DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0195017 A1; hereinafter Hochberg) in view of Marchand et al (Patent No.: US 6,947,532 B1; hereinafter Marchand)
Consider claims 1, 11, and 21, Hochberg clearly shows and discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a system, and a method for processing a call data record (CDR) in a communication network, network, wherein the CDR is associated with a subscriber, the method comprising: receiving a rejected CDR, wherein the rejected CDR is a CDR that has been rejected (At S640 a signed CDR is received by the intermediary Telco node from either the origin Telco node or the Target Telco node. At S650 it is checked whether the corresponding CDR was found and validated by the intermediary Telco node, i.e., if the call has actually passed through the intermediary Telco node and if so execution continues with S660; otherwise, execution terminates as this has no relevancy to the intermediary Telco node (read on rejected CDR)., At S540 it is checked whether a response was received) (paragraphs: 0068 and fig. 6, label S650 “no validated CDR”, go to “A” in fig. 5 label S540); determining if a characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold (At S570 it is checked whether the response that was received is a valid response, for example, by checking that it came from a valid source that appropriately signed the CDR and if so execution continues with S580) (paragraphs: 0063, and fig. 5, label S570); performing a validation of the rejected CDR in response to determining that the characteristic feature satisfies the validation criterion (At S580 it is checked whether the CDRs received from the target Telco node and generated by the origin Telco node essentially match) (paragraphs: 0064 and fig. 5, label S580); and if the validation of the rejected CDR is negative, not allowing the subscriber to continue to access the communication network (execution continues with S560 where a fraud flag is sent indicating that a time discrepancy was found between the CDRs, the flag further includes the indication of the time mismatch, real-time detection of call fraud at the target Telco node) (paragraphs: 0064 and fig. 5, label S560/B); otherwise continuing to allow the subscriber to access the communication network ( At S580 it is checked whether the CDRs received from the target Telco node and generated by the origin Telco node essentially match and if so execution terminates as no fraud has been detected) (paragraphs: 0064, 0072, fig. 5 and fig. 7; and claims 1-4); however, Hochberg does not disclose removing access of a subscriber associated with the CDR and .
In the same field of endeavor, Marchand clearly specifically receiving a rejected CDR (The processor 124a looks up a threshold number and a time interval using the identification code for the originating ANI (step 202). This represents the threshold number of different billing numbers used for calls over the time interval that indicates a fraudulent calling pattern for the type of originating ANI) (fig. 3, labels: 200-204) removing access of a subscriber associated with the CDR (if a fraud alert is generated in step 208, fraud prevention processing is initiated in step 212. The processing related to fraud prevention may include sending the calling data for the originating ANI to a fraud analyst for further consideration. The fraud analyst may determine whether to block or intercept future calls from the originating ANI. Alternatively, further special services calls from the originating ANI may be immediately blocked. Blocking calls from the originating ANI may be accomplished by storing the originating ANI in a blocking database) (fig. 3, labels: 208-212 and col. 8, lines 1-15, and 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Marchand into teaching of Hochberg for the purpose of blocking any future calls/ removing access of a subscriber/user after generating a fraud alert.
Consider claims 2 and 12, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein performing the validation of the rejected CDR comprises determining whether a whether the subscriber or a service described in the rejected CDR is authorized by a customer care and billing platform (CC&B) (CC&B) (Marchand: col. 8, lines 15-35; and fig. 3, labels: 202-206; Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 3 and 13, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein not allowing the subscriber to continue to access the communication network comprises transmitting to a node in the communication network a provisioning message including instructions to deactivate the subscriber (Marchand: col. 8, lines 1-15, and 40-45 and Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 4 and 14, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein determining that the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR satisfies the validation criterion comprises determining whether the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold, and not allowing the subscriber to access the communication network comprises further comprises resetting the threshold (Marchand: col. 10, labels: 1-16; Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 5, and 15, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein the validation of the rejected CDR is positive, and continuing to allow the subscriber to access the communication network comprises storing the positive validation result and performing a validation on the determination of a subsequent rejected CDR provided a second threshold is exceeded (Marchand: col. 8, labels: 38-58; Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 6, and 16, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein determining that the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR satisfies the validation criterion comprises determining whether the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold, and the characteristic feature is an amount of time that has elapsed since the first threshold was last reset (Marchand: col. 10, lines 1-25; Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 7, and 17, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein determining that the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR satisfies the validation criterion comprises determining whether the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold, and the characteristic feature is an amount of data used by the subscriber since the first threshold was last reset (Marchand: col. 10, lines 1-25; Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 8, and 18, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein the first threshold can vary between subscribers t (Marchand: col. 10, lines 1-25).
Consider claims 9 and 19, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein determining that the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR satisfies the validation criterion comprises determining whether the characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold, and when the first threshold is not exceeded, the subscriber maintains access to the communication network (Hochberg: fig. 5 and fig. 7; Marchand: fig. 3).
Consider claims 10 and 20, Hochberg and Marchand clearly show the method, and the system, wherein the CDR is associated with a postpaid activity (Marchand: col. 3, lines 22-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 26 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.
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 24, 2025. Applicants amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 1-21 and 26 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that Hochberg and Marchand failed to teach the limitation " receiving a rejected CDR, wherein the rejected CDR is a CDR that has been rejected; determining if a characteristic feature of the rejected CDR satisfies a validation criterion.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments, Hochberg teaches the generating, by the origin node, a first secure CDR that contains the first CDR; sending, by the origin node, the first secure CDR to the target node; and generating, by the origin node, a fraud notification (rejected CDR ) based on a second secure CDR received from a first node and the first secure CDR (paragraph 0012). receiving, by the target node, a first secure CDR that contains the first CDR; and generating, by the target node, a fraud notification when the first secure CDR is determined to be invalid (paragraph 0013). At S640 a signed CDR is received by the intermediary Telco node from either the origin Telco node or the Target Telco node. At S650 it is checked whether the corresponding CDR was found and validated by the intermediary Telco node, i.e., if the call has actually passed through the intermediary Telco node and if so execution continues with S660; otherwise, execution terminates as this has no relevancy to the intermediary Telco node (read on rejected CDR)., At S540 it is checked whether a response was received) (paragraphs: 0068 and fig. 6, label S650 “no validated CDR”, go to “A” in fig. 5 label S540). Hochberg teaches determining if a characteristic feature of the rejected CDR exceeds a first threshold (At S570 it is checked whether the response that was received is a valid response, for example, by checking that it came from a valid source that appropriately signed the CDR and if so execution continues with S580) (paragraphs: 0063, and fig. 5, label S570). As a result, Hochberg and Marchand teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 11, and 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights