DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/726,220 filed on July 2, 2024, as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/IB2023/050012. The preliminary amendment filed July 2, 2024, has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/IB2023/050012, filed on January 2, 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on Indian application Ser. No. 202211000188 filed on January 3, 2022. Receipt of the certified copy of the Indian application on January 16, 2025, is hereby acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 17, 2020. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 19, 2024, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 3, the term “a communication origination categorization decision” recited in line 6 should be “the communication origination categorization decision”; and
regarding Claim 11, the term “a communication origination categorization decision” recited in line 6 should be “the communication origination categorization decision.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein generating the communication origination categorization prediction is also based on the identified application user feedback information” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the communication origination categorization prediction” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the communication origination categorization prediction” recited in line 2 of Claim 2 is interpreted as “the communication origination categorization decision”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein generating the communication origination categorization prediction comprises:” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the communication origination categorization prediction” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the communication origination categorization prediction” recited in line 2 of Claim 3 is interpreted as “the communication origination categorization decision”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second telephony device is a communication device having one or both of voice calling based communication capability, text message based communication capability, and data network based communication capability” in lines 5-7. It is unclear which of “voice calling based communication capability, text message based communication capability, and data network based communication capability” the word “both” is referencing, rendering the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, the clause “one or both of voice calling based communication capability, text message based communication capability, and data network based communication capability (emphasis added)” is interpreted as “one or both of voice calling based communication capability and text message based communication capability, as well as data network based communication capability”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the calling behaviour information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server, and the calling behaviour information comprises information corresponding to one or more of...” in lines 1-26. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 requires only one of calling behaviour information and messaging behaviour information to be identified and utilized in generating a communication origination categorization decision. As currently worded, it is unclear whether Claim 6 requires the server to perform a step of retrieving the calling behaviour information from a database or merely further defines the calling behavior information, which is an optional feature per Claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, Claim 6 is interpreted as requiring the server to perform a step of retrieving the calling behavior information from a database.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the messaging behaviour information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server, and the messaging behaviour information comprises information corresponding to one or more of...” in lines 1-26. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 requires only one of calling behaviour information and messaging behaviour information to be identified and utilized in generating a communication origination categorization decision. As currently worded, it is unclear whether Claim 7 requires the server to perform a step of retrieving the messaging behaviour information from a database or merely further defines the messaging behavior information, which is an optional feature per Claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, Claim 7 is interpreted as requiring the server to perform a step of retrieving the messaging behavior information from a database.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 2.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Additionally, Claim 11 recites the limitation “The method as claimed in claim 1” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The method as claimed in claim 1” in the claims as Claim 1 is directed towards a server (i.e., a machine or apparatus).
For examination purposes, Claim 11 is interpreted as depending from Claim 9.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “The method as claimed in claim 1” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The method as claimed in claim 1” in the claims as Claim 1 is directed towards a server (i.e., a machine or apparatus).
For examination purposes, Claim 16 is interpreted as depending from Claim 9.
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 1-6, 8-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivi et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0294478 A1, hereby “Trivi”, in view of Dutkevic et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0288221 A1, hereby “Dutkevic”.
Regarding Claim 1, Trivi discloses “A communication origination categorization server configured for generating communication origination categorization decisions corresponding to one or more telephony devices (Trivi fig. 11 and paragraphs 1 and 124: spam-classification server system 1108 for performing telephone caller classification), the server comprising:
a memory (Trivi fig. 12 and paragraphs 136-139: memory 1204, storage device 1206);
a network transceiver (Trivi fig. 12 and paragraph 140: low-speed expansion port 1214, which may be a wired or wireless network adapter); and
a processor (Trivi fig. 12 and paragraphs 136-139: processor 1202) configured to implement the steps of:
identifying a number for a communication origination categorization decision, wherein the identified number is associated with a first telephony device that has initiated a communication with a second telephony device (Trivi figs. 5 and 11 and paragraphs 78-79 and 124-126: server system 1108 receives a request to determine whether the telephone number of telephone 1110 is a spam telephone number from mobile telephone 1112);
identifying application user feedback information associated with the identified number (Trivi figs. 5, 7, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 73-76, 80, 95, 100-101 and 126: the telephone number of telephone 1110 is referenced against telephone numbers that have been identified as sources of spam by subscribers 1104 to the spam identification service);” and
“generating a communication origination categorization decision... (Trivi figs. 5, 7, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 80, 95, 100, 111-112 and 126-127: telephone spam determination unit 1118 of server system 1108 makes a determination that the telephone number of the calling device is a source of spam); and
transmitting to the second telephony device, the communication origination categorization decision (Trivi figs. 5 and 11 and paragraphs 81 and 127: server system 1108 transmits an indication that the telephone number is a source of spam to mobile telephone 1112).”
However, while Trivi discloses making a determination that the telephone number of the calling device is a source of spam based on feedback received from the community of mobile telephone users (Trivi paragraphs 80, 95, 100, 111-112 and 126-127), Trivi does not explicitly disclose “identifying at least one of calling behaviour information associated with the identified number and messaging behaviour information associated with the identified number;
generating a communication origination categorization decision based on at least one or both of the identified calling behaviour information and the identified messaging behaviour information (emphasis added)”.
In the same field of endeavor, Dutkevic discloses “identifying application user feedback information associated with the identified number (Dutkevic figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 22 and 26: classifier 204 of analytic engine obtains feedback information associated with the phone number from end users);
identifying at least one of calling behaviour information associated with the identified number and messaging behaviour information associated with the identified number (Dutkevic figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 21-22 and 27: classifier 204 of analytic engine determines caller behavior using aggregated call data associated with the phone number obtained from call log collector 202);
generating a communication origination categorization decision based on at least one or both of the identified calling behaviour information and the identified messaging behaviour information (Dutkevic figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 22 and 26-30: classifier 204 identifies the phone number as being associated with a spam caller based on the feedback information and the determined caller behavior)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the server of Trivi to make the determination that the phone number is a source of spam based on caller behavior as taught by Dutkevic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine making the determination that the phone number is a source of spam based on caller behavior to improve detection of a newly rising spammer telephone number (Dutkevic paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses “wherein generating the communication origination categorization prediction is also based on the identified application user feedback information (Trivi figs. 5, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 72, 80, 100, 111-112 and 126-127: telephone spam determination unit 1118 makes the determination that the telephone number is a source of spam based on classification of the telephone number as being associated with spam by subscribers 1104 to the spam identification service).”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses “wherein generating the communication origination categorization prediction comprises:” and
“generating a communication origination categorization decision based on the generated communication organization categorization prediction and one or more whitelists or blacklists (Trivi fig. 7 and paragraphs 91-95: the telephone number is flagged as spam based on the determination made based on the crowd-sourced classification and on a white list defined by the user of mobile telephone 1112).”
However, while Trivi discloses flagging the telephone number as spam based on a determination made based on classification of the telephone number as being associated with spam by the community of mobile telephone users and a white list defined by the user of the mobile telephone (Trivi paragraphs 91-95), Trivi does not explicitly disclose “generating a communication origination categorization prediction based on at least one or both of the identified calling behaviour information and the identified messaging behaviour information”.
In the same field of endeavor, Dutkevic discloses “generating a communication origination categorization prediction based on at least one or both of the identified calling behaviour information and the identified messaging behaviour information (Dutkevic figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 22 and 26-30: classifier 204 identifies the phone number as being associated with a spam caller based on the feedback information and the determined caller behavior).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the server of Trivi to make the determination that the phone number is a source of spam based on caller behavior as taught by Dutkevic for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses wherein “the first telephony device is a communication device having one or both of voice calling based communication capability and text message based communication capability (Trivi fig. 11 and paragraphs 124-125: calling device 1110 may be a computerized bulk dialing device capable of initiating telephone calls); and
the second telephony device is a communication device having one or both of voice calling based communication capability, text message based communication capability, and data network based communication capability, wherein said second telephony device is configured for data network based communication with the communication origination categorization server (Trivi fig. 11 and paragraphs 124-127: mobile telephone 1112 is capable of receiving telephone calls and communicating with server system 1108).”
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses “wherein the application user feedback information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server (Trivi figs. 5, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 36, 72-76, 90, 100-101 and 130: the telephone number of calling device is referenced against telephone numbers that have been identified as sources of spam by subscribers 1104 to spam identification service stored in repository 1132 which is accessible to server system 1108), and the application user feedback information comprises information corresponding to one or more of:
a number of requests that have been received over a defined period for blocking the first telephony device or for blocking a number associated with the first telephony device, wherein said requests have been received from communication devices that implement instances of a software application configured to communicate with the communication origination categorization server (Trivi figs. 5, 6, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 36-38, 55, 72-76, 88-90 and 100-101: the spam identification service maintains a statistical dataset that includes the number of times each telephone number was classified as spam by subscribers to the spam identification service, said classification as spam resulting in blocking of telephone calls received from the telephone number [see Fig. 6 steps 608 and 610], wherein subscribers have downloaded and installed an application that enables communication with the spam identification service – while not explicitly stated, it is understood that the statistical dataset would comprise the number of times each telephone number was classified as spam since the creation of the dataset, which constitutes “a defined period” in accordance with paragraph [0054] of the specification)”.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Dutkevic discloses “wherein the calling behaviour information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server (Dutkevic fig. 2 and paragraphs 20-22: classifier 204 obtains the aggregated call data associated with the phone number from call log collector 202), and the calling behaviour information comprises information corresponding to one or more of:
call duration information for outgoing calls from the first telephony device (Dutkevic paragraph 21: aggregated call data associated with the phone number includes call duration of calls made by the phone number)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the server of Trivi to make the determination that the phone number is a source of spam based on caller behavior as taught by Dutkevic for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed towards a communication origination categorization server. The combination of Trivi and Dutkevic anticipate the limitations of Claim 8 as functions “the second telephony device is configured for” are outside the scope of “the communication origination categorization server” of Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses “A method for generating communication origination categorization decisions corresponding to one or more telephony devices, comprising implementing at a communication origination categorization server... (Trivi figs. 5 and 11 and paragraphs 1, 72 and 124: a method for performing telephone caller classification implemented by spam-classification server system 1108)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 2.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 9 is directed towards a method for generating communication origination categorization decisions implemented at a communication origination categorization server. The combination of Trivi and Dutkevic anticipate the limitations of Claim 16 as functions “the second telephony device is configured for” are outside the scope of the method implemented by “a communication origination categorization server” of Claim 9.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Trivi discloses “A computer program product for generating communication origination categorization decisions corresponding to one or more telephony devices, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program code comprises instructions for implementing within a processor based computing system... (Trivi fig. 5 and paragraphs 1, 72, 136 and 139: a computer program product comprising a machine-readable medium storing instructions for performing telephone caller classification)”.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic in view of Bobotek, Pub. No. US 2012/0030293 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Trivi suggests that the spam-classification server system may be applied to classification of sources of text message spamming (Trivi paragraph 132), and Dutkevic discloses obtaining aggregated call data associated with the phone number from a call log collector (Dutkevic paragraphs 20-22), the combination of Trivi and Dutkevic does not explicitly disclose “wherein the messaging behaviour information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server, and the messaging behaviour information comprises information corresponding to one or more of...”.
In the same field of endeavor, Bobotek discloses “wherein the messaging behaviour information is retrieved from a database communicably coupled with the communication origination categorization server (Bobotek fig. 2 and paragraphs 108, 117 and 167: message abuse detector component (MADC) 206 accesses information related to mobile messaging associated with an originating address, i.e., messaging behaviour information, from repository 226), and the messaging behaviour information comprises information corresponding to one or more of:
whether the identified number associated with the first telephony device is a short code based number... (Bobotek fig. 2 and paragraphs 108, 113, 131 and 167: information related to mobile messaging associated with an originating address can identify whether the originating address is a short code address, i.e., a 5-number originating address)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the server of Trivi, as modified by Dutkevic, to retrieve information related to mobile messaging associated with the telephone number from a database as taught by Bobotek because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (retrieving mobile messaging information associated with an originating address) to known devices and/or methods (a spam-classification server system) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (making the determination that the telephone number is a source of spam based in part on the mobile messaging information associated with the telephone number). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Edwards et al., Pub. No. US 2014/0128047 A1, discloses systems and techniques for categorizing undesired phone calls and text messages using category information associated with the phone number based in part through crowd-sourcing;
Jabeur Ben Chikha et al., the paper titled “Behavior-based approach to detect spam over IP telephony attacks”, discloses methods for detecting SPIT using a behavior-based approach;
Mathieu et al., the paper titled “SDRS: A Voice-over-IP Spam Detection and Reaction System”, discloses systems and methods for identifying SPIT by combining blacklists and white lists with analysis of caller behavior;
Murynets et al., Pub. No. US 2014/0004892 A1, discloses a method and apparatus for identifying a potential source of SMS spam using information indicative of call and messaging activity obtained from both voice call and SMS CDRs; and
Yun et al., Pub. No. US 2020/0382638 A1, discloses a spam blocking method using call pattern data of an originator of the call.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449