DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree.
Regarding claim 1, Bantukul discloses a computing system for short message service (SMS) firewall protection targeting SMS phishing attacks, the system comprising: at least one processor (not shown but inherent in all Servers such as the one disclosed in FIG.3: 132); a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory (not shown but inherent in all Servers such as the one disclosed in FIG.3: 132) device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
receive a message screening subscription request to screen SMS messages from potentially fraudulent sources to reduce SMS phishing attacks, ((FIG. 3), [0044], [0045], FIG. 1, “[…] Discrimination function 116 on the receiving LIM 102 examines the received message, identifies the message as an SCCP message, and distributes the SCCP message to an available SMS spam screening DSM processor module 106 residing in the STP/SG 100.[…] The SCCP message is next examined by SMS spam screening function 122 to determine whether the message is an SMS message and whether the message destined to a recipient (e.g., mobile subscriber) served by a carrier/network operator administering the spam screening service. […] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”);
ascertain that a message is being routed to at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers, ([0045] FIG. 1 “[…] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”).
However, Bantukul does not disclose the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers.
In the same field of endeavor, BERREY discloses the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers, ([0030] “A short message service (SMS) firewall 30 resides between the MCG 14 and the wireless carriers 28 to filter incoming messages. The SMS firewall 30 serves as a protection for all messages, incoming and outgoing, by checking each message against an active list of known wireless viruses”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) to include the (SMS) firewall 30, disclosed by BERREY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen the incoming and outgoing messages, BERREY, ([0030]).
However, Bantukul as modified by BERREY does not disclose compare, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; and based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the message.
In the same field of endeavor, Crabtree discloses compare, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; and based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the message, ([0088] “a firewall configured with a whitelist allows only specific IP addresses to access a particular server or service, blocking all other traffic. Block lists (aka blacklists) consist of entities that are explicitly prohibited or considered malicious. They contain entries such as IP addresses, domain names, email addresses, URLs, or file hashes associated with known threats or undesirable content. Network devices compare incoming entities against the blacklist and block or restrict access for any matching entries. Blacklists are used to prevent access to malicious or unauthorized resources. For example, an email gateway may be equipped with a blacklist filters incoming emails and blocks those originating from known spam email servers or containing malware attachments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY to include the blacklists, disclosed by Crabtree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to filter incoming emails and block those originating from known spam email servers, Crabtree, ([0088]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul discloses wherein the screening action blocks the message from being transmitted to the at least one telephone number, ([0045] […] The SCCP message is next examined by SMS spam screening function 122 to determine whether the message is an SMS message and whether the message destined to a recipient (e.g., mobile subscriber) served by a carrier/network operator administering the spam screening service. [0032] program products for preventing the delivery of unwanted SMS messages, such as those containing unsolicited commercial messages or spam, in a communications network. More particularly, SMS messages are intercepted prior to delivery and at least a portion of the SMS message content is encapsulated within an e-mail message. The e-mail message is communicated to an e-mail spam filtering resource in a data network, where spam screening/filtering algorithms are applied. In one embodiment, the e-mail message is discarded at the e-mail spam filtering resource if the message fails spam screening”).
Regarding claim 19, Bantukul discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a message screening subscription request to screen SMS messages from potentially fraudulent sources to reduce SMS phishing attacks, ((FIG. 3), [0044], [0045], FIG. 1, “[…] Discrimination function 116 on the receiving LIM 102 examines the received message, identifies the message as an SCCP message, and distributes the SCCP message to an available SMS spam screening DSM processor module 106 residing in the STP/SG 100.[…] The SCCP message is next examined by SMS spam screening function 122 to determine whether the message is an SMS message and whether the message destined to a recipient (e.g., mobile subscriber) served by a carrier/network operator administering the spam screening service. […] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”);
ascertaining that a message is being routed to at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers ([0045] FIG. 1 “[…] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”).
However, Bantukul does not disclose the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers.
In the same field of endeavor, BERREY discloses the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers. ([0030] “A short message service (SMS) firewall 30 resides between the MCG 14 and the wireless carriers 28 to filter incoming messages. The SMS firewall 30 serves as a protection for all messages, incoming and outgoing, by checking each message against an active list of known wireless viruses”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) to include the (SMS) firewall 30, disclosed by BERREY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen the incoming and outgoing messages, BERREY, ([0030]).
However, Bantukul as modified by BERREY does not disclose comparing, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; and based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, performing a screening action for the message.
In the same field of endeavor, Crabtree discloses comparing, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; and based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, performing a screening action for the message, ([0088] “a firewall configured with a whitelist allows only specific IP addresses to access a particular server or service, blocking all other traffic. Block lists (aka blacklists) consist of entities that are explicitly prohibited or considered malicious. They contain entries such as IP addresses, domain names, email addresses, URLs, or file hashes associated with known threats or undesirable content. Network devices compare incoming entities against the blacklist and block or restrict access for any matching entries. Blacklists are used to prevent access to malicious or unauthorized resources. For example, an email gateway may be equipped with a blacklist filters incoming emails and blocks those originating from known spam email servers or containing malware attachments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY to include the blacklists, disclosed by Crabtree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to filter incoming emails and block those originating from known spam email servers, Crabtree, ([0088]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko.
Regarding claim 13, Bantukul discloses a computing system, comprising: at least one processor (not shown but inherent in all Servers such as the one disclosed in FIG.3: 132); a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory (not shown but inherent in all Servers such as the one disclosed in FIG.3: 132) device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: receive a message screening subscription request to screen SMS messages from potentially fraudulent sources to reduce SMS phishing attacks, ((FIG. 3), [0044], [0045], FIG. 1, “[…] Discrimination function 116 on the receiving LIM 102 examines the received message, identifies the message as an SCCP message, and distributes the SCCP message to an available SMS spam screening DSM processor module 106 residing in the STP/SG 100.[…] The SCCP message is next examined by SMS spam screening function 122 to determine whether the message is an SMS message and whether the message destined to a recipient (e.g., mobile subscriber) served by a carrier/network operator administering the spam screening service. […] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”);
ascertain that a message is being routed to at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers, ([0045] FIG. 1 “[…] Determining whether the message is destined for a recipient served by a carrier implementing spam SMS screening may include comparing message recipient information contained in the SMS message to authorized subscriber information contained in subscriber database 128”).
However, Bantukul does not disclose the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers.
In the same field of endeavor, BERREY discloses the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers, ([0030] “A short message service (SMS) firewall 30 resides between the MCG 14 and the wireless carriers 28 to filter incoming messages. The SMS firewall 30 serves as a protection for all messages, incoming and outgoing, by checking each message against an active list of known wireless viruses”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) to include the (SMS) firewall 30, disclosed by BERREY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen the incoming and outgoing messages, BERREY, ([0030]).
However, Bantukul as modified by BERREY does not disclose compare, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the message.
In the same field of endeavor, Crabtree discloses compare, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources; based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the message, ([0088] “a firewall configured with a whitelist allows only specific IP addresses to access a particular server or service, blocking all other traffic. Block lists (aka blacklists) consist of entities that are explicitly prohibited or considered malicious. They contain entries such as IP addresses, domain names, email addresses, URLs, or file hashes associated with known threats or undesirable content. Network devices compare incoming entities against the blacklist and block or restrict access for any matching entries. Blacklists are used to prevent access to malicious or unauthorized resources. For example, an email gateway may be equipped with a blacklist filters incoming emails and blocks those originating from known spam email servers or containing malware attachments”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) to include the blacklists, disclosed by Crabtree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to in order to filter incoming emails and block those originating from known spam email servers, Crabtree, ([0088]).
However, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose transmit a notification to a security risk system of an entity, wherein the plurality of recipient telephone numbers is assigned to personal devices of individuals associated with the entity, the notification including an indication about the screening action.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomohiko discloses transmit a notification to a security risk system of an entity, wherein the plurality of recipient telephone numbers is assigned to personal devices of individuals associated with the entity, the notification including an indication about the screening action, ((see page 1, 3rd paragraph of the attached translated document) “a plurality of user terminals having the ability to filter the data to be transmitted and received through a connected network, to be applied to a plurality of users end end An IDS terminal for notifying information and monitoring packets flowing through the network to detect suspicious behavior from a plurality of user terminals , is connected to the computer system via the network, and the user terminal , according to the policy information received from the IDS terminal, and means for changing the policy information filtering functions of the terminal”, (see page 2, 4th paragraph of the attached translated document) “And a plurality of user terminals having the ability to filter the data to be transmitted and received through a connected network, and network security management terminal that notifies the policy information to be applied to the plurality of user terminals end, monitors packets flowing through the network wherein the IDS terminal behavior to detect those suspicious from the plurality of user terminals, is a connected computer system via the network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the network security management terminal, disclosed by Tomohiko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable a transmission of notification regarding policy information to be applied to the user terminals, Tomohiko, (see page 2, 4th paragraph of the attached translated document).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of MICHIYAMA et al. (US 20210142418 A1, hereinafter MICHIYAMA.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the screening action includes blocking content of the message and providing a description of the message.
In the same field of endeavor, MICHIYAMA discloses wherein the screening action includes blocking content of the message and providing a description of the message, ([0148] “a snapshot or preview image of the content may be provided to applicants before making applications in order to prevent providers from providing malicious content (e.g., fake content”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the preview image of the content, disclosed by MICHIYAMA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable to user to view the message summary while keeping the device safe from potential malicious attack, MICHIYAMA, ([0148]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of PUENTE et al. (US 20230262003 A1), hereinafter PUENTE.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the message 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.
In the same field of endeavor, PUENTE discloses wherein the message 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, ([0036] “if the owner of the user equipment finds a way to circumvent the block, for instance by removing and/or hacking the application blocking software, the third party might not be aware of it and the user might use applications which were intended to be blocked. [0107] At step S2-2 an updating request is transmitted from the network exposure entity 270 to the subscriber database 260. The general purpose of this step is to record in the subscriber database 260 one or more details related to the blocking request, for instance one or more of the elements previously described as content of the first blocking request of step S2-1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the updating request, disclosed by PUENTE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to update the subscriber’s database with the pertinent blocking content, PUENTE, ([0107]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of PUENTE et al. (US 20230262003 A1), hereinafter PUENTE, and further in view of Rodrigues et al. (GB 2632811 A), hereinafter Rodrigues.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and PUENTE does not disclose wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices without a legal enforcement mechanism.
In the same field of endeavor, Rodrigues discloses wherein the entity is not permitted access to the personal devices without a legal enforcement mechanism, ([0108] “The reporting permission for the UE indicated by the UE or a pre-configured reporting permission for the UE may allow a core network (e.g., CN 400) to provide (e.g., report) UE related events to a specific monitoring entity. For example, the reporting permission for a UE may allow the monitoring entity associated with an employer to have access to any UE related event, such as roaming or location related events for the UE of an employee and at the same time to prevent a different monitoring entity from having access to the roaming or location related events for that same UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and PUENTE to include the reporting permission, disclosed by Rodrigues. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow or prevent the monitoring entity access to UE related events, Rodrigues, ([0108]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of KUROKAWA et al. US 20210064004 A1, hereinafter KUROKAWA.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources includes message metric data indicating a quantity of messages made from the potentially fraudulent sources within a predefined period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, KUROKAWA discloses wherein the stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources includes message metric data indicating a quantity of messages made from the potentially fraudulent sources within a predefined period of time, ([0097] “user program 110 may be defined to, upon a malicious attack from an external device, set a filtering condition for preventing the malicious attack. By way of example, a communication driver of controller 100 monitors the amount of reception data per unit time (e.g., the packet count received per unit time), and, when the amount of reception data exceeds a prescribed threshold value, determines the presence of a malicious attack from an external device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the controller 100, disclosed by KUROKAWA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to monitor the amount of reception data per unit time, and ultimately determine the presence of a malicious attack from an external device, KUROKAWA, ([0097]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of KUROKAWA et al. US 20210064004 A1, hereinafter KUROKAWA, and further in view of Vitaldevara et al. (US 20120259929 A1), hereinafter Vitaldevara.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and KUROKAWA does not disclose wherein the message metric data further includes a quantity of distinct recipient telephone numbers.
In the same field of endeavor, Vitaldevara discloses wherein the message metric data further includes a quantity of distinct recipient telephone numbers, ([0046] “the scoring module 224 may establish a score for a message addressed to multiple recipients indicating that the message is likely to be spam when the message origin data and/or language data correspond to a message origin or language with which the multiple recipients generally interact negatively (or do not generally interact”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and KUROKAWA to include the scoring module 224, disclosed by Vitaldevara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a mechanism to prevent potential spam messages from reaching respective destined recipients, Vitaldevara, ([0046]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of Allison et al. (US 20050232236 A1), hereinafter Allison.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the message screening subscription request is associated with a message screening subscription service that is provided by a telecommunications entity as part of a subscription.
In the same field of endeavor, Allison discloses wherein the message screening subscription request is associated with a message screening subscription service that is provided by a telecommunications entity as part of a subscription, ([0002] “example in which screening may be desirable is when a service provider wishes to block certain types of traffic, such as spam short message service (SMS) messages, from entering the network. Yet another example in which it may be desirable to screen incoming SS7 messages is when the messages request information regarding the service provider's subscribers. In this example, it may be desirable to block such queries, charge a fee for the queries, or only allow queries of a certain type or from an authorized destination”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the service provider, disclosed by Allison. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to screen incoming SS7 messages, per the service provider's subscribers’ requests, Allison, ([0002]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Allison et al. (US 20050232236 A1), hereinafter Allison, and further in view of GUO et al. (US 20230396433 A1), hereinafter GUO.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Allison does not disclose wherein a quantity of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers is modifiable as part of the subscription.
In the same field of endeavor, GUO discloses wherein a quantity of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers is modifiable as part of the subscription, ([0388] “the subscription update notification message includes at least one of a list of users whose authorizations change (in other words, a list of user equipments whose authorizations change), the multicast group identifier, a quantity of users whose authorizations change (in other words, a quantity of user equipments whose authorizations change), and indication information indicating that the authorization changes, for example, a list of SUPIs”, (hence, users’ attributes are modifiable)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Allison to include the subscription update notification message, disclosed by GUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide updated list containing a quantity of users whose authorizations change, Vitaldevara, ([0046]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of Brown; Wendell D (US 20160219142 A1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose 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 messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses 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 messages, ([0050] “A block/allow list maintained on telephone 110 (i.e., block/allow list 116) may be considered a “local” list, while a list maintained on a call controller (e.g., block/allow list 132) may be considered a “central” or “global” list (equivalent to database). [0051] a block/allow list (or other filter) may be used to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers or entities. For example, calls received from telephone numbers known to be associated with telemarketers, spammers (e.g., entities that spam via SMS or Short Messaging Service), pranksters and/or other undesirables may be blocked automatically (or after querying the called party to identify the call as possibly or certainly being from an undesired party”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the block/allow list, disclosed by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers, Brown, ([0050]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of Ranganathan et al. (US 20230403559 A1), hereinafter Ranganathan.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the screening action includes sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating the message is from the potentially fraudulent source.
In the same field of endeavor, Ranganathan discloses wherein the screening action includes sending a notification to the at least one telephone number indicating the message is from the potentially fraudulent source, ([0020] “implementing batch inference and/or implementing real time inference enables the spam detection system to classify the text message (as spam or not spam) more accurately than other systems that do not use the carrier-determined information, implement batch inference and/or implement real time inference. [0087] based upon the classification of the first UE 100 as malicious, one or more actions may be performed. The one or more actions may comprise: (i) flagging the first UE 100 as malicious; (ii) transmitting notifications, to UEs that previously received text messages from the first UE 100, that indicate that the first UE 100 and/or the first phone number of the first UE 100 are malicious (in order to warn users of the UEs to not trust the text messages sent by the first UE 100, for example); (iii) blocking messages sent by the first UE 100 from being sent to their intended recipients; (iv) automatically classifying text messages sent by the first UE 100 as spam”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the spam detection system, disclosed by Ranganathan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to classify the text message as malicious and transmit notifications to the receiving UE, Ranganathan, ([0020]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, and further in view of Metz et al. (US 20110026689 A1), hereinafter Metz.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY and Crabtree does not disclose wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to 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,
In the same field of endeavor, Metz discloses wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to 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, ([0027] [0041], (Abstract) “A system and method for extracting and presenting useful data from calls received by a client is disclosed. The resulting "telephone call inbox" is a way for a client view pay per call advertising as a stream of consumers with information available to understand the call activity of the consumers and for the client to navigate their call history. The system automatically filters non-consumer fraudulent calls, extracts the identity of a consumer, aggregates several calling entities into a single consumer, transcribes the call into a call stream using voice recognition software, extracts patterns and draws conclusions from the call stream, and presents a list of call streams in a user-friendly set of web pages configured as the telephone call inbox. The telephone call inbox includes, for each call, the caller ID, one or more key words, phrases or major conclusions concerning the call, and the voice recognized call stream”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY and Crabtree to include the telephone call inbox, disclosed by Metz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a way to aggregate and present the alike calls, such as non-consumer fraudulent calls, in a user-friendly manner, Metz, ([0027] [0041], (Abstract)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, and further in view of MICHIYAMA et al. (US 20210142418 A1, hereinafter MICHIYAMA.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko does not disclose wherein the screening action includes blocking content of the message and providing a description of the message.
In the same field of endeavor, MICHIYAMA discloses wherein the screening action includes blocking content of the message and providing a description of the message, ([0148] “a snapshot or preview image of the content may be provided to applicants before making applications in order to prevent providers from providing malicious content (e.g., fake content”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the preview image of the content, disclosed by MICHIYAMA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable to user to view the message summary while keeping the device safe from potential malicious attack, MICHIYAMA, ([0148]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, and further in view of Goodman et al. (US 20070039038 A1), hereinafter Goodman.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 13 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko does not disclose wherein the notification further includes information about any response provided from the at least one telephone number to the transmitting source of the message.
In the same field of endeavor, Goodman discloses wherein the notification further includes information about any response provided from the at least one telephone number to the transmitting source of the message, ((Fig. 2), [0038]- [0040], “a phishing attack that directs the user to send a message (e.g., an email) with personal information, the detection module 220 for the messaging application 210 can also determine whether the user is attempting to send a message to a suspected or known fraudulent or phishing domain (e.g., phishing Web site 208), and/or can determine whether such a message has been sent. Ideally, the user can be warned before sending a message, but in some cases, a deceptive message may not be detected until after the user has sent a response”, (the collected information is, essentially, shared with the data center 202)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the detection module 220, disclosed by Goodman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to determine whether the user is attempting to respond or has already responded to a fraudulent domain, Goodman, ((Fig. 2), [0038]- [0040]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, and further in view of Nair et al. (US 20250039190 A1), hereinafter Nair.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 13 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko does not disclose wherein the notification further includes information about any hyperlinks provided in the message.
In the same field of endeavor, Nair discloses wherein the notification further includes information about any hyperlinks provided in the message, ([0382] “The method 2800 may also include creating an alert or notification to a user when the composite threat score meets the predetermined threshold, such as a message containing a link to the investigation container (or a user interface displaying data from the investigation container”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the notification, disclosed by Nair. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the user with a link to the threat related information, Nair ([0382]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, and further in view of Brown; Wendell D (US 20160219142 A1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 13 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko does not disclose 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 messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses 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 messages, ([0050] “A block/allow list maintained on telephone 110 (i.e., block/allow list 116) may be considered a “local” list, while a list maintained on a call controller (e.g., block/allow list 132) may be considered a “central” or “global” list (equivalent to database). [0051] a block/allow list (or other filter) may be used to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers or entities. For example, calls received from telephone numbers known to be associated with telemarketers, spammers (e.g., entities that spam via SMS or Short Messaging Service), pranksters and/or other undesirables may be blocked automatically (or after querying the called party to identify the call as possibly or certainly being from an undesired party”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the block/allow list, disclosed by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers, Brown, ([0050]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, and further in view of Metz et al. (US 20110026689 A1), hereinafter Metz.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 13 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko does not disclose wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to aggregate th3-e stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources to a centralized data source, the aggregating being based on similar attributes of the potentially fraudulent sources.
In the same field of endeavor, Metz discloses wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to aggregate th3-e stored data of the potentially fraudulent sources to a centralized data source, the aggregating being based on similar attributes of the potentially fraudulent sources, ([0027] [0041], (Abstract) “A system and method for extracting and presenting useful data from calls received by a client is disclosed. The resulting "telephone call inbox" is a way for a client view pay per call advertising as a stream of consumers with information available to understand the call activity of the consumers and for the client to navigate their call history. The system automatically filters non-consumer fraudulent calls, extracts the identity of a consumer, aggregates several calling entities into a single consumer, transcribes the call into a call stream using voice recognition software, extracts patterns and draws conclusions from the call stream, and presents a list of call streams in a user-friendly set of web pages configured as the telephone call inbox. The telephone call inbox includes, for each call, the caller ID, one or more key words, phrases or major conclusions concerning the call, and the voice recognized call stream”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the telephone call inbox, disclosed by Metz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a way to aggregate and present the alike calls, such as non-consumer fraudulent calls, in a user-friendly manner, Metz, ([0027], [0041], (Abstract)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bantukul et al. (US 20060079255 A1), hereinafter Bantukul, in view of BERREY et al. (US 20070073808 A1) hereinafter BERREY, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 20250039228 A1), hereinafter Crabtree, further in view of Tomohiko et al. (JP 4437107 B2), hereinafter Tomohiko, further in view of Metz et al. (US 20110026689 A1), hereinafter Metz, and further in view of Brown; Wendell D (US 20160219142 A1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 18 above, Bantukul as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, Tomohiko, and Metz does not disclose 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 messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses 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 messages, ([0050] “A block/allow list maintained on telephone 110 (i.e., block/allow list 116) may be considered a “local” list, while a list maintained on a call controller (e.g., block/allow list 132) may be considered a “central” or “global” list (equivalent to database). [0051] a block/allow list (or other filter) may be used to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers or entities. For example, calls received from telephone numbers known to be associated with telemarketers, spammers (e.g., entities that spam via SMS or Short Messaging Service), pranksters and/or other undesirables may be blocked automatically (or after querying the called party to identify the call as possibly or certainly being from an undesired party”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the SMS spam screening function 122 disclosed by Bantukul ([0045]) as modified by BERREY, Crabtree, and Tomohiko to include the block/allow list, disclosed by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to screen calls to/from malicious telephone numbers, Brown, ([0050]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, and 17-20 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 18 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
As an example, the limitations of claim 1 of the current Application are included in combination of the limitations of claims 1 (with obvious wording variations) of co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355 as compared in the following table:
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claim 1 of co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355
A computing system for short message service (SMS) firewall protection targeting SMS phishing attacks, the system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
receive a message screening subscription request to screen SMS messages from potentially fraudulent sources to reduce SMS phishing attacks, the messages to be screened by a telecommunications network via a SMS firewall protocol for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers;
ascertain that a message is being routed to at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers;
compare, using the SMS firewall protocol, data of a transmitting source of a message to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources;
and based on the source of the message matching a potentially fraudulent source of the potentially fraudulent sources, perform a screening action for the message.
A computing system for protective telephone call screening protocols for a telecommunications network using source signaling, the system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
receive a call screening subscription request to screen calls within the telecommunications network for a plurality of recipient telephone numbers;
ascertain that a telephone call has been placed to contact at least one telephone number of the plurality of recipient telephone numbers;
compare a transmitting source of a signal of the telephone call to stored data of potentially fraudulent sources;
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,
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.
As disclosed in the table above, the claims have the same features and functionalities with nominal changes in terminology (e.g., receive a message screening subscription request to screen SMS messages vs receive a call screening subscription request to screen calls). Furthermore, claim 1 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355 includes additional limitations which makes claim 1 of the current application broader.
Independent claim 19 of the current application can be similarly compared with independent claim 18 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
Independent claim 13 of the current application can be similarly compared with independent claims 12 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 3 of the current application can be read on claim 2 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 4 of the current application can be read on claim 3 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 5 of the current application can be read on claim 4 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 7 of the current application can be read on claim 5 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 8 of the current application can be read on claim 6 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 9 of the current application can be read on claim 7 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 10 of the current application can be read on claim 8 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 11 of the current application can be read on claim 9 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 12 of the current application can be read on claim 11 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 17 of the current application can be read on claim 7 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 18 of the current application can be read on claim 11 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
The limitations of dependent claim 20 of the current application can be read on claim 7 of the co-pending application, Application number 18/883,355.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights