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 .
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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning ofcomputer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/627,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that subject matter is synonymously identical the claimed subject matter of the instant Application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18/627,076
Application 18/627,321
Rationale
1. A method implemented by a system, the method comprising: receiving a call; determining whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid; and routing the call to an agent.
1. A method implemented by a system, the method comprising: receiving a call; determining whether the call is legitimate; and routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP).
The Instant claims are identical with exception of the highlighted areas. However, valid reads on legitimate and Agent would read on PSAP. Therefore, the distinctions would be obvious.
8. A system, comprising: at least one network interface; and at least one processor configured, with the at least one network interface, to cause the system to at least receive a call; determine whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid; and perform a routing of the call to an agent.
8. A system, comprising: at least one network interface; and at least one processor configured, with the at least one network interface, to cause the system to at least receive a call; perform a determination whether the call is legitimate; and perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP).
The Instant claims are identical with exception of the highlighted areas. However, valid reads on legitimate and Agent would read on PSAP. Therefore, the distinctions would be obvious.
15. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a call; determining whether the call is legitimate; and routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP).
15. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when
executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system to perform
operations comprising:
receiving a call;
determining whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid; and
routing the call to an agent.
The Instant claims are identical with exception of the highlighted areas. However, valid reads on legitimate and Agent would read on PSAP. Therefore, the distinctions would be obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 4, 8, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blustein et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2025/0047788 A1, hereinafter, ‘Blustein’.
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).
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).
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 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) 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 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 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.
US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0083902 teaches receiving a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051); determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048,
0051 prank call determination); and routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
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