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 .
1. This communication in response to CON application filed 10/15/2024
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (Pub.No.: 2019/0220789 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Reynolds teaches a method, apparatus and a non-transitory storage medium comprising:
receiving, from one or more databases accessible to an authenticator, one or more signals indicative of an event associated with a communications device corresponding to a subscriber identifier (reads on receiving /using information from data sources associated with an entity and communication device, including location. Communication -device usage, ISP/login activity, and contact history, to determine contactability, see [0033-0040] and [0051-0054] and [0061]); and
responsive to receiving the one or more signals, determining a contactability metric of the communications device based in part on the event (reads on determining contactability index/contactability score based on collected information, see [0060]), the contactability metric indicative of a likelihood that the communications device can be electronically contacted within a predetermined interval (reads on contactability score indicative of a likelihood that an entity can be contacted; also probability of successful contact and optimal time blocks when the entity is likely reachable, see [0060], [0040], [0048-0049] and [0063]).
Reynolds does not specifically teach “permitting the communications device to perform an action based on the contactability metric”, however, Reynolds teaches generating and utilizing a contactability index to determine whether, when and how communication should be attempted with an entity (see [0060], [0063] and [0066-0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the determined contactability index as a criterion for permitting a communication-related action because Reynolds already uses the contactability determination to control subsequent communication operations. Such modification merely represents the predictable use of Reynold’s contactability determination to enable or permit an action when the likelihood of successful contact satisfies a desired level, thereby improving efficiency and reducing unsuccessful communication attempts.
The claimed “processor” as in claim 8, reads on processor 120 (see [0026]) and for the “one memory” as in in claim 8 see [0008].
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Reynolds teaches obtaining, via a communications network coupled to a client computing resource, a second one or more signals indicative of the subscriber identifier (this reads on obtaining additional information associated with the entity/device from multiple data sources for use in generating and updating the contactability index, see [0033-0040], [0051-0054] and [0061]. Such additional information constitutes additional signals corresponding to the entity/device whose contactability is being determined).
Regarding claim 3, Reynolds teaches wherein permitting the communications device to perform the action comprises at least one of:
enabling the communications device to remotely access at least one of a sensor, an appliance, a machine, or an instrument; or
permitting the communications device to perform the action comprises permitting the communications device to complete an electronic transaction (Reynolds expressly relies on transaction information and transaction-related data as part of the contactability determination process (see [0033-0035]. The contactability index is then used to drive subsequent actions involving the entity, see [0063] and [0066-069]. Thus, it would have been obvious to employ the contactability determination to permit completion of an electronic transaction when the entity is determined sufficiently contactable).
Claim 4 recites “determining the contactability metric responsive to assigning a weighting factor to at least one of the one or more signals, wherein the weighting factor comprises an increased value responsive to the at least one of the one or more signals indicating a relatively more recent event, and wherein the weighting factor comprises a decreased value responsive to the at least one of the one or more signals indicating a relatively less recent event”. Reynolds teaches determining a contactability index based on historical and current contact-related information and updating the contactability determination over time (see [0048-0049], [0051-0054] and [0061]). Thus, assigning greater weight to more recent contact-related events and lesser weight to older events is considered obvious within the teachings of Reynolds because more recent events are generally more predictive of current contactability and likelihood of successful contact.
Claims 6 and 13 recite “wherein the subscriber identifier corresponds to a mobile cellular telephone number, a landline telephone number, or an identifier corresponding to a voice-over-IP communications device”. Note that Reynolds is directed to determining the contactability of an entity through communication devices and communication channels, including telephone-based communications and communication-device contact information used in generating contactability profiles and contact plans (see [0036], [0063] and [0066--0069]. Thus, it is obvious within the teaching of Reynold to have communication-device identifier used for contactability determination to include a telephone number associated with the communication device being contacted).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 19, Reynolds teaches wherein the event includes at least one of a line-disconnect of the communications device, a porting of the subscriber identifier corresponding to the communications device, an occurrence of at least one previous interaction between the authenticator and the communications device (Reynolds relies on prior contact attempts, prior communication history, and prior contact success information when generating the contactability determination, see [0051-0054] ), or an occurrence of a multi-factor authentication involving the communications device.
Regarding claim 10, Reynolds teaches wherein the action includes at least one of an electronic transaction (Reynolds expressly relies on transaction information and transaction-related data as part of the contactability determination process (see [0033-0035] and employing the resulting contactability determination to control subsequent actions involving the entity (see [0063] and [0066-0069])) or remote access to at least one of a sensor, an appliance, a machine, or an instrument.
Regarding claim 11, Reynolds teaches wherein the processor coupled to the at least one memory device is further adapted to:
transmit a query to at least one database of the one or more databases (Reynolds obtains information from multiple databases/data sources to determine contactability, see [0033-0040] and [0061]), the query to request whether a person can be expected to respond to a telephone call (reads on determining whether an entity can be contacted, determines probabilities of successful contact, determines when the entity is likely reachable, and generates contact plans based on that determination ,see [0036], [0038-0040], [0048-0049], [0060] and [0063]); and
determine the contactability metric based, at least in part, on a response to the query (Reynolds determines the contactability index/contactability score from information obtained from the various sources, see [0060-0061]).
Claim 12 recites “wherein the at least one database comprises bureau and utility data”. Note that Reynolds already teaches obtaining information from multiple databases and external data sources to generate and update contactability determinations profiles (see [0033-0040] and [0061]), thus it obvious to include bureau data and utility data among the information sources used by Reynolds because such sources provide additional information useful for determining whether and how an entity may be successfully contacted.
Regarding claim 16, Reynolds teaches wherein the action includes at least one of an electronic transaction (reads on using transaction-related information as an input to the contactability determination, see [0033-0035] and utilizes the resulting contactability index to drive subsequent actions and contact operations involving entity, see [0063] and [0066-0069]) or remote access to a network-connected device.
Regarding claim 17, Reynolds teaches wherein the stored instructions executable by the special-purpose computing platform additionally causes the special-purpose computing platform to:
determine a revised contactability metric of the communications device (reads on updating and revising contactability determinations and contactability profiles based n additional information, see [0061]) based, at least in part, on a linkage between two or more telephone numbers that correspond to the communications device (Reynolds teaches aggregating and utilizing multiple sources of entity related communication information to improve contactability determinations, see [0033-0040] and [0061]. Thus, it would have been obvious to utilize multiple telephone numbers associated with the same entity/device when revising the contactability determination because doing so predictably improves the likelihood of successful contact);
permit the communications device to perform a second action based in part on the revised contactability metric (Reynolds uses the contactability determination to drive subsequent communication actions, contact plans, communication-channel selection, and contact prioritization, see [0063] and [0066-0069]).
Claim 18 recites “wherein the event includes a line-disconnect of the communications device”. Reynolds determines contactability based on information associated with communication devices, communication activity, and likelihood of successful contact (see [0033-0040], [0048-0049] and [0060-0061]), thus it would have been obvious to use a line-disconnect event as an input to Reynold’s contactability determination because a line-disconnect directly affects the ability to contact the associated communications device and therefore predictably improves the accuracy of determining contactability.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the event includes an occurrence of a multi- factor authentication involving the communications device”. Reynolds determines contactability based on information associated with communication devices and communication activity (see [0033-0040], [0051-0054] and [0060-0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious to utilize an MFA event involving the communication device as an event used in Reynold’s contactability determination because successful MFA activity provides evidence that the device is active, reachable, and associated with a responsive user, thereby improving the accuracy of the contactability determination.
4. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (Pub.No.: 2019/0220789 A1) in view of Wang (Pub.No.: 2019/0073676 A1).
Claim 5 recites “combining the contactability metric with a trustworthiness metric associated with the communications device to arrive at a composite score; and permitting the communications device to perform the action based on the composite score”.
Reynolds teaches determining a contactability metric/ contactability score indicative of a likelihood that an entity may be contacted (see [0060]). Reynolds also teaches utilizing the contactability determination to control subsequent actions and contact operations (see [0063] and [0066-0069]). Reynolds does not specifically teach “trustworthiness metric” as recited in claim 5.
Wang teaches determining trustworthiness factors, trustworthiness ratings/scores, and aggregating trustworthiness information to generate trustworthiness scores (see [0101-0103], [0113], [0130] and [0132]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reynolds to further incorporate Wang’s trustworthiness score with Reynold’s contactability score to arrive to a composite score because both references evaluate characteristics associated with an entity to improve decision making. Combining Reynold’s contactability determination with Wang’s trustworthiness determination would have predictably improved the reliability and accuracy of determining whether an action should be permitted or not.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
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).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights