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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, discloses, “receive at least one session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a communication session between a sending device and a receiving device, parse content within the at least one SIP message to identify values within predetermined fields of the at least one SIP message, identify an outcome of a call event from the communication session based on the identified values from the at least one SIP message, and label the at least one SIP message with the identified outcome and transfer the labeled at least one SIP message to a downstream system”.
Step 1, it’s an apparatus claim.
Step 2A, prong 1, the limitation, “ parse content within the at least one SIP message to identify values within predetermined fields of the at least one SIP message, identify an outcome of a call event from the communication session based on the identified values from the at least one SIP message, and label the at least one SIP message with the identified outcome and transfer the labeled at least one SIP message to a downstream system are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). Parsing, identifying and labeling, encompasses, a human reading the SIP message and deciding the call outcome mentally or a "method of organizing human activity," and its rejected as being abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2, the additional limitations like receive at least one session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a communication session between a sending device and a receiving device, is merely data receiving and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process of parsing the value, identifying an outcome and labelling the message which means categorization or classification of the message.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receive at least one session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a communication session between a sending device and a receiving device” is just receiving/transmitting data over a network, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use using a generic computer.
Claim 2, is again, generate a call path from sending to receiving device, merely data outputting and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claim 3 is identifying is merely labeling or categorization of call, can be done mentally and mere automation of the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4, identify an outcome is again categorization of the call and its mental step.
Claims 5-8 disclose , "collecting, analyzing, and recognizing a specific outcome based on data" (such as reading a SIP failure code to identify a network error, or based on user agent field included in SIP message, or based on history information record included in SIP message or based on cause code included in response to an invitee within SIP message) as an abstract mental process or merely using general purpose computer to perform abstract idea itself.
Claims 9-16 are rejected for the same reason claims above are rejected. Same rationale applies to claims 9-16.
Regarding claims 17-20 has additional limitations reciting “computer readable hardware storage medium,” “memory” and “processor” have been recognized by the courts as being well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP § 2106.05(d), II. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). See MPEP § 2106.05(d), II. The limitations include sending and receiving information regarding the assignment of videos to decoders. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), II, I, (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096).
Note:- Regarding claims 17-20, claims recite, “computer-readable hardware storage medium”, examiner interpret the limitation as tangible physical device or medium that comprising instructions which when executed by a processor to perform functions. Claim is directed to hardware as opposed to transitory waves or signals. The Federal Circuit found that the claim language demonstrates that claim 8 is not directed to a transient signal, but rather to a non-transient storage medium. Therefore, claims 17-20 are statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Milligan et al. (US 2022/0182488)(hereafter Milligan).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Milligan discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor (see, para [0007]) configured to:
receive at least one session initiation protocol (SIP) message from a communication session between a sending device and a receiving device (see, para [0016], SIP message in call requests, see, Fig. 3, [0024], SIP invite message of the incoming call as performed by the SBC computer 28 (blocks 52 and 54 of FIG. 3)),
parse content within the at least one SIP message to identify values within predetermined fields of the at least one SIP message (see, para [0007], organization header in the SIP message indicating customer call is validated if the SIP message includes the one or more indicators and, based on the organization header in the SIP message, para [0019], insert an organization header in the SIP invite message of each incoming call indicating the classification, [0021], based on indicators in headers of the SIP invite message, determine the classification of the call (block 52)),
identify an outcome of a call event from the communication session based on the identified values from the at least one SIP message (see, para [0007], SIP message indicating that the customer call is validated if the SIP message includes the one or more indicators and, based on the organization header in the SIP message, see, para [0019], the SBC computer 28 may review the SIP invite messages (including any STIR/SHAKEN certification headers) of each incoming call to classify the call according to its origination. [0022] At a block 56, the call routing computer 34 may read the organization header in the SIP invite message to extract the classification of the call), and
label the at least one SIP message with the identified outcome and transfer the labeled at least one SIP message to a downstream system (see, para [0007], writing a classification code to a database that classifies the customer call as validated, [0016], classifies the incoming customer calls based on information in session initiation protocol (SIP) messages in the call requests, and passes the calls to the service network computer system 24, [0022] At a block 56, the call routing computer 34 may read the organization header in the SIP invite message to extract the classification of the call ).
Milligan further discloses computer-readable hardware storage medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the method as per claim 17 (see, para [0007]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Milligan further discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as a call being forwarded by the receiving device to another device based on a cause code included in a response to an invite within the at least one SIP message (see, para [0025], If the SIP invite message includes the second indicator, it may be determined whether the SIP invite message includes a third indicator indicating that the call has been forwarded (block 100). In one embodiment, the third indicator may be a diversion information header or a history information header which flags forwarded calls. If the SIP invite message includes the third indicator, an organization header may be inserted in the SIP invite indicating the call has an unknown origination (block 96).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milligan in view of Hodge et al. (US 9614974) (hereafter Hodge).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Milligan does not disclose the apparatus, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a mirrored call path from the sending device to the receiving device between the sending device and the apparatus, and receive the at least one SIP message via the mirrored call path. However, in same field of endeavor, Hodge teaches in (col. 27 lines 37-45) Then, a call setup procedure 1030 with a third party begins. This procedure closely mirrors a typical call setup phase 310, but between the inmate calling party and a third party with the appropriate changes to the SIP message fields. After the call setup phase is completed with the third party, a 2-way audio session comprising the exchange of RTP voice data is established between the inmate calling party and the third party. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Hodge with the Milligan, as a whole, so as to generate a mirrored call path between transmitting and receiving device, the motivation is to generate the SIP message with the alternate path.
12. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milligan in view of Filart (US 2018/0343343) (hereafter Filart).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Miligan does not disclose the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as at least one of a call that went to voicemail, a call that was declined by the receiving device, a call where the receiving device was off, and a call where the line was busy, based on a cause code included in a header of the at least one SIP message.
However, in same field of endeavor, Filart teaches [0026], The SPID may then be tagged to the inbound call 102 in block 316, and the status verification parameter is set to enum=yes in block 318, indicating that the inbound call 102 requires no further queries and evaluations. The inbound call 102 may then be routed according to a predefined process associated with the SPID in block 320 as discussed above. For example, the inbound call 102 may not be routed to the UE 134 or a response indicative of the called party being unavailable or busy may be sent back to the calling party.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Filart with the Milligan, as a whole, so as to identify the outcome as busy , the motivation is to perform efficient robocall/scam identification with verification functions.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, the combined teachings further discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as a call being terminated by the sending device based on a cancel message included in the at least one SIP message (see, Filart, [0018] The BGCF module 124 may then forward the inbound call 102 to a media gateway control function (MGCF) module 132, which may perform a send routing information (SRI) request and identify the call termination, a user equipment (UE) 134, as an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) terminal. The MGCF module 132 may relay the status verification parameter, set to either value, along with the inbound call 102, to an such as an interrogating/serving call session control function (I/S-CSCF) module 136).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combined teachings further discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as a call being answered by the receiving device based on a user agent field included in the at least one SIP message being populated with a predetermined string value (see, Filart, para [0021], If the CgPN information of the inbound call 102 were not found in the ENUM database 116, the inbound call 102 may be considered normal, following a verification of the CdPN as a subscriber of the network, and be assigned a specific SPID, such as 6529 for normal call 214 for example, indicating the inbound call 102 is a normal call. Each SPID may be associated with a predefined call routing process. For example, a call with the SPID=9999 may be automatically rejected because it is a known SPAM, and a call with the SPID=6529 may be routed to the intended destination without further evaluation because it is determined to be a normal call).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combined teachings further discloses the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as a call being forwarded to a voicemail box based on a history information record included in the at least one SIP message being populated with a predetermined phone number value (see, Filart, para [0032], In contrast, an inbound call being identified as a known SPAM, having the SPID of 9999 as discussed above, may be blocked without being routed any further, be responded back to the calling party with a predetermined message, such as undeliverable, unavailable, or error, or be automatically sent to a voicemail).
13. Claim(s) 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milligan in view of SHI et al. (US 2023/0239952)(hereafter SHI).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Milligan does not disclose the apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to identify the outcome as a call placed during a network failure based on a failure response code included in the at least one SIP message. However, in same field of endeavor, Shi teaches [0059] At 408, the apparatus may determine whether the second SIP message indicates a network failure or a global failure. For example, referring to FIG. 3A, MR UE 102 may determine whether the SIP failure message received (at 307) is a 5xx failure or 6xx failure. 5xx failure responses are returned to MT UE 102a when the SIP server has erred (a.k.a., a network failure). On the other hand, 6xx failure responses are sent when the SIP server has definitive information about a user, not just the instance indicated in the Request-uniform resource identifier (URI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shi with the Milligan as a whole, so as to identify the call as network failure based on the SIP message, the motivation is to identify the call based on SIP response.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al. (US 2025/0088593) discloses direct voicemail call service.
Fowler et al. (US 2024/0396993) discloses call enhancement service via in-network branded calling delivery.
Anagnostou et al. (US 2023/0224405) discloses optimizing an abandoned call notification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights