CTFR 18/883,355 CTFR 79796 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Response to Amendment This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 05/19/2026. Response to Arguments 07-38 AIA Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim s 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. 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, 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4-9, 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruchala et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0206747) in view of Chiller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,293) . Regarding claims 1 and 18, with respect to Figures 1-10, Gruchala teaches a computing system for protective telephone call screening protocols for a telecommunications network using source signaling, the system comprising: at least one processor (fig.10, item 1002; paragraphs 0025, 0091, 0092, 0096); a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (item 1002 in fig.10; paragraphs 0025, 0091, 0092, 0096); and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor (paragraphs 0025, 0091, 0092, 0096) to: receive a call screening subscription request to screen calls within the telecommunications network for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers (abstract; fig.1-5; paragraphs 0013, 0044, 0049, 0050, 0052, 0053); one or more computer-readable storage devices (paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0092, 0095, 0096, 0097); ascertain that a telephone call has been placed to contact at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers (fig.5, 6; paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0015, 0016, 0022, 0025, 0026, 0040-0047, 0052) (Note; in a business setting, the user or administrator's call screening preferences can be applied to all of the communication devices associated with the business organization, including telephones and computers (see paragraph 0015).); compare a transmitting source of a signal of the telephone call to stored data of fraud/unauthorized sources [i.e., potentially fraudulent sources] (fig.6; item 610; paragraphs 0016, 0026, 0049, 0050, 0055-0057, 0059, 0065, 0072, 0103); and based on the source of the telephone call matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the telephone call (abstract; fig.6, item 608; paragraphs 0016, 0026, 0055-0057, 0059, 0065, 0072, 0103). However, Gruchala does not specifically teach wherein the screening action for the telephone call comprises sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating that the telephone call is from a potentially fraudulent source based on an origination country of the potentially fraudulent source. Chiller teaches wherein the screening action for the telephone call comprises sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating that the telephone call is from a potentially fraudulent source based on an origination country of the potentially fraudulent source (abstract; fig.4-8, step 922 of fig.9; col.2, line 59-col.3, line 20, col.5, lines 15-22, col.6, line 49-col.7, line 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala to incorporate the feature of wherein the screening action for the telephone call comprises sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating that the telephone call is from a potentially fraudulent source based on an origination country of the potentially fraudulent source in Gruchala’s invention as taught by Chiller. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to conveniently prevent fraud call from a foreign country to the United States. Regarding claims 2 and 19, Gruchala teaches wherein the call screening subscription request is received from an entity and the plurality of recipient telephone numbers are assigned to personal devices of individuals associated with the entity, the personal devices being private to the individuals and not provided by the entity (paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016, 0022, 0025, 0026, 0040-0047) (Note; one subscriber may have multiple wireline telephones for which he has call screening in place, multiple wireless telephones with call screening, etc. Still further, each line entry 244 may include data defining the call screening to be put in place, such dates and times when calls should be screened. (paragraph 0026).). Regarding claims 4 and 20, Gruchala teaches wherein the stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources includes call metric data indicating a quantity of phone calls made from the potentially fraudulent sources within a predefined period of time (paragraphs 0014, 0026, 0044, 0049, 0050) (Note; The telephone number and other information can then be stored along with an indicator that signifies that calls to the telephone number from the specified originating device, on the specified date and during the specified time, should be screened (see paragraph 044).). Regarding claim 5, Gruchala teaches wherein the call screening subscription request is associated with a call screening subscription service that is provided as part of a subscription (paragraphs 0013, 0044, 0049, 0050, 0052, 0053). Regarding claim 6, Gruchala teaches wherein a quantity of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers is modifiable as part of the subscription (paragraph 0052). Regarding claim 7, Gruchala teaches wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to store the plurality of recipient telephone numbers to a screening database for monitoring incoming telephone calls (fig.5, 6; paragraphs 0007, 0025, 0050, 0056, 0076, 0080, 0092, 0096). Regarding claim 8, Gruchala teaches wherein the screening action blocks the telephone call from connecting to the at least one telephone number (paragraphs 0013, 0050, 0053, 0059, 0069). Regarding claim 9, Gruchala teaches wherein the screening action includes sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating the telephone call is from the potentially fraudulent source (paragraph 0016, 0044, 0051, 0052, 0103) (Note; the user or administrator may learn who was attempting to make unauthorized outgoing calls, as well as the frequency of such attempted unauthorized calls. (see paragraph 0016).). Regarding claim 11, Gruchala teaches wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to add [i.e., aggregate] the stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources to a centralized data source, the aggregating being based on similar attributes of the potentially fraudulent sources (fig.5; paragraphs 0052, 0092, 0096) (Note; At block 512, it is determined if there are more numbers to add to the call screening information. For example, the user may wish to have calls to a specified directory number screened from both a land line telephone and calls from a wireless telephone. In one example, a parent wishes to prevent a child making calls to a specified number from both the home land line telephone and from the child's personal wireless phone. If there are more originating numbers to add to the call screening information at block 512, at block 514, the user is prompted to enter the next number. The method loops through blocks 504, 506, 508 and 510 until the user indicates that all numbers from which outgoing calls should be blocked have been added . (see paragraph 0052).) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruchala et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0206747) in view of Chiller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,293) further in view of Wooldridge (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0300078) . Regarding claim 3, Gruchala in view of Chiller does not specifically teach wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices without a legal enforcement mechanism. Wooldridge teaches wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices without a legal enforcement mechanism (abstract; fig.8; paragraphs 0009, 0068, 0069, 0077, 0082, 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller to incorporate the feature of wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices without a legal enforcement mechanism in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention as taught by Wooldridge. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to prevent unauthorized access to private information . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruchala et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0206747) in view of Chiller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,293) further in view of YANG (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0066277) . Regarding claim 10, Gruchala teaches wherein the notification includes an advice [i.e., recommended action] that the call cannot be complete because of the user's call screening preferences (fig.5, 6; paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0073, 0077, 0078). However, Gruchala in view of Chiller does not specifically teach a recommended action to ignore the telephone call. YANG teaches a recommended action to ignore the telephone call (paragraph 0257). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller to incorporate the feature of a recommended action to ignore the telephone call in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention as taught by YANG. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to avoid a particular call conveniently . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruchala et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0206747) in view of Chiller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,293) further in view of CAVEN (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0391422) . Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 2. Furthermore, Gruchala in view of Chiller does not specifically teach transmitting a notification to a security risk system of an entity. CAVEN teaches transmitting a notification to a security risk system of an entity (paragraphs 0068, 0071). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller to incorporate the feature of transmitting a notification to a security risk system of an entity in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention as taught by CAVEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to prevent any type of fraud from occurring conveniently. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Regarding claim 15, Gruchala teaches wherein the call screening subscription request is associated with a call screening subscription service that is provided as part of a subscription paid by the entity (paragraphs 0013, 0044, 0049, 0050, 0052, 0053) (Note; any subscription must be paid by the entity to let it be used by its employee or users unless the subscription is free to use.). Regarding claim 16, Gruchala in view of Chiller does not specifically teach wherein the notification to the security risk system includes a risk score attributed to the telephone call. CAVEN teaches wherein the notification to the security risk system includes a determined security risk [i.e., risk score attributed] to the telephone call (paragraphs 0068, 0071). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller to incorporate the feature of transmitting a notification to a security risk system of an entity in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention as taught by CAVEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to perform remedial actions to prevent the bad actor from successfully completing the fraudulent act conveniently. Regarding claim 17, Gruchala in view of Chiller does not specifically teach wherein the risk score is associated with a mitigation triggering mechanism for contacting an individual to which the at least one telephone number is assigned. CAVEN teaches wherein the risk score is associated with a mitigation triggering mechanism for contacting an individual to which the at least one telephone number is assigned (paragraph 0068). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller to incorporate the feature of wherein the risk score is associated with a mitigation triggering mechanism for contacting an individual to which the at least one telephone number is assigned in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention as taught by CAVEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to prevent the bad actor from successfully completing the fraudulent act conveniently . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruchala et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0206747) in view of Chiller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,465,293) further in view of CAVEN (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0391422) further in view of Wooldridge (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0300078) . Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 2. However, Gruchala in view of Chiller further in view of CAVEN does not specifically teach wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices. Wooldridge teaches wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices (abstract; fig.8; paragraphs 0009, 0068, 0069, 0077, 0082, 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gruchala in view of Chiller further in view of CAVEN to incorporate the feature of wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices in Gruchala’s invention in view of Chiller’s invention further in view of CAVEN’s invention as taught by Wooldridge. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to prevent unauthorized access to private information. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. 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). /MD S ELAHEE/ MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 May 30, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 2 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 3 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 4 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 5 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 6 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 7 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 8 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 9 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/883,355 Page 10 Art Unit: 2694
Prosecution Insights