Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 10/16/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. Pub. No.: US 2011/0211682 A1 in view of Piscopo, Jr. et al. Patent No.: US 10,924,609 B1.
Claim 1
Singh discloses a method (fig. 3-4 for outgoing call), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
860
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, by an application server (verification server 8 in fig. 1) of a communication network from a dialer app (a call verification application in par. 0031 and see 1 in fig. 1) of user equipment [consider reciting ‘a’ for the first time], a call initiation request (making phone call in fig. 3) to establish a communication call session between the user equipment and a recipient number (client application forwards caller ID number to trusted service in fig. 3 such as verification server 8 of fig. 1);
identifying information associated with the recipient number (trusted server verifies caller ID number in fig. 3), wherein the information indicates whether the recipient number is a known suspicious actor or not (if the caller ID is from trusted source in fig. 3 and see par. 0031 & 0042-0043 in view of fig. 4c-d); and
providing, through the user equipment before establishing the communication call session (see fig. 3 connecting fig. 4c-d), the information and an option to proceed or cancel with establishing the communication call session to call the recipient number (option to abort or continue with dialed number in fig. 4c-d).
However, it appears that application may argue Singh does not explicitly show: “providing, through the user equipment before establishing the communication call session, the information”. As explained above, if fig. 3 & 4c-d of Singh does not anticipate the arguable limitations, Singh’s teaching in fig. 3 & 4c-d would have rendered the claim obvious. To advance the prosecution, “providing caller information before the dialing number is connected” could be seen in Piscopo. In particular, Piscopo teaches forwarding a scam call notification to the mobile device while the outbound call is dialing the destination telephone number (362 in fig. 3B and 468 in fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh by providing call screening service as taught in Piscopo. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment a call screening service to detect fraudulent communication so that the subscribers could protect themselves from the fraud and scam call activities as suggested in lines 20-61 of col. 1 of Piscopo.
Claim 2
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
creating, by the application server (Singh, server 8 of fig. 1), a temporary early media path between the user equipment and the application server to establish two-way audio without the application server answering the call (Singh, fig. 4c-d, user has option to abort or continue with the call; meaning that bi-directional or two way communication has been established; establishing two way communication is intrinsic feature and cellular and wireless communication, see evidence in par. 0029 of Dropuljic et al. Pub. No.: 2024/0040035 A1); and
playing an audio message with the information utilizing the temporary early media path (Singh’s mobile phone 1 of fig. 1 will be able to play voice message as it’s intrinsic feature a typical mobile phone; Piscopo, a whisper that interrupts the call and plays recording such as “this is likely a scam call” in lines 10-17 of col. 7; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 3
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
displaying the information through at least one of text or a graphic displayed through an extension in the dialer app (Singh, fig. 4c-d for displaying information; Piscopo, a window to drop a call or a whisper that interrupts the call and plays recording such as “this is likely a scam call” in lines 10-17 of col. 7; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious) .
Claim 4
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
maintaining, by the application server, an invite transaction until an indication is received from a user to proceed with the call or a timeout has occurred (Piscopo, continuing the call in fig. 4C); and
in response to receiving the indication, utilizing the invite transaction for routing to the recipient number (fig. 4c-d of Piscopo in view of steps 354-362 in fig. 3B of Singh; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claim to perform equally well with the combined prior art, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F; see evidence in fig. 7 of Wolinksky et al. Patent No.: US 11,943,387 B1).
Claim 5
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
selecting an amount and type of detail to provide as the information based upon a setting (since claim does not specifically define what are involved in the amount and type, fig. 4c-d of Singh and 458 in fig. 4B of Piscopo would have rendered the claim obvious).
Claim 6
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
in response to detecting a threat level associated with the recipient number, selecting a suggestion for how to proceed with the call (Singh, fig. 4b for prompting the user to connect the call); and
including the suggestion within the information provided to a user, wherein the suggestion is provided to the user before the communication call session is established (fig. 4c-d of Singh in view of fig. 3 & 4B of Piscopo; for these reasons, the combined prior arts the claim requirement).
Claim 7
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
in response to receiving a break-in indicator from the dialer app (Singh, fig. 4c-d; Piscopo, a window to drop a call or a whisper that interrupts the call and plays recording such as “this is likely a scam call” in lines 10-17 of col. 7), implementing a user break-in operation to dial the recipient number (fig. 3 of Singh and fig. 3 & 4B of Piscopo ; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
instructing the user equipment to display an interface through which a user can submit a report related to the recipient number (Singh, user interface to blacklist a number in fig. 4a; accordingly, it could be a simple substitution for dialed number to obtain blacklisted, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale C; see evidence for Flag in fig. 4-5 of Weiss et al. Pub. No.: US 2015/0288791 A1); and
in response to receiving the report, updating call information accessible to the application server based upon the report (Singh, see uploading whitelist and blacklist as explained in par. 0030 and see database in fig. 2-3; accordingly, the combined prior art could have been expected by the ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed invention).
Claim 9
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises:
in response to detecting that the recipient number is within a contact list, is a number called above a threshold frequency, or is a designated opt-out number, bypassing the application server processing the recipient number (Singh, caller ID from the trusted source in fig. 3 and par. 0030; fig. 4c-d of Piscopo; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10
Singh discloses a system (a system of fig. 1), comprising:
one or more processors (one or more processors in fig. 1 from mobile phone, gateway, server and RAN) configured for executing instructions to perform operations (vishing client for checking the dialed number from trusted source in fig. 3 & 4c-d) comprising:
receiving, by an application server (server 8 in fig. 1) of a communication network from a dialer app (a call verification application in par. 0031 and see 1 in fig. 1) of user equipment (mobile phone 1 in fig. 1), a call initiation request to establish a communication call session between the user equipment and a recipient number (client application forwards caller ID number to trusted service in fig. 3 such as verification server 8 of fig. 1);
identifying information associated with the recipient number (trusted server verifies caller ID number in fig. 3), wherein the information indicates whether the recipient number is a known suspicious actor or not (if the caller ID is from trusted source in fig. 3 and see par. 0031 & 0042-0043 in view of fig. 4c-d); and
providing, through the user equipment before establishing the communication call session (see fig. 3 connecting fig. 4c-d), the information and an option to proceed or cancel with establishing the communication call session to call the recipient number (option to abort or continue with dialed number in fig. 4c-d).
However, it appears that application may argue Singh does not explicitly show: “providing, through the user equipment before establishing the communication call session, the information”. As explained above, if fig. 3 & 4c-d of Singh does not anticipate the arguable limitations, Singh’s teaching in fig. 3 & 4c-d would have rendered the claim obvious. To advance the prosecution, “providing caller information before the dialing number is connected” could be seen in Piscopo. In particular, Piscopo teaches forwarding a scam call notification to the mobile device while the outbound call is dialing the destination telephone number (362 in fig. 3B and 468 in fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh by providing call screening service as taught in Piscopo. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment a call screening service to detect fraudulent communication so that the subscribers could protect themselves from the fraud and scam call activities as suggested in lines 20-61 of col. 1 of Piscopo.
Claim 11
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise:
registering a user of the user equipment for called party identification verification (Singh, installing into users’ telephony devices as a call monitoring application, registering users with a central server in par. 0023);
in response to the user being registered for the called party identification verification (Singh, client application forwards the dialed number to Trusted server in fig. 3), invoking an originating service provider to verify an identity of the recipient number (Singh, Trusted server verifies dialed number in fig. 3); and
providing the identity to the user (Singh, citibank in fig. 4c-d and see par. 0036-0038; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 12
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
providing the identity to the user as part of connecting the dialer app to the recipient number (Sinh, the dialed number as the identity of Citibank in fig. 4c-d and par. 0036-0038; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 14
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein identity information for the recipient number is cryptographically signed with at least one of a user name, a company name, or a service type (Singh, Citibank in fig. 4c-d), wherein the identity information is used by a terminating service provider to verify the identity of the recipient number with the originating service provider (Singh, fig. 4c-d to abort the initiated call or the continue the call with dialed number; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 15
Claim 15 is a computer product claim corresponding to method claim 1. All of the limitations are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to a user being registered for in-call support (Singh, fig. 3), providing a feedback reporting option for calling the recipient number (Singh, fig. 4b-c-d; fig. 3b & 4b of Piscopo; unless claim specifically define what are required to be the feedback reportion option, option for abort or continue with the call in fig. 4c-d of Singh would read on the claim); and
in response to receiving user input for the feedback reporting option (Singh, fig. 4b-c-d), providing the user with a feedback reporting user interface through which to report feedback regarding the call (Singh, as depicted in fig. 4b-c-d, if user chooses to blacklist the number, abort or continue the call, it’ll proceed as chosen; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 20
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to receiving a report through the feedback reporting option (Singh, fig. 3b, access is denied report as the number is blacklisted number), updating call information accessible to the application server based upon the report (Singh, as depicted in fig. 3 & 4b-c-d, if the number is blacklisted by server or a user, the central automated agent will be updating the number in the databases with its periodic update as explained in par. 0165; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Piscopo and Sial et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0053205 A1.
Claim 13
Although Singh, in view of Piscopo, does not disclose: “the system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: configuring the originating service provider with a feature-capability indicator within a header field in an invite to indicate that the originating service provider has a capability of performing called party identification verification”, claim 13 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are required to be “a feature-capability indicator”. In accordance with MPEP 2111, it’s reasonably interpreted as “Scam Indicator”. In particular, Sial teaches “Scam Indicator” field in the header in the invite message (see fig. 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh in view of Piscopo by providing Scam call back protection as taught in Sial. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment a protection to identify a scam call from a spoofed number so that the subscriber would not have provided personal information or transferring money to the scammers as suggested in par. 0002-0003 & 0012 of Sial.
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Piscopo and Weiss et al. Pub. No.: US 2015/0288791 A1.
Claim 16
Singh, in view of Piscopo, discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to a user being registered for in-call support (Singh, fig. 3), providing a call recording option for calling the recipient number (Singh, fig. 3, server 8 of fig. 1 keeping a call history is a record for calling included; 352 in fig. 3B of Piscopo; see MPEP 2111, a call recording option does not exclude recording call history as depicted in fig. 2b of Piscopo).
Although Singh, in view of Piscopo does not disclose: “in response to receiving user input for the call recording option, recording the call between the user and the recipient number”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, recall that Singh provides user to abort or continue option with the call (fig. 4c-d). In particular, Weiss teaches notification the caller for call being recorded (par. 0037 and 216 in fig. 3A). With these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to combine Singh, in view of Piscopo and Weiss to present the option for recording call like option to abort or continue in fig. 4c-d in the same way. See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh in view of Piscopo by providing telephone fraud management as taught in Weiss to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment a fraud management system to identify a suspicious communication so that the user wouldn’t be victim of the financial abuse as suggested in par. 0001-0004 of Weiss.
8. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Piscopo and Riahi et al. Pub. No.: US 2014/0270146 A1.
Claim 17
Although Singh, in view of Piscopo, does not disclose: “the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a user being registered for in-call support, providing a live support option for calling the recipient number; and in response to receiving user input for the live support option, merging a call support user into the call between the user and the recipient number”, claim 17 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, Singh in view of Piscopo discloses providing a live option to abort or continue with the call process while initiating the originating the call (fig. 3 & 4c-d of Singh and fig. 3b & 4b of Piscopo). In particular, Riahi teaches a live support option with the live agent (fig. 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh in view of Piscopo by providing back office services of an intelligent automated agent for a contact center as taught in Riahi to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a customer contact center to handle interaction between customers and the enterprises so that the interactive voice response could have satisfied customers with an acceptable solution as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Riahi.
Claim 18
Although Singh, in view of Piscopo, does not disclose: “the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a user being registered for in-call support, providing an artificial intelligence support option for calling the recipient number; and in response to receiving user input for the artificial intelligence support option, providing the user with artificial intelligence support during the call between the user and the recipient number”, claim 18 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, Singh in view of Piscopo discloses providing a live option to abort or continue with the call process while initiating the originating the call (fig. 3 & 4c-d of Singh and fig. 3b & 4b of Piscopo). In particular, Riahi teaches a live support option with the artificial intelligence engine without the live agent (par. 0188, 0191 & 0200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify telephony fraud prevention of Singh in view of Piscopo by providing back office services of an intelligent automated agent for a contact center as taught in Riahi to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a customer contact center to handle interaction between customers and the enterprises so that the interactive voice response could have satisfied customers with an acceptable solution as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Riahi.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights