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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, filed on 11/24/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 3-15 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it recite “…computer program comprising computer executable program code …”
The Examiner recommends an amendment to the claim/specification to recite, “…a non-transitory computer program…” 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. Appropriate corrections/rewording are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foti et al., (US 5,970,404), (hereinafter, Foti) in view of Houde et al., (US 5,978,678), (hereinafter, Houde) and further in view of Filart (US 2020/0053568), (hereinafter, Filart)
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Foti discloses a computer-implemented method/apparatus/program for automatically detecting a fraudulent call request
(= method of detecting and preventing fraudulent telephone call, see [abstract]) the method consisting of comprising:
receiving a call request from a caller device to initiate a voice call with a called device at a local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (= each of the mobile stations 11a and 11b is capable of initiating or receiving a telephone call through one or more of the base stations B1-B10 and the serving MSC 12 or MSC-L, see col. 4, lines 27-31; when a long distance phone call 16 is originated utilizing mobile station 11a, the MSC which handles that call sends reporting message 17 to the subscriber’s home HLR 14 and includes the called telephone number, see col. 5, lines 18-22; whereby the HLR is being associated with the “local PLMN” );
identifying the call request originating from a foreign country Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) based on the call request received from a roaming platform (= each of the mobile stations 11a and 11b is capable of initiating or receiving a telephone call through one or more of the base stations B1-B10 and the serving MSC 12 or MSC-L, see col. 4, lines 27-31; when a long distance phone call 16 is originated utilizing mobile station 11a, the MSC which handles that call sends reporting message 17 to the subscriber’s home HLR 14 and includes the called telephone number, see col. 5, lines 18-22; whereby the MSC is being associated with the “foreign PLMN”; and subscribers may roam from one location in the cell to another, see col. 4, lines 19-26);
in response to detecting that a caller ID of the caller device is associated to a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), requesting current location information from a database of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (= information exchanged between base stations and mobile stations via messages may include calling party numbers, see col. 4, lines 48-56; and address of the reporting message 17 indicates the mobile station’s location, see col. 5, lines 23-24),
wherein if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the foreign Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (= home HLR compares the location information from the reporting message 17 with information stored in the home HLR 14 regarding the location and status of the mobile station 11a; and location of mobile device 11b, see col. 5, lines 24-61).
Foti explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations:
“wherein the roaming platform is a network entity distinct from and arranged between the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) and the foreign country Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for handling international roaming signaling and routing” and
“wherein if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the foreign Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), determining the call request as authentic; and if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), determining the call request as fraud”.
However, Houde, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the roaming platform is a network entity distinct from and arranged between the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) and the foreign country Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for handling international roaming signaling and routing” (= an international gateway (IGW) 50 is used to connect at least one of the switching node 14 of the first country cellular network 12 with at least one of the switching nodes 34 of the second country cellular network 32, see col. 4, lines 3-6, col. 4, lines 43-52 and col. 5, lines 29-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Houde with Foti for the benefit of achieving a routing system that enables subscribers to engage international roaming.
The combination of Foti and Houde explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“wherein if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the foreign Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), determining the call request as authentic; and
if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), determining the call request as fraud”.
However, Filart, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“wherein if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the foreign Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (= a SIP server of an HPLMN may receive SIP INVITE message from an originating device to initiate a VOIP communication session with a recipient device, see [0047]), determining the call request as authentic (= identity verification component 214 may be configured to verify an identity of an origin network from which an originating device sent a call request/SIP INVITE, see [0032 and 0034]; a match would indicate that the originating device is located within the same PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN) from which the SIP INVITE message was sent, thus indicating that the identity of the originating device is likely reliable, see [0036]); and
if the location information indicates the caller device is attached to the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), determining the call request as fraud”(= in contrast, if the most recent instance of registration data indicates that the originating device is within a first PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN), and the origin network identified within the SIP INVITE message indicates that the originating device is within a second PLMN that is different from the first PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN), the mismatch may indicate that the identity of the originating device may be spoofed, and is likely unreliable, see [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Filart with Foti and Houde for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes spoofing mitigation module.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 1, Foti further discloses the method, , wherein the database of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) comprises a Home Location Register (HLR) (see, col. 2, lines 17-24).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 1, Foti further discloses the method, wherein the current location information is requested from a Home Location Register (HLR) of the caller device and the current location information comprises a Visitor Location Register (VLR) of the caller device (see, col. 5, lines 11-17 and col. 5, lines 55-61).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 8, the combination of Foti and Houde explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein if the Visitor Location Register (VLR) is located in foreign country in view of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) , the call request is determined to be authentic; and if the Visitor Location Register (VLR) is located in same country in view of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), the call request is determined to be fraud.
