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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action has been issued in response to patent application, 18/969901, filed on 05 December 2024 with a foreign priority date of 08 December 2023. Claims 1-17, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/05/2024, 01/29, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Minor Informalities
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “emergency network,.”. Examiner suggests ending the sentence with a period “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 12:
Claims 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the other source comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the emergency sound pattern”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the different PSAP elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamboh (US2020/0204582 A1, publish date 06/25/2020) in view of Thaker (US2016/0109552 A1, publish date 04/21/2016).
Claims 1, 9, 13:
With respect to claims 1, 9, 13, Kamboh discloses a method/system/non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code which, when being executed by a processor, is adapted to carry out steps of a method for the detection of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks in emergency networks, the method comprising:
detecting, by an Emergency Service Routing Proxy, ESRP ("detection device
14" in Fig. 1), of an emergency network ("emergency call center 2" in Fig. 1), a silent call ("malicious call 8); (Par. 49, "The call handling system 12 comprises a detection device 14 for detecting any denial of service attack targeting the call center...' Par. 2, "An emergency call center, also named PSAP Fig. 1, Par. 45, "the malicious 8 calls generally form part of a denial of service (DOS) attack towards the call center 2."; Par. 7, attacks that are volume based...the call center receives calls that are known as "ghost calls")
checking, by the ESRP, whether there is one or more other parallel silent calls
and/or callbacks in one or more Public-safety answering points (PSAPs) (An emergency call center, also named PSAP which is the acronym of “Public Safety Answering Point”, 0002) of the emergency network (Fig. 1, Par. 66, the number of received malicious calls 8 from the source is compared to a predetermined threshold..");
retrieving, by the ESRP, call location data of the silent call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks within the last k seconds from a provider ("carrier") after determining that there are one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks (Par. 58, "the malicious calls 8 will come in from ..carrier tower location,")
checking, by the ESRP, the call location data of the silent call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks for a location pattern ("geographical boundary"); (Par. 64, .identify anomalies on the map with a geographical boundary of the source location of the DOS attacks”);
treating, by the ESRP, the silent call according to the standard emergency process after it is determined that no alignment has been obtained or treating, by the ESRP, the silent call and/or the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks as a potential DