CTNF 18/770,208 CTNF 85647 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 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] ; 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] . 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 Prodanovic et al. (US Pub. 20220247859 A1) For claim 5, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability. For claim 18, Cook 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 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 with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability. For claim 7, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Prodanovic to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (US Pub. 20190089750 A1) . For claim 9, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Hassan to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability . 07-21-aia AIA 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 Schultz et al. (US Pub. 20180139238 A1) . For claim 11, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Schultz to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability. For claim 12, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Schultz to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Merchant et al. (US Pub. 20230284016 A1) . For claim 13, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. But Cook 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 with Merchant to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US Pub. 20150373193 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US Pub. 20190238595 A1) . For claim 14, Cook discloses all limitations this claim depended on. Cook further discloses storing the selection criteria associated with the telephone number (415) [0082]; and But Cook 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 with Davis to optimize security of the mobile network, thus, improving network reliability . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20130094637-A1; US-20160005087-A1; US-20230088868-A1 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 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 2 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 3 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 4 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 5 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 6 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 7 Art Unit: 2409 Application/Control Number: 18/770,208 Page 8 Art Unit: 2409
Prosecution Insights