DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1).
For claims 1, 16, and 19, Cook discloses a device (900), comprising: a processing system including a processor (910); and a memory (935) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a selection criteria for calls originating from a telephone number (steps 305/405/605/205) [0079, 0076, 0082, 0098];
storing the selection criteria and an association with the telephone number as a selection criteria record in a do not originate (DNO) database (steps 814-840, 670) [0052, 0068, 0102, 0114, 0118],
detecting a call having a caller identification matching the telephone number (steps 210/310) [0065, 0117, 0071, 0079];
determining that the call does not meet the selection criteria (steps 220/310-340) [0072, 0079-81]; and
blocking the call responsive to the determining (215/270) [0076, 0110, 0071].
But Cook doesn’t expliciltyt teach wherein the DNO database specifies blocking the calls having a caller identification matching the telephone number, except when the calls meet the selection criteria;
However, Gupta discloses wherein the DNO database specifies blocking the calls having a caller identification matching the telephone number, except when the calls meet the selection criteria (enterprise/source numbers are stored in a block list; the authentication server holds number-associated call data; advance authenticated notice causes temporary removal, while the number otherwise remains blocked; the block list may be carrier-maintained; Figs. 1A, 2 steps 202–212, 3A–3C showing block list 316 and ANI-X “data associated with the phone number”) [0019–0023, 0025–0026, 0031–0036, 0045–0047, and 0051–0052 ];
Gupta also discloses storing the selection criteria and an association with the telephone number as a selection criteria record in a do not originate (DNO) database (enterprise/source numbers are stored in a block list; the authentication server holds number-associated call data; advance authenticated notice causes temporary removal, while the number otherwise remains blocked; the block list may be carrier-maintained; Figs. 1A, 2 steps 202–212, 3A–3C showing block list 316 and ANI-X “data associated with the phone number”) [0019–0023, 0025–0026, 0031–0036, 0045–0047, and 0051–0052 ].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook with Gupta to avoid unwanted calls, thus, improving network efficiency.
Claim 16 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (Fig. 9, 900),
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 19 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a processing system including a processor (Fig, 2-5, and 9, 900),
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 2, Cook discloses the selection criteria includes characteristics of an originating device associated with the telephone number [0079, 0076, 0082, 0098].
For claim 3, Cook discloses the device is within a communication network [0128, 0058-59].
For claim 4, Cook discloses the selection criteria includes that the call must originate in the communication network (e.g. local area network) [0128, 0058-59].
For claim 6, Cook discloses the selection criteria includes a time period in which the call may be originated (step 340) [0081, 0119].
For claim 8, Cook discloses the operations further comprise temporarily preventing the blocking (the options to add and remove restriction at will, for a period of time, e.g. step 315/425/520/822/826/830) [0014, 0115-117].
For claim 10, Cook discloses the selection criteria includes permitted recipient telephone numbers for the call [0071, 0076, 0082, 0098].
For claim 15, Cook discloses the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment [0032].
For claim 17, Cook discloses the operations further comprise determining that the call meets the selection criteria and allowing the call to proceed [0071, 0065, 0082, 0098].
For claim 20, Cook discloses determining, by the processing system, that the call meets the selection criteria and allowing, by the processing system, the call to proceed [0071, 0065, 0082, 0098].
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1) in further view of Prodanovic et al. (US Pub. 20220247859 A1).
For claim 5, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Prodanovic.
Prodanovic discloses selection criteria includes that the caller identification is signed with STIR/SHAKEN attestation level A [0007].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
For claim 18, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Cook further discloses the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment [0032].
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Prodanovic.
Prodanovic discloses the selection criteria includes that the caller identification is cryptographically signed with STIR/SHAKEN attestation level A [0007].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
For claim 7, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Prodanovic.
Prodanovic discloses the selection criteria includes that the call originates in a trusted carrier network [0032, 0022].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1) in further view of Hassan et al. (US Pub. 20190089750 A1).
For claim 9, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Hassan.
Hassan discloses the selection criteria includes that the call is billed below specified toll rates.
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Hassan to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1) in further view of Schultz et al. (US Pub. 20180139238 A1).
For claim 11, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Schultz.
Schultz discloses the selection criteria includes permitted geographic areas for a recipient device receiving the call (trusted locations) [0029, 0023, 0128, 0176].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Schultz to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
For claim 12, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Schultz.
Schultz discloses the selection criteria includes a one-time code [0122].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Schultz to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1) in further view of Merchant et al. (US Pub. 20230284016 A1).
For claim 13, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Merchant.
Merchant discloses the selection criteria is determined by an artificial intelligence that maximizes identification of spoof calls without disrupting legitimate calls [0077, 0039].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Merchant to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20190281158 A1) in further view of Davis et al. (US Pub. 20190238595 A1).
For claim 14, Cook, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Cook, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Davis.
Davis discloses the operations further comprise:
sharing the selection criteria with one or more other carrier networks [0014].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing identification schemes used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cook, as modified by Gupta, with Davis to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights