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 Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5, “the at least the least one” should be --the at least one--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1, “the at least the second threshold” should be --the at least second threshold--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3, “the at least the least one” should be --the at least one--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,080 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0247797 to Leduc et al.
USPN ‘080 disclose:
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are disclosed by claims 1, 19 and 20 of USPN ‘080.
USPN ‘080 disclose at least one source phone number.
USPN ‘080 does not disclose:
At least one source account identifier.
Leduc et al. ‘797 teach:
at least one source account identifier (0047-other identifiers (account identifiers, telephone numbers)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of USPN ‘080 with contact information as taught by Leduc et al. ‘797, in order to provide a particular type of identifier for identification.
USPN ‘080 further disclose:
Claims 2-18 are disclosed respectively by claims 2-18 of USPN ‘080.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 10,027,611 to Oliver et al. disclose classifying electronic messages identifying spam messages.
US Patent Application Publication 2020/0067861 to Leddy et al. disclose a scam evaluation system comprising a phrase and string filters (fig. 2, 201, 202); a scoring engine (Fig. 26; 2618); and score thresholds (Fig. 17).
USPN 11,463,582 to Serban disclose a machine learning model for detecting a likely scam caller (abstract; Fig. 4); "reported messages" (Fig. 5, 520-suspected scam caller, Yes); identifying a source phone number (col. 5, line 4); processing system, processor (col. 5, lines 30- 46-scam detection system, mobile, computer, processor); memory (col. 5, lines 60-65); and count or frequency of key words or phrases indicative of a scam caller (col. 7, lines 27-31).
However the noted relevant prior art references do not disclose the applicant's claimed invention with the combination of linking limitations as claimed in detail, in particular identifying, by the processing system, a set of message contents within the plurality of message contents for which associated counts of the plurality of counts exceeds a first threshold, and
identifying, by the processing system, at least one source account identifier that is a source of a first set of messages within the plurality of reported messages containing one or more message contents of the set of message contents where a number of reporting entities associated with the first set of messages exceeds at least a second threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-7063. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 pm.
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, Christopher L Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/JOHN B WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451