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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “and display the first state or the second state on the display unit based”. The examiner believes that the word “based” at the end of claim 4 is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: An Audio Video Navigation Telematics (AVNT) system for a vehicle, the AVNT system comprising a display unit configured to display function menus for the AVNT; and a processor operatively connected to the AVNT and configured to control the display unit, wherein, in response that a user's terminal is connected to the AVNT through Bluetooth, the processor is further configured to: determine a call state through the user's terminal, the call state including an outgoing call state, an incoming call state, and an active call state;
check a first information on a phone number using a first command value in the determined call state; analyze a second information checked with the phone number using the checked first information and a second command value; and control the display unit to display a first state or a second state different from the first state based on a result of the analysis.
Claim 11 recites a parallel method.
Step 1: Statutory Category: – Yes
The claims 1-10 are directed to a system, and claims 11-20 are directed to a method, which fall within the statutory categories of machine and process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 PEG, a claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (c) mental processes.
The Office submits that foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite a judicial exception in the form of mental processes, and also, in substance, aspects of certain methods of organizing human activity, because under their broadest reasonable interpretation they amount to evaluating call-related information, checking phone-number-related information, analyzing additional phone-number-related information, and deciding what status/output to present. These are observations, evaluations, judgments, and decision-making steps that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a processor performs them. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
More specifically, claim 1 recites, in substance: receiving or recognizing a call-related condition, checking first information associated with a phone number, analyzing second information associated with the phone number using the first information, deciding whether a first state or second state should result, and displaying the result. This is an abstract idea because it is fundamentally a process of collecting information, evaluating information, and making a decision based on that evaluation. For example, a human could observe whether a phone is in an incoming/outgoing/active call state, check whether the number appears in a contact list or history, review further information associated with the number, determine whether the number appears acceptable or suspicious, and then decide whether to present a favorable or unfavorable result. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The same rationale applies to claim 11, which recites the method version of the same concept, and to the other independent/dependent claims, which merely add additional rules for evaluating the phone number, fallback analysis paths, and result-display conditions. Accordingly, the claims recite the abstract idea of: collecting call/phone-number information, analyzing the information according to rules or criteria, determining an outcome, and presenting the outcome. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application: -No
In Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is evaluated to determine whether it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The Office submits that foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in claim 1 include, for example: an AVNT system for a vehicle, a display unit, a processor, a user terminal, Bluetooth connectivity. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely describe using generic computer and communication components to carry out the abstract idea. The processor performs generic data processing; the Bluetooth connection is merely a generic communication link; and the display unit merely presents the result of the analysis. The recited display is merely displaying data or a result, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity rather than a meaningful technological improvement. The vehicle / AVNT context merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not improve Bluetooth communications, call processing hardware, display hardware, or any other underlying technology. In other words, the claims do not recite a specific improvement in the way the AVNT system, Bluetooth interface, processor, or display operates. Instead, they use those generic components as tools to: gather call-related information, analyze the information, decide a status, and display the result. That is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The same applies to claim 11 and the remaining claims. The method claims merely recite the same abstract idea in process form, and the dependent claims merely add more decision rules, comparison conditions, fallback checks, location-based availability determinations, or display outcomes. None of those additional features changes the fact that the claims are directed to analyzing information and presenting the result using generic components.
The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic technology.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer, communication, and display components. The processor, display unit, Bluetooth-connected user terminal, and AVNT environment perform only their ordinary and expected functions: the processor processes information, the Bluetooth connection communicates with the phone, the display shows results, and the AVNT system provides the vehicle environment. The display limitation is particularly no more than displaying the result of the information analysis, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. There is no recited inventive concept in the claims that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not recite: a specific improvement to Bluetooth communications, a specific improvement to processor operation, a specific improvement to display technology, or any unconventional technological arrangement beyond generic implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Independent Claims
Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea in method form. It likewise merely recites collecting call-related information, evaluating phone-number-related information, determining an output state, and presenting the output. The same rationale above applies.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 adds a rule that when both first information and second information satisfy preset conditions, the first state is displayed. This is merely additional decision logic applied to the abstract idea.
Claim 3 adds the opposite rule: when at least one of the first information and second information does not satisfy preset conditions, the second state is displayed. This is also merely additional decision logic applied to the abstract idea.
Claim 4 adds a fallback path when the call state cannot be determined, and in that case analyzes second information and displays the first or second state based on the analysis. This is still information analysis and decision-making and therefore remains within the abstract idea.
Claim 5 adds another fallback path when first information cannot be checked, and then uses second information to determine the result. This is still evaluation of available information and output of a result.
Claim 6 adds determining whether the phone number is consistent with a third command value and then displaying the second state. This is another comparison rule or screening criterion and does not add significantly more.
Claim 7 adds searching for the phone number on the user’s terminal and displaying the first state if the number is found. This is still checking a data source and outputting a result, i.e., information lookup and decision-making.
Claim 8 adds determining whether the phone number is available based on a country in a current GPS location when the number is not found on the user terminal. This is still evaluating additional contextual information associated with the number and location and making a decision. The use of GPS/location does not improve GPS technology or phone technology; it merely supplies more data to the abstract analysis.
Claim 9 adds a rule that if the phone number is impossible and within a preset false range, the second state is displayed. This is another classification rule and output decision based on information evaluation.
Claim 10 adds displaying the first state when the number is possible and valid, and displaying the second state when the number is possible and invalid. This is merely categorizing information and presenting different results, which remains abstract.
Claim 12 is the method counterpart of claim 2 and adds the same favorable-condition rule. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 13 is the method counterpart of claim 3 and adds the same unfavorable-condition rule. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 14 is the method counterpart of claim 4 and adds the same fallback analysis path. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 15 is the method counterpart of claim 5 and adds the same alternative use of second information. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 16 is the method counterpart of claim 6 and adds the same comparison against a third command value. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 17 is the method counterpart of claim 7 and adds the same contact/terminal lookup and favorable output. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 18 is the method counterpart of claim 8 and adds the same location/country-based availability check. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 19 is the method counterpart of claim 9 and adds the same impossible/false-range classification and unfavorable output. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 20 is the method counterpart of claim 10 and adds the same valid/invalid branching and output. It remains directed to the same abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
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) 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20110237191 A1), in view of Tatourian (US 20210360104 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Saito discloses an Audio Video Navigation Telematics (AVNT) system for a vehicle (See Fig.1) [0022] “A BT communication system 1 includes an in-vehicle apparatus 2 mounted to a vehicle and a cellular phone 3 carried into a vehicle compartment. The in-vehicle apparatus 2 includes a controller 4 (which can act as control means), a BT communication device 5 (which can act as short-range wireless communication means), a speech processing device 6, a storage device 7, a display control device 8, and a touch operation input device 9.”,
the AVNT system comprising a display unit configured to display function menus for the AVNT [0028] “A display apparatus 15 includes a display portion 16 (i.e., a display unit) for displaying a variety of display screens (i.e., function menus) and a touch operation input portion 17 for providing a touch switch on the display portion 16.”;
and a processor operatively connected to the AVNT and configured to control the display unit [0022] “The in-vehicle apparatus 2 includes a controller 4 (i.e., processor) (which can act as control means), a BT communication device 5 (which can act as short-range wireless communication means), a speech processing device 6, a storage device 7, a display control device 8, and a touch operation input device 9.” [0023] “The controller 4 (i.e., processor) controls generally all of operation of the in-vehicle apparatus 2 such as communication operation, data management operation and the like.”,
wherein, in response that a user's terminal is connected to the AVNT through Bluetooth [0023] “The BT communication device 5 has a function to conduct BT communication with the cellular phone 3.” See also [0032], [0033], [0039] HFP and A2DP are simultaneously connected between the in-vehicle apparatus and the cellular phone.”, the processor is further configured to:
determine a call state through the user's terminal, the call state including an outgoing call state, an incoming call state, and an active call state [0025] “When the HFP is connected the microphone 10 inputs the user uttered voice as outgoing voice data. When the BT communication device 5 inputs incoming voice data” [0027] “The outgoing call history data shows a relationship between a call time and a dialed phone number in an outgoing call. The incoming call history data shows a relationship between a reception time and a caller’s phone number in an incoming call ” [0043] “The foregoing is directed to a case in which the disconnection request of the HFP is generated in the in-vehicle apparatus 2 when the HFP and the A2DP are simultaneously connected between the in-vehicle apparatus 2 and the cellular phone 3. However, the same can apply to a case in which the disconnection request of the A2DP is generated in the in-vehicle apparatus 2.” Saito expressly discloses outgoing and incoming call-related states through HFP and corresponding histories. The “active call state” is Saito’s HFP-connected hands-free communication state, where ongoing voice communication is being processed through the microphone/speaker path.;
Saito teaches the in-vehicle system having some access to the phonebook and call-history information on a phone number [0027] “The storage device 7 can store various data phonebook data, outgoing call history data, incoming call history data. The phonebook data shows a relationship between a phone number and a registered name.” [0048] “Profiles may include PBAP (Phone Book Access Profile) describing phone book data transfer” and control the display unit to display [0028] “A display apparatus 15 includes a display portion 16 for displaying a variety of display screens (i.e., function menus) and a touch operation input portion 17 for providing a touch switch on the display portion 16.”
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “check a first information on a phone number using a first command value in the determined call state,” “analyze a second information checked with the phone number using the checked first information and a second command value,” and “… a first state or a second state different from the first state based on a result of the analysis.”
However, Tatourian teaches wherein to check a first information on a phone number using a first command value in the determined call state [0025] “A call agent installed on the compute device 102 determine whether the caller identification exists in a contact list or has a history with the user of the compute device 102 (operation 204). If the caller is not in the contact list, then the call agent communicates with the reputation server to determine whether the calling phone number is unknown (operation 206). While some phone numbers may be unknown by the reputation server, it may be more likely that the calls have caller ID blocked, in which case there is not a phone number to look up. If the calling number is not blocked and known by the reputation server, then the reputation score is downloaded to the compute device 102 (operation 208). Alternately, if the phone number is unknown, then the compute device 102 may screen the call by playing a greeting (operation 210) and analyzing the answer to the greeting (operation 212).” See also [0036-0038] “determine that the incoming call is from a party in a contact list” and “determine that the incoming call is from a party not in a contact list” Tatourian teaches that the processor explicitly checking whether the calling number is in a contact list or history, (i.e., checking first information on a phone number.) The cited contact-list/history lookup in Tatourian corresponds to the claimed checking of first information on the phone number; the claimed “first command value” is met by the command/request used to invoke that lookup.;
analyze a second information checked with the phone number using the checked first information and a second command value [0016] “The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms. Some of the factors are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number.” [0019] “The phone number reputation data 116 includes a phone number and one or more reputation scores.” [0022] “When the compute device 102 receives a call, it may obtain the reputation from the server system 104.” [0026] score is determined based on whether the caller is known, reputation-server information, screening results, and context. [0038] “obtain a reputation score of the originating phone number and modify the local probabilistic score based on the reputation score.” Tatourian teaches analyzing second information associated with the phone number, namely a reputation score, desirability information, contextual information, and doing so using the already checked first information, such as whether the number is in the contact list or call history. The cited reputation-score retrieval/analysis corresponds to the claimed analysis of second information; the claimed “second command value” is met by the separate request used to obtain/evaluate the reputation-related information.; and
a first state or a second state different from the first state based on a result of the analysis [0026] “Based on the result, the call agent will either let the call through and the phone ring (operation 216) (i.e., first state) or ignore the call (operation 218) (i.e., second state).” [0028] if likely desirable, ring/notify; otherwise take a different action. [0035] “perform an action at the compute device based on the local probabilistic score.” [0037] “notify the user of the incoming call.” Tatourian teaches two different output states based on analysis (e.g., allow/notify versus ignore/voicemail/warning.)
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to modify Saito’s in-vehicle Bluetooth hands-free/display system to further check phone-number-related first information such as contact-list or history information, analyze second information such as phone-number reputation or desirability information using the checked first information, and then cause the display to present one of different states based on the analysis result, as taught by Tatourian, in order to improve call handling and presentation of desirable versus undesirable calls in the vehicle system.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 1, Saito discloses the vehicle in-vehicle apparatus, Bluetooth connection with the user terminal, display, controller, and storage of phonebook and call-history information as discussed above for claim 1. See Saito [0021]-[0023], [0027], and [0028].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding wherein “upon concluding that both the first information and the second information satisfy preset conditions, the processor allows the first state to be …”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein, upon concluding that both the first information and the second information satisfy preset conditions, the processor allows the first state to be provided [0036] “determine that the incoming call is from a party in a contact list (i.e., first information satisfies preset condition) of the user and increase the local probabilistic score” [0038] “obtain a reputation score (i.e., second information satisfies preset condition) of the originating phone number and modify the local probabilistic score based on the reputation score.” [0026] “Based on the result, the call agent will either let the call through and the phone ring (operation 216) (i.e., first state) ” [0048]-[0049] “determine a local probabilistic score that the incoming call is desirable” and “performing an action based on the local probabilistic score.” [0050] and [0052] “desirable features include contact-list match and reputation-based modification.” The claimed “first information” corresponds to contact-list / call-history status, and the claimed “second information” corresponds to the reputation/desirability score or associated metadata. Thus, Tatourian teaches that when the number is recognized favorably and the score is favorable, the call is allowed through / notified.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to modify Saito’s in-vehicle Bluetooth hands-free/display system to further check phone-number-related first information such as contact-list or history information, analyze second information such as phone-number reputation or desirability information using the checked first information, and then cause the display to present one of different states based on the analysis result, as taught by Tatourian, in order to improve call handling and presentation of desirable versus undesirable calls in the vehicle system.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 2, Saito discloses the in-vehicle apparatus, Bluetooth phone connection, controller, display, and phonebook/call history framework. See Saito [0021]-[0023], [0027], [0028].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding wherein, “upon concluding that at least one of the first information and the second information does not meet the preset conditions, the processor allows the second state to ....”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein upon concluding that at least one of the first information and the second information does not meet the preset conditions, the processor allows the second state to be provided [0038] “if the incoming call is from a party not in a contact list (i.e., first information does not meet the preset condition), the score is decreased.” [0026] “Based on the result, the call agent will either let the call through or ignore the call (i.e., second state).” [0040] where the score is below threshold (i.e., second information does not meet the preset condition), the execution module is “to send the incoming call to voicemail” [0052]-[0053] “party not in contact list, obtain reputation score, and if score is low, perform adverse handling such as voicemail/screening.” Tatourian also teaches the exact opposite action of claim 2 above, if one or more relevant conditions is unfavorable, such as not in the contact list or having a poor reputation score, the system takes a different, less favorable action. That different action corresponds to the claimed second state.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to modify Saito so that if at least one of the checked first information or analyzed second information is unfavorable, the display presents the less favorable second state, consistent with Tatourian’s low-score handling.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 1, Saito discloses the in-vehicle apparatus, Bluetooth phone connection, controller, display, and phonebook/call history. See Saito [0021]-[0023], [0027], [0028].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein, in response that the call state cannot be determined by the processor, the processor is further configured to analyze the second information checked with the phone number using the second command value, and … the first state or the second state …”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein, in response that the call state cannot be determined by the processor, the processor is further configured to analyze the second information checked with the phone number using the second command value, and provide the first state or the second state [0025] “If the caller is not in the contact list, then the call agent communicates with the reputation server”, “if the phone number is unknown, then the compute device 102 may screen the call and analyze the answer” [0026] for unknown caller situations, “the score may be based on the score from the reputation server or analysis of an answer to a screening greeting.” [0038]-[0039] “reputation-score lookup or screening is performed even when caller identification is not otherwise favorable / known.” [0052]-[0053] “obtain reputation or screening information and perform action based on resulting score.” This is essentially a fallback path, if the first determination path (call state) is unavailable, the system still uses second information associated with the phone number to decide which state to show. Tatourian teaches a fallback analysis path in which, when ordinary caller-identification information is unavailable or unknown, the system still uses phone-number-associated second information, such as reputation or screening information, to determine the output state.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to configure Saito’s system to use alternative phone-number-based analysis when a normal call-state determination cannot be made, and then display one of two states depending on the result, as taught by Tatourian.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 1, Saito discloses the in-vehicle Bluetooth phone system, display apparatus, controller, phonebook data, outgoing call history data, and incoming call history data. See Saito [0022], [0027], [0028].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding wherein, “in response that the first information cannot be checked by the processor, the processor is further configured to analyze the second information checked with the phone number using the second command value, and … the first state or the second state ….”However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein in response that the first information cannot be checked by the processor, the processor is further configured to analyze the second information checked with the phone number using the second command value, and provide the first state or the second state [0025] “If the caller is not in the contact list, then the call agent communicates with the reputation server” [0022] “When the compute device 102 receives a call, it may obtain the reputation from the server system 104. This is especially useful when the call is from an unknown number.” [0038] obtain a reputation score of the originating phone number. See also [0052] when the number is not in a contact list, the method still obtains and uses a reputation score. When the first information such as contact-list / phonebook information is unavailable (i.e., first information cannot be checked), the system falls back to second information like reputation-score analysis (i.e., second information cannot be checked). Tatourian expressly teaches that when the number is not found in the contact list, the system retrieves and uses the reputation score instead.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to configure Saito’s system to use second information associated with the phone number when first information such as phonebook/contact information cannot be checked, and then display one of the two states according to the analysis, as taught by Tatourian.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 1, Saito discloses a vehicle Bluetooth phone system having controller-managed Bluetooth profiles, phonebook data, and call-history data. See Saito [0022], [0023], [0027], [0048].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein, upon concluding that the phone number is consistent with a third command value, the processor is further configured to allow the second state to be ….”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein, upon concluding that the phone number is consistent with a third command value, the processor is further configured to allow the second state to be provided [0016] “Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number.” [0026] “Based on the result, the call agent will either let the call through and the phone ring (operation 216) or ignore the call (operation 218).” [0038] “the scoring module 302 is to determine that the incoming call is from a party not in a contact list of the user and decrease the local probabilistic score based on the determination that the incoming call is from the party not in the contact list.” [0040] “the local probabilistic score is less than a threshold, and to perform the action at the compute device 102 based on the local probabilistic score, the execution module 304 is to send the incoming call to voicemail to leave a voicemail message.” The cited screening criterion or unfavorable comparison basis in Tatourian corresponds to the claimed “third command value,” i.e., a rule/criterion against which the phone number is evaluated. Tatourian teaches comparing the incoming number against pre-established screening criteria, such as whether the number is in a contact list and whether it yields a sufficiently good score. If the number matches an undesirable measure, the system takes the less favorable output action, corresponding to the claimed second state.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to configure Saito’s system so that when a phone number matches an unfavorable screening measure, corresponding to the claimed third command value, the system displays the second state, as taught by Tatourian’s undesirable-call handling.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 6, Saito discloses a vehicle Bluetooth phone system having controller-managed Bluetooth profiles, phonebook data, and call-history data. See Saito [0022], [0023], [0027], [0048].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein, upon concluding that the phone number is inconsistent with the third command value, the processor is further configured to search for the phone number on the user's terminal, and allow the first state to be … in response to the phone number being searched out on the user's terminal.”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein, upon concluding that the phone number is inconsistent with the third command value, the processor is further configured to search for the phone number on the user's terminal, and allow the first state to be provided in response to the phone number being searched out on the user's terminal [0025] “A call agent installed on the compute device 102 determine whether the caller identification exists in a contact list or has a history with the user of the compute device 102 (operation 204).” [0026] “Based on the result, the call agent will either let the call through and the phone ring” [0036] “the scoring module 302 is to determine that the incoming call is from a party in a contact list of the user and increase the local probabilistic score based on the determination that the incoming call is from the party in the contact list.” See also [0050]
”Determining the local probabilistic score comprises determining that the incoming call is from a party in a contact list of the user and increasing the local probabilistic score based on the determination that the incoming call is from the party in the contact list.” Tatourian teaches searching whether the incoming number exists in the contact list and treating that result favorably.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to configure Saito’s in-vehicle system to search the connected user terminal’s phonebook/contact list for the incoming phone number and, if found, display the favorable first state, as taught by Tatourian.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 7, Saito discloses the in-vehicle Bluetooth-connected phone system, phonebook data, PBAP phonebook transfer, and controller/display framework as discussed above. See Saito [0022], [0027], [0028], [0048].
Saito does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding wherein, “upon concluding that the phone number is failed to be searched out on the user's terminal, the processor is further configured to determine whether the phone number is available based on a country in a current Global Positioning System (GPS) location.”
However, Tatourian teaches equivalent teachings wherein upon concluding that the phone number is failed to be searched out on the user's terminal, the processor is further configured to determine whether the phone number is available based on a country in a current Global Positioning System (GPS) location [0025] “A call agent installed on the compute device 102 determine whether the caller identification exists in a contact list (i.e., phone number failed to be searched out) or has a history with the user of the compute device 102 (operation 204).” [0019] “the reputation database includes phone number reputation data 116 for practically all known phone numbers in use. The reputation database may be regional, such as only for United States phone number, or international. The reputation database may be partitioned by country calling codes, area codes, or other regional phone number partitioning scheme.” [0018] “sensors may include a “location sensor (e.g., GPS or GLONASS)” [0026] “score may be based on “current user context including location, time, day, etc.” Tatourian teaches using GPS/location in analyzing whether a call is plausible based on (i.e., regional or international by country calling code or area codes). It would have been obvious to use the current GPS/location context and regional/country phone-number information to assess whether the unfound number is available/plausible.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito and Tatourian to modify Saito’s system, after a phone number is not found in the user terminal’s phonebook/contact list, to further determine whether the number is available or probable using current location from GPS and regional or international by country calling code or area codes as taught by Tatourian.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito and Tatourian to improve call screening and user notification quality in the vehicle system Tatourian [0016] “In use, the compute device 102 may receive an incoming phone call. The call agent 108 intercepts the incoming phone call and analyzes it using a variety of mechanisms in order to determine a probability that a phone call is undesirable. Some of the factors the call agent 108 may use are a relationship between the caller and recipient, a context of the recipient, relevant call history, and the phone number reputation score of the calling number. The call agent 108 may access a contact list 110 or a call history 112, to assess the caller's identity or the frequency of conversations with the caller. The call agent 108 may identify aspects of the caller or the phone number based on telephone company (“telco”) switches.”
Regarding Claim 11, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 2, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 13, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 14, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 4, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 5, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 16, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 7, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 18, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 8, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20110237191 A1), in view of Tatourian (US 20210360104 A1), and further in view of Cai (US 20080159501 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 8, Saito discloses the in-vehicle Bluetooth/display/controller framework and phonebook data framework as discussed above. See Saito [0022], [0027], [0028], [0048].
Tatourian teaches taking an unfavorable action when the phone-number analysis result is unfavorable. Tatourian then teaches executing the unfavorable second state based on that determination. See Tatourian [0026] and [0040] “if the score is below threshold, the system sends the call to voicemail.”
The combination of Saito and Tatourian does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein, upon concluding that the phone number is impossible and within a preset false range, the processor is further configured to allow the second state to be ….”
However, Cai teaches equivalent teachings wherein upon concluding that the phone number is impossible and within a preset false range, the processor is further configured to allow the second state to be provided [0038] “If a determination is made in step 208 that the call did not originate in originating node 102, then processing system 124 determines that the caller ID information is counterfeit in step 212. If a determination is made that the caller ID information is counterfeit, then communication network 100 may perform different functions. In one embodiment, communication network 100 may release the call.” [0058]
”For instance, if the geographic regions match or are within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is likely that the caller ID information is valid. If the geographic regions do not match or are not within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is not likely that the caller ID information is valid.” The claimed “impossible and within a preset false range” is met by Cai’s teaching that number-related caller ID information can be identified as counterfeit / invalid / not likely valid when routing-origin information and number-associated information do not match or fall outside acceptable geographic correspondence.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito, Tatourian, and Cai to configure Saito’s modified system such that when analysis of the phone number indicates the number is impossible, false, or invalid, the system displays the less favorable second state, consistent with Tatourian’s unfavorable output handling and Cai’s counterfeit/invalid caller-ID determination.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito, Tatourian, and Cai to improve protection against false or suspicious incoming numbers, because Cai teaches identifying counterfeit or not likely valid caller ID information Cai [0058] ”For instance, if the geographic regions match or are within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is likely that the caller ID information is valid. If the geographic regions do not match or are not within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is not likely that the caller ID information is valid.”
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Saito and Tatourian teaches the system of claim 9, Saito discloses the in-vehicle apparatus, display, controller, Bluetooth connection to the user terminal, and phonebook/call-history framework as discussed above. See Saito [0021]-[0023], [0027], [0028].
Tatourian teaches outputting different handling states based on whether the result of phone number analysis is favorable or unfavorable. See Tatourian [0026], [0035], and [0049].
The combination of Saito and Tatourian does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein the processor is further configured to allow the first state to be displayed on the display unit, upon concluding that the phone number is possible and valid, and to allow the second state to be …, upon concluding that the phone number is possible and invalid.”
However, Cai teaches equivalent teachings wherein the processor is further configured to allow the first state to be displayed on the display unit, upon concluding that the phone number is possible and valid, and to allow the second state to be provided, upon concluding that the phone number is possible and invalid [0008] “if the call originated from the originating node, caller ID information is determined valid; otherwise counterfeit.” [0037] “processing system 124 determines that the caller ID information is valid” [0038] “if the caller ID information is counterfeit, the network may provide a warning, release the call, or determine valid caller ID information.” [0044] “if caller ID is valid, transmit the caller ID; if not valid, perform adverse handling.” [0050] “if the point codes match, it is likely that the caller ID information is valid; if not, it is not likely valid. See also [0058] and [0062] “geographic match supports validity; mismatch supports invalidity.” Cai teaches the explicit valid / invalid number-information determination.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Saito, Tatourian, and Cai to modify Saito’s in-vehicle call-handling system to display a favorable first state when the number is determined to be valid and a different unfavorable second state when the number is determined to be invalid, as taught by Tatourian’s differential action logic and Cai’s valid-versus-counterfeit caller-ID validation.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Saito, Tatourian, and Cai to improve protection against false or suspicious incoming numbers, because Cai teaches identifying counterfeit or not likely valid caller ID information Cai [0058] ”For instance, if the geographic regions match or are within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is likely that the caller ID information is valid. If the geographic regions do not match or are not within an acceptable range, then validation system 924 may determine that it is not likely that the caller ID information is valid.”
Regarding Claim 19, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 9, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 20, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 10, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662