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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roundy et al. (US Patent 10,455,085).
Regarding claim 1, Roundy discloses a method comprising:
establishing, by one or more processors of a computing device, a call between the computing device and a caller (col. 2, lines 17-33);
determining, by the one or more processors of the computing device, whether a user of the computing device configured the computing device to analyze call data from the call (col. 7, lines 8-23);
responsive to determining that the user configured the computing device to analyze the call data from the call:
while the call is ongoing, analyzing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, the call data from the call (col. 1, lines 44-54; col. 8, lines 10-25);
determining, by the one or more processors of the computing device and based at least in part on contextual information associated with the call, whether the call satisfies a scam call threshold (col. 7, lines 62-col. 8, line 4; col. 8, lines 19-35; col. 8, lines 36-46); and
responsive to determining that the call satisfies the scam call threshold, outputting, by the one or more processors, an alert indicating the call with the caller is a scam call (col. 7, 34-44; col. 2, lines 24-29); and
responsive to receiving user input to end the call, terminating, by the one or more processors, the call with the caller (col. 9, lines 21-26; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Roundy discloses further comprising:
prior to establishing the call between the computing device and the caller, receiving, by the one or more processors, user permission authorizing the computing device to analyze the call data of subsequent calls received by the computing device (col. 7, lines 8-23); and
responsive to receiving the user permission authorizing the computing device to analyze the call data of calls received by the computing device, configuring, by the one or more processors, the computing device to analyze the call data of the subsequent calls received by the computing device (col. 7, lines 8-23).
Regarding claim 3, Roundy discloses further comprising:
while the call is ongoing, determining, by the one or more processors of the computing device, the contextual information associated with the call based at least in part on analyzing the call data from the call (col. 7, lines 62-col. 8, line 4; col. 8, lines 19-35);
wherein the contextual information determined in association with the call includes at least one of:
spoken words detected within the call data from the call (col. 7, lines 62-col. 8, line 4);
spoken phrases detected within the call data from the call;
caller sentiment detected from sentiment analysis on the call data from the call;
callee sentiment detected from the sentiment analysis on the call data from the call (col. 8, lines 19-35);
a topic of discussion detected within the call data from the call; and
a subject matter category detected within the call data from the call.
Regarding claim 11 and 16, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12 and 17, see rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13 and 18, see rejection of claim 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.
Claims 4, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roundy et al. (US Patent 10,455,085) in view of Pandita et al. (US Patent 12,493,748).
Regarding claim 4, Roundy discloses further comprising:
evaluating, by the one or more processors the call data of the call to determine the contextual information (col. 7, lines 1 – col. 8, line 4); and
wherein evaluating the call data of the call to determine the contextual information comprises evaluating at least one of:
audio data exchanged between the caller and the computing device during a phone call (col. 7, lines 1 – col. 8, line 4);
the audio data, video data, image data, chat data, file attachments, or some combination thereof exchanged between the caller and the computing device during a video call; and
the audio data, the video data, the image data, the chat data, the file attachments, or some combination thereof exchanged between the caller and the computing device during a chat session.
Roundy does not disclose executing, by the one or more processors, an on-device large language model; evaluating, using the on-device large language model.
Pandita disclose executing, by the one or more processors, an on-device large language model (col. 6, lines 60-67); evaluating, using the on-device large language model (col. 5, lines 10-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roundy with the teachings of Pandita in order to mitigating risks associated with sending sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information to cloud servers.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, see rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roundy et al. (US Patent 10,455,085) in view of Vargas et al. (US Patent 11,394,831).
Regarding claim 5, Roundy discloses terminating the call with the caller (see fig. 4).
Roundy does not disclose subsequent to terminating the call with the caller, requesting, by the one or more processors, user feedback about the call with the caller;
in response to requesting the user feedback about the call with the caller, obtaining, by the one or more processors, the user feedback; and
updating, by the one or more processors, an on-device AI model using the user feedback about the call with the caller.
Vargas discloses subsequent to terminating the call with the caller, requesting, by the one or more processors, user feedback about the call with the caller (col. 16, lines 34-39);
in response to requesting the user feedback about the call with the caller, obtaining, by the one or more processors, the user feedback (col. 16, lines 39-55); and
updating, by the one or more processors, an on-device AI model using the user feedback about the call with the caller. (col. 16, lines 39-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roundy with the teachings of Vargas in order to continuously improve the model based on the feedback.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roundy et al. (US Patent 10,455,085) in view of Barber et al. (US Patent 12,190,877).
Regarding claim 7, Roundy discloses further comprising:
executing, by the one or more processors, an natural language processing model via the computing device (col. 7, lines 29-44);
increasing, by the one or more processors and using the natural language processing model, a confidence value indicative of the call data from the call satisfying the scam call threshold based on one or more matching conditions detected by the on-device natural language processing model (col. 7, 34-44; col. 2, lines 24-29), wherein the one or more matching conditions include one or more of:
a keyword match between one or more words of a keyword list and any human language utterances within the call data detected by the on-device natural language processing model (col. 7, lines 62-col. 8, line 4);
a phrase match with one or more phrases of a phrase list and any of the human language utterances detected within the call data by the on-device natural language processing model;
a caller sentiment match between one or more sentiment classifications on a sentiment watch list and a sentiment assessment by the on-device natural language processing model based on the call data (col. 8, lines 19-35); and
a subject matter match between one or more subject matter categories on a subject matter watch list and a subject matter categorization assessed by the on-device natural language processing model based on the call data.
Roundy does not disclose executing, by the one or more processors, an on-device natural language processing model and using the on device natural language processing model.
Barber discloses an on-device natural language processing model and using the on device natural language processing model (fig. 7 and col. 20, lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roundy with the teachings of Pandita in order to mitigating risks associated with sending sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information to cloud servers.
Regarding claim 8, Roundy discloses further comprising:
executing, by the one or more processors, an natural language processing model via the computing device (col. 7, lines 29-44);
determining, by the one or more processors using the natural language processing model, the call data from the call satisfies the scam call threshold (col. 7, lines 62-col. 8, line 4; col. 8, lines 19-35; col. 8, lines 36-46) when the natural language processing model specifies at least one of:
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by a caller to defraud a callee (col. 7, lines 50-col. 8, lines 34);
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include illegal statements by the caller to the callee (col. 7, lines 50-col. 8, lines 34);
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to extort money from the callee (col. 7, lines 50-col. 8, lines 34);
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to disclose authentication information from the callee;
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to impersonate a governmental entity;
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to impersonate a law enforcement entity;
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to impersonate technical support agency;
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to impersonate a bank associated with the callee; and
the call data from the call with the caller is evaluated to include an attempt by the caller to impersonate an e-commerce platform customer support representative.
Roundy does not disclose executing, by the one or more processors, an on-device natural language processing model and using the on device natural language processing model.
Barber discloses an on-device natural language processing model and using the on device natural language processing model (fig. 7 and col. 20, lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roundy with the teachings of Pandita in order to mitigating risks associated with sending sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information to cloud servers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-10, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693