However, Filart, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method, wherein if the Visitor Location Register (VLR) is located in foreign country in view of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) , the call request is determined to be authentic; and if the Visitor Location Register (VLR) is located in same country in view of the local Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), the call request is determined to be fraud (see, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Filart with Foti and Houde for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes spoofing mitigation module.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 1, Foti further discloses that the method, further comprising in response to determining the call request as authentic, connecting the voice call further to the called device (see, col. 9, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 1, Foti further discloses that the method, further comprising in response to determining the call request as fraud, preventing the voice call to the called device or connecting the voice call further to the called device with calling number presentation restriction on (see col. 7, lines 26-33 and col. 8, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 1, Foti further discloses that the method, further comprising in response to determining the call request as fraud, selecting at least one of the following: releasing the voice call with various release causes leading to different tones and/or announcements played to the calling device; connecting the voice call to automatic announcements played to the calling device; and connecting the voice call to with and endless ringing tone (see col. 7, lines 26-33 and col. 8, lines 39-44).
5. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foti, Houder and Filart in view of Maanoja (US 2005/0070296), (hereinafter, Maaoja).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 3, the combination of Foti, Houde and Filart explicitly fail to disclose the method, wherein the requesting current location comprises: triggering a CAMEL protocol AnyTimeInterrogation (ATI) query to the Home Location Register (HLR)
However, Maanoja, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method, wherein the requesting current location comprises: triggering a CAMEL protocol AnyTimeInterrogation (ATI) query to the Home Location Register (HLR)(see, [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Maanoja with Foti, Houde and Filart for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides the positions of fixed and wireless terminal.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 4, the combination of Foti, Houde and Filart explicitly fail to disclose that the method, further comprising: triggering the ATI query to other operator's HLRs, wherein the operator applies a proxy service via which the ATI query is routed, and the proxy service is configured to limit items allowed to be queried and results allowed to be returned.
However, Maanoja, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method, further comprising: triggering the ATI query to other operator's HLRs, wherein the operator applies a proxy service via which the ATI query is routed, and the proxy service is configured to limit items allowed to be queried and results allowed to be returned (see, [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Maanoja with Foti, Houde and Filart for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides the positions of fixed and wireless terminal.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 4, the combination of Foti, Houde and Filart explicitly fail to disclose that the method, further comprising: receiving, in response to the triggered query, an AnyTimeInterrogation (ATI) result configured to indicate a Visitor Location Register (VLR) of the caller device.
However, Maanoja, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method, further comprising: receiving, in response to the triggered query, an AnyTimeInterrogation (ATI) result configured to indicate a Visitor Location Register (VLR) of the caller device (see, [0016 and 0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Maanoja with Foti, Houde and Filart for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides the positions of fixed and wireless terminal.
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 4, the combination of Foti, Houde and Maanoja explicitly fail to disclose that the method, further comprising: receiving, in response to the triggered query, a failure code; and determining the call request to be authentic or fraud based on the failure code.
However, Filart, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method, further comprising: receiving, in response to the triggered query, a failure code; and determining the call request to be authentic or fraud based on the failure code
(= spoof-likelihood score, see [0039-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Filart with Foti, Houde and Maanoja for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes spoofing mitigation module.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foti, Houde and Filart in view of Cohen et al., (US 2017/0013122), (hereinafter, Cohen).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 1, the combination of Foti, Houde and Filart explicitly fail to disclose that the method, further comprising maintaining a list of individual numbers or number ranges indicating caller IDs from which calls requests are always allowed.
However, Cohen, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method, further comprising maintaining a list of individual numbers or number ranges indicating caller IDs from which calls requests are always allowed (see, [0020-21]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Cohen with Foti, Houde and Filart for the benefit of achieving a communication system that could filter wanted and unwanted calls.
CONCLUSION
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Youngs et al., Pinder (US 8,774,379) teaches incoming spoof call detection.
b. Koster (US 10,554,821) teaches identifying and processing neighbor spoofed telephone calls in a VOIP -based telecommunications network.
c. Reed et al., Pinder (US 5,566,234) teaches method for controlling fraudulent telephone calls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.