or other RAN wireless coverage area identifiers with particular PSAP communication addresses. Other arrangements are possible as well. By reference to the address mapping data, given the location of a mobile station it may thus be possible to readily determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to try wherein the identifier of the PSAP is determined at least in part based on a side of a cellular tower that received the call for the purpose of determine the PSAP communication address that should be used for a call from that location or approximately from that location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights