DETAILED ACTION
This Communication is a First Action on the Merits (FAOM). Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843).
As per Claim 1, Arora teaches a method, comprising: identifying, by a computing system, one or more first packets that contain no voice signal data among a plurality of packets, the plurality of packets being exchanged during a voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") communication between two or more user devices, the plurality of packets further comprising one or more second packets containing voice signal data (Page 2, Paragraphs [0018] – [0022]).
(Note: In paragraph [0018], Arora describes a packet-oriented communication system that employs IP telephony [i.e. VoIP communication]. In paragraph [0019], Arora describes a data signal/voice-data signal received at the input being transmitted to a voice activity detection [VAD] unit and indicates that if no voice data is present then a silence insertion descriptor [SID] transmission frame is generated by the VAD)
Arora does not teach embedding, by the computing system, first data within at least one third packet, the first data comprising data that is different from voice signal data contained in the one or more second packets of the plurality of packets; replacing, by the computing system, at least one first packet among the one or more first packets with the embedded at least one third packet; and sending, by the computing system, the embedded at least one third packet along with other packets among the plurality of packets to one or more user devices among the two or more user devices during the VoIP communication.
However, Sharma teaches embedding, by the computing system, first data within at least one third packet, the first data comprising data that is different from voice signal data contained in the one or more second packets of the plurality of packets; replacing, by the computing system, at least one first packet among the one or more first packets with the embedded at least one third packet; and sending, by the computing system, the embedded at least one third packet along with other packets among the plurality of packets to one or more user devices among the two or more user devices during the VoIP communication (Figure 12 – References 12, 34 and 38; Figure 5 – Reference 46; Column 1, Lines 38-52; Column 3, Lines 15-45; Column 4, Lines 6-61; Column 5, Lines 58-62).
(Note: In Column 1, Lines 38-52; Sharma describes a method and apparatus that uses the unused bits of a data packet to transmit additional information by piggy-backing secondary information into the unused space of a data packet [i.e. embedding first data within at least one third packet, the first data comprising data that is different from voice signal data contained in the one or more second packets of the plurality of packet])
(Note: In Column 3, Lines 15-45; Sharma describes a network node that includes a packet processing unit and a networked device. Sharma indicates that the packet processing unit is responsible for generating the data different from voice signal data contained in the one or more second packets of the plurality of packets that is embedded into the plurality of packets)
(Note: In Column 4, Lines 6-61; Sharma describes “secondary” code words being piggy-backed into the unused space of a data packet including what Sharma describes as a primary code word. The Examiner is considering the primary code word as being the voice signal data and secondary code words as comfort noise data and/or unused/placeholder/empty space)
(Note: Sharma provides an analogy of a hitchhiker riding in a car to a destination where the hitchhiker travels to the destination or somewhere along the path the hitchhiker exits and waits for a different vehicle to be transported to their eventual destination. In Column 5, Lines 58-62; Sharma provides an example of the hitchhiker analogy where a primary code word is transmitted from node 18 to node 24 and a secondary is transmitted from node 20 to node 22 by piggy-backing the secondary code word into the same data packet as the primary code word)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches wherein the computing system comprises at least one of an enhanced voice activity detection-comfort noise generation ("EVAD/CNG") system, a telephone with EVAD/CNG functionality, a smart phone with an EVAD/CNG software application ("app"), a voice gateway device, a telecommunications node, a server, a distributed computing system, or a cloud computing system (Sharma: Column 3, Lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches wherein the at least one first packet comprises at least one CNG packet, wherein each CNG packet comprises CNG noise data, wherein each CNG noise data is converted into an analog signal after being received by the one or more user devices, wherein the analog signal is perceptible to users as an audible noise indicative of the VoIP communication still being active during the VoIP communication when participants are not speaking as described in Claim 1. (Note: See Arora – Page 1, Paragraphs [0005] and [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches wherein the first data comprises metadata comprising at least one of date of the VoIP communication, time that the VoIP communication was established, counter, periodic current duration of the VoIP communication, time stamps, speaker identity ("ID"), participant ID, calling number, each called number, audio level, or beacon data (Sharma: Column 3, Lines 64-67). (Note: In Column 3, Lines 64-67; Sharma describes metadata as including source node [i.e. calling number], the destination node [i.e. each called number], number of data content packets that will follow [i.e. counter] and any other information required by the protocol)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a plurality of packets, the plurality of packets being exchanged during a voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") communication between two or more user devices, the plurality of packets further comprising one or more second packets containing voice signal data; analyzing, by the computing system, the plurality of packets to determine whether the plurality of packets comprises packets containing embedded data in addition to packets containing voice signal data different from the embedded data; and based on a determination that the plurality of packets comprises one or more first packets containing embedded first data, extracting, by the computing system, the embedded first data as described in Claim 1.
(Note: Claim 18 differs from Claim 1 in that Claim 1 sends the packets embedded with data that Claim 18 receives and ultimately extracts) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches converting the extracted embedded first data into a form that is accessible to a requesting entity. (Note: It is found to be obvious to do this as nothing is accomplished if the extracted embedded data is converted into a form that is inaccessible to a requested entity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora with the method taught by Sharma to enable the silent transmission of metadata, encryption keys or packet redundancies without increasing network overhead or consuming active bandwidth during active speech.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Khalil et al (2008/0059161 A1).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 3. Arora also teaches wherein replacing the at least one first packet with the embedded at least one third packet comprises one of: based on a determination that the at least one CNG packet is known in terms of which CNG noise data can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users, replacing, by the computing system, the known CNG noise data with the embedded at least one third packet; or based on a determination that the at least one CNG packet is unknown or ambiguous in terms of which CNG noise data can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users,
(Note: In paragraph [0033], Arora describes a set of golden parameters [SGP] which have been determined from extensive analysis of numerous test files using voice samples [i.e. a determination that the at least one CNG packet is known in terms of which CNG noise data can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users]. The Examiner is considering the use of the described SGP as reading on the limitation)
(Note: For comfort noise generation in VoIP telephony the frequency range extends between 50 Hz – 7KHz depending on codex type [narrowband – 300Hz to 3.4kHz and wideband – 50Hz to 7kHz]. Comfort noise in this range is being considered as audible noise perceptible by users that embedded data may be placed without being noticed by the user)
The combination of Arora and Sharma does not teach expanding, by the computing system, the at least one CNG packet to produce expanded CNG sound data; analyzing, by the computing system, the expanded CNG sound data to identify one or more CNG noise data within the at least one CNG packet that can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users; and replacing, by the computing system, at least one CNG noise data among the identified one or more CNG noise data with the embedded at least one third packet.
However, Khalil teaches expanding, by the computing system, the at least one CNG packet to produce expanded CNG sound data; analyzing, by the computing system, the expanded CNG sound data to identify one or more CNG noise data within the at least one CNG packet that can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users; and replacing, by the computing system, at least one CNG noise data among the identified one or more CNG noise data with the embedded at least one third packet (Page 6, Paragraphs [0075] – [0077]).
(Note: In paragraph [0075], Khalil describes determining information related to segments of background noise in an audio signal [i.e. comfort noise generated during a VoIP call]. Khalil indicates the segment may reside in any portion of an audio signal [e.g. background noise between two parts of speech, background noise not immediately before or after a talk spurt, etc.]. Khalil also indicates that segment information may indicate parameters of the actual background noise [i.e. energy/frequency spectrum])
(Note: In paragraph [0076], Khalil describes determining information related to segments of background noise in an audio signal frame-by-frame and indicates that this may be performed by an encoder and that it may occur for just packets known to contain background noise or for all packets associated with a given signal. In paragraph [0077], Khalil describes tools which function to determine which frames contain background [i.e. comfort] noise)
(Note: In paragraph [0077], Khalil also describes additional means by which a determination of the presence of background/comfort noise within signal frames are found [i.e. frame signal analysis, frame feature extraction, embedded side information in the form of side-information or packet frame metadata, rate at which packets are received, packet size of frame and/or frame categorization [i.e. speech frame or background noise frame]. The combination of prior art [Arora, Sharma and Khalil] is found to teach the recited steps of expanding, analyzing and replacing recited in the claimed language)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Khalil to embed cryptographic keys and other low-bandwidth metadata into RTP headers or payloads to help traverse network firewalls and network address translators unobtrusively acting as out-of-band data transport using standard VoIP channels.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Khalil teaches after replacing with the embedded at least one third packet, expanding, by the computing system, the embedded at least one third packet and adjacent packets to produce expanded sound data; comparing, by the computing system, the expanded sound data with corresponding CNG sound data; based on a determination that there is a mismatch between the expanded sound data and the corresponding CNG sound data, performing the following: analyzing, by the computing system, the expanded sound data to identify one or more other CNG noise data within the at least one CNG packet that can be replaced with the embedded at least one third packet without affecting the audible noise perceptible by the users; replacing, by the computing system, the embedded at least one third packet with at least one CNG noise data among the identified one or more other CNG noise data; and replacing, by the computing system, at least one other CNG noise data among the identified one or more other CNG noise data with the embedded at least one third packet as described in Claim 1.
(Note: Claim 5 differs from Claim 4 in that after embedding the metadata in the plurality of packets making up the audio of the VoIP call, a check is made to see if there is a discernable difference in volume between the expanded packed with the embedded metadata and the CNG noise level. If the volume is above the CNG noise data the the embedded data is removed and alternative metadata is utilized so that the volume of packeted with the embedded metadata does not noticeable exceed the volume associated with the CNG noise data)
(Note: In is found to be obvious to employ media-based piggybacking [i.e. embedding redundant copies of past speech frames into a current packet stream] as receiving these redundancies in adjacent noise packets helps the receiver seamlessly recover from packet loss or jitter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Khalil to embed cryptographic keys and other low-bandwidth metadata into RTP headers or payloads to help traverse network firewalls and network address translators unobtrusively acting as out-of-band data transport using standard VoIP channels.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Khalil teaches wherein the at least one first packet further comprises one or more blank data packets, wherein each blank data packet is a packet with a payload containing null data or blank data, wherein replacing the at least one first packet with the embedded at least one third packet comprises replacing, by the computing system, at least one blank data packet among the one or more blank data packets with the embedded at least one third packet as described in Claims 3 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Khalil to embed cryptographic keys and other low-bandwidth metadata into RTP headers or payloads to help traverse network firewalls and network address translators unobtrusively acting as out-of-band data transport using standard VoIP channels.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Khalil teaches a method as described in Claim 3. Khalil additionally teaches at least one first processor (Figure 1 – Reference 116; Page 2, Paragraph [0024]); and a first non-transitory computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer software comprising a first set of instructions (Figure 1 – Reference 118; Page 2, Paragraph [0024]; Page 6, Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Khalil to embed cryptographic keys and other low-bandwidth metadata into RTP headers or payloads to help traverse network firewalls and network address translators unobtrusively acting as out-of-band data transport using standard VoIP channels.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of El-Hennawey et al (2004/0071084 A1).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first data comprises quality of service ("QoS") metric data comprising at least one of latency, packet loss, jitter, delay, sound quality, or signal to noise levels. However, El-Hennawey teaches wherein the first data comprises quality of service ("QoS") metric data comprising at least one of latency, packet loss, jitter, delay, sound quality, or signal to noise levels (Page 6, Paragraphs [0057], [0058] and [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by El-Hennawey to verify whether unexpected audio artifacts result from transmission errors rather than the embedded metadata itself by tracking quality of service [QoS] parameters like packet loss and jitter.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilkinson et al (2011/0267985 A1).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first data comprises authentication data comprising at least one of call fingerprinting or watermarking data, caller fingerprinting or watermarking data, call device fingerprinting or watermarking data, or unique call identifier data. However, Wilkinson teaches wherein the first data comprises authentication data comprising at least one of call fingerprinting or watermarking data, caller fingerprinting or watermarking data, call device fingerprinting or watermarking data, or unique call identifier data (GUID: Page 7, Paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Wilkinson to ensure that if the meta data is altered, stripped or spoofed during transmission the GUID presented will not match the expected digital footprint flagging the audio stream as inauthentic or compromised.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Wilkinson teaches wherein the first data comprises attestation data comprising at least one of hardware attestation data associated with at least one user device among the two or more user devices, embedded attestation key, or software application ("app") -based authentication, wherein the hardware attestation data comprises at least one of an international mobile equipment identity ("IMEI") data, subscriber identity module ("SIM") card data, an integrated circuit card identification ("ICCID") number, an international mobile subscriber identity ("IMSI") number, mobile station integrated services digital network ("MSISDN") number, or device serial number (Page 16, Paragraph [0170]).
(Note: In paragraph [0170], Wilkinson describes a subscriber identity module [SIM] card as a removable or non-removable card that encrypts voice and data transmissions while storing user specific information allowing networks to identify and authenticate the user. SIM cards use symmetric keys [A pre-shared identical secret key – public/private key – stored on the SIM card and on the device service provider/telecom carrier] used to authenticate the user device/identity on the network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Wilkinson to ensure that if the meta data is altered, stripped or spoofed during transmission the GUID presented will not match the expected digital footprint flagging the audio stream as inauthentic or compromised.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Wilkinson teaches wherein the VoIP communication occurs over a network, wherein the first data further comprises a level of attestation as set by a telecommunications node in the network as described in Claim 11. (Note: As the private key uniquely belongs to the SIM owner, using it to sign data mathematically proves the authorized user initiated the request thereby preventing attackers from masquerading as the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Wilkinson to ensure that if the meta data is altered, stripped or spoofed during transmission the GUID presented will not match the expected digital footprint flagging the audio stream as inauthentic or compromised.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Wilkinson teaches wherein the attestation data is exchanged between the two or more user devices autonomously and unknowingly to participants of the VoIP communication. (Note: The attestation of identity between devices occurs without the communicating parties having to perform any action)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Wilkinson to ensure that if the meta data is altered, stripped or spoofed during transmission the GUID presented will not match the expected digital footprint flagging the audio stream as inauthentic or compromised.
As per Claim 14. the combination of Arora, Sharma and Wilkinson teaches wherein the first data comprises security information comprising at least one of encryption keys, public keys, or authentication tokens as described in Claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Wilkinson to ensure that if the meta data is altered, stripped or spoofed during transmission the GUID presented will not match the expected digital footprint flagging the audio stream as inauthentic or compromised.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JOLLY et al (2021/0105358 A1).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first data comprises authentication code associated with authentication of biometric data of a participant, wherein the biometric data comprises at least one of fingerprint data, voiceprint data, voiceprint detection data, iris scan data, or facial scan data. However, Jolly teaches wherein the biometric data comprises at least one of fingerprint data, voiceprint data, voiceprint detection data, iris scan data, or facial scan data (Page 3, Paragraphs [0019] and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Jolly to utilize context-aware authentication [e.g. matching the background acoustic environment or microphone proximity to a specific individual] making it more difficult for malicious actors to modify voice signatures without setting off anomaly alerts.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Smoyer et al (2009/0034510 A1).
As per Claim 15, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach intercepting, by the computing system, the VoIP communication based on law enforcement authorization, wherein the first data comprises law enforcement authorization data comprising at least one of information associated with requesting law enforcement officer, information associated with law enforcement department or agency, information associated with court authorization, information regarding chain of custody of the intercepted VoIP communication, or information regarding how to obtain law enforcement authorization data.
However, Smoyer teaches intercepting, by the computing system, the VoIP communication based on law enforcement authorization, wherein the first data comprises law enforcement authorization data comprising at least one of information associated with requesting law enforcement officer, information associated with law enforcement department or agency, information associated with court authorization, information regarding chain of custody of the intercepted VoIP communication, or information regarding how to obtain law enforcement authorization data (Figure 5 – Reference 504; Page 2, Paragraph [0029]; Page 3, Paragraph [0037]; Page 4, Paragraphs [0047], [0048], [0052] and [0059]).
(Note: In paragraph [0029], Smoyer describes the secure transmission of VoIP data of a lawfully intercepted VoIP call over a data network. In paragraph [0037], Smoyer describes characteristics of a VoIP call [e.g. caller/called party identification, duration of VoIP call, VoIP call origin, VoIP call location termination, etc.] that a law enforcement agency [LEA] wants to intercept. In paragraph [0047], Smoyer describes logic how VoIP call interceptions are prioritized – e.g. a county sheriff request having a lower priority than a request from the FBI [i.e. information associated with law enforcement department or agency])
(Note: In paragraph [0048], Smoyer describes the prioritizing and/or queueing of intercept requests – e.g. processing a request 30 seconds after the request is received or depending on the time the request is received, processing the request immediately [i.e. information regarding how to obtain law enforcement authorization data])
(Note: In paragraph [0052], Smoyer describes notifying multiple parties in response to an event using the example of a joint enforcement situation where the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms [ATF] and U.S. Customs are all notified. In paragraph [0059], Smoyer describes an organization specifying one or more individuals to be notified [i.e. field agent, supervisor, agency liaison], one or more contact methods and one or more encryptions to be used for these notifications [i.e. information associated with requesting law enforcement officer])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Smoyer to pool intercepted communications across multiple jurisdictions so that investigators can map the entirety of a criminal enterprise rather than just viewing isolated local operations.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora (2006/0143001 A1) in view of Sharma et al (5,944,843) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanjeev et al (2011/0070898 A1).
As per Claim 16, the combination of Arora and Sharma teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first data comprises encrypted control commands, wherein the encrypted control commands, when decrypted and activated by an authorized entity, cause remote control of monitoring equipment within one or more devices within range of at least one of the two or more user devices, wherein the monitoring equipment comprises at least one of one or more audio recording devices, one or more image capture devices, or one or more video recording devices.
However, Sanjeev teaches encrypted control commands, wherein the encrypted control commands, when decrypted and activated by an authorized entity, cause remote control of monitoring equipment within one or more devices within range of at least one of the two or more user devices, wherein the monitoring equipment comprises at least one of one or more audio recording devices, one or more image capture devices, or one or more video recording devices (Page 2, Paragraph [0018] and [0022]; Page 10, Paragraph [0067]; Page 12, Paragraphs [0083] – [0085]).
(Note: In paragraph [0018], Sanjeev describes subscribers/users [i.e. authorized entity] remotely activating at least one application [e.g. microphone, camera, etc.] on a device to locate and/or control the device. In paragraph [0022], Sanjeev describes control signals used to remotely activate application programming interfaces [APIs] to control, configure, monitor or track devices in response to a request to control, configure, monitor or track a specific device)
(Note: In paragraph [0067], Sanjeev describes providing features [e.g. Locate Device, Record Audio, Record Video and Usage Log]. In paragraphs [0083] – [0085], Sanjeev describes a process for providing tracking information to an administrative agency [i.e. law enforcement agency]. It is found to be obvious that the control commands would be encrypted as a primary goal of law enforcement/monitoring criminal activity is to gain evidence without alerting the suspect that they are being monitored so they continue committing the illegal activity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Sanjeev to bypass encryption and collect real-time intelligence directly from the source; thereby enabling authorities to monitor encrypted communications, activate microphones or cameras for remote service and precisely track location in high-stakes investigations.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Arora, Sharma and Sanjeev teaches wherein the first data comprises at least one of chat messages, email messages, log data, or file transfer data, wherein file transfer data comprises at least one of text data, image data, video data, audio data, or multimedia data (Sanjeev: Page 11, Paragraph [0075]). (Note: In paragraph [0075], Sanjeev describes recording audio and video. In paragraph [0075], Sanjeev describes obtaining usage logs [i.e. log data], SMS messages, MMS messages, image data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Arora and Sharma with the method taught by Sanjeev to bypass encryption and collect real-time intelligence directly from the source; thereby enabling authorities to monitor encrypted communications, activate microphones or cameras for remote service and precisely track location in high-stakes investigations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chandra et al (2007/0121604 A1), Ray et al (2009/0225655 A1), Gournay et al (2006/0293885 A1), Wildfeuer et al (2009/0259462 A1), Reddappagari et al (2016/0164937 A1), Mani et al (2016/0133264 A1) and Khatter (2006/0088065 A1). Each of these describes system and methods of generating comfort noise in VoIP communication environments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights