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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9-9-2024 and 6-2-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is acknowledged by the examiner.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over: claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 of US Patent No. 12,028,481.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited patent(s) mentioned above disclose: ‘… determining that a first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than a second phone number; determining that the first phone number and the second phone number are available to assign to new computing devices; and based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second telephone number, assigning the first phone number to a first computing device that does not generate a notification in response to receiving a telephone call...’ along with the other limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 in the instant application.
Allowed claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 cited below in US Patent No. 12,028,481 disclose the claimed invention in the pending claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by a computing device, that a first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than a second phone number; determining, by a computing device, that the first phone number and the second phone number are available to assign to new computing devices; based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the second phone number to a first computing device; and a period of time after assigning the second phone number to the first computing device and based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the first phone number to a second computing device.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than the second phone number comprises: determining that of telephone calls received by the first phone number, a first percentage of the telephone calls received by the first phone number are spam; determining that of telephone calls received by the second phone number, a second percentage of the telephone calls received by the second phone number are spam; and determining that the first percentage is greater than the second percentage.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device is an internet of things device.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, comprising: determining the period of time based on a number of spam telephone calls received by the first phone number and the second phone number.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, comprising: determining first characteristics of the first computing device; and determining second characteristics of the second computing device, wherein assigning the second phone number to a first computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics, and wherein assigning the first phone number to a second computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics.
Claim 8: A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory including a plurality of computer-executable components that are executable by the one or more processors to perform a plurality of actions, the plurality of acts comprising: determining, by a computing device, that a first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than a second phone number; determining, by a computing device, that the first phone number and the second phone number are available to assign to new computing devices; based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the second phone number to a first computing device; and a period of time after assigning the second phone number to the first computing device and based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the first phone number to a second computing device.
Claim 9: The system of claim 8, wherein determining that the first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than the second phone number comprises: determining that of telephone calls received by the first phone number, a first percentage of the telephone calls received by the first phone number are spam; determining that of telephone calls received by the second phone number, a second percentage of the telephone calls received by the second phone number are spam; and determining that the first percentage is greater than the second percentage.
Claim 10: The system of claim 8, wherein the first computing device is an internet of things device.
Claim 12: The system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of acts comprise: determining the period of time based on a number of spam telephone calls received by the first phone number and the second phone number.
Claim 13: The system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of acts comprise: determining first characteristics of the first computing device; and determining second characteristics of the second computing device, wherein assigning the second phone number to a first computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics, and wherein assigning the first phone number to a second computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics.
Claim 15: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media of a computing device storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more computers to perform acts comprising: determining, by a computing device, that a first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than a second phone number; determining, by a computing device, that the first phone number and the second phone number are available to assign to new computing devices; based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the second phone number to a first computing device; and a period of time after assigning the second phone number to the first computing device and based on the first phone number receiving more spam telephone calls than the second phone number, assigning, by a computing device, the first phone number to a second computing device.
Claim 16: The media of claim 15, wherein determining that the first phone number receives more spam telephone calls than the second phone number comprises: determining that of telephone calls received by the first phone number, a first percentage of the telephone calls received by the first phone number are spam; determining that of telephone calls received by the second phone number, a second percentage of the telephone calls received by the second phone number are spam; and determining that the first percentage is greater than the second percentage.
Claim 18: The media of claim 15, wherein the acts comprise: determining the period of time based on a number of spam telephone calls received by the first phone number and the second phone number.
Claim 19: The media of claim 15, wherein the acts comprise: determining first characteristics of the first computing device; and determining second characteristics of the second computing device, wherein assigning the second phone number to a first computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics, and wherein assigning the first phone number to a second computing device is further based on the first characteristics and the second characteristics.
For these reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected. Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1. Claims 10-16 depend on claim 9. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LISA HASHEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692