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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the USC 102/103 rejection of 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 4/28/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15-20 and 1,8 and 15 under U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting respectively have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
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’.
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.
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.
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 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 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).
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 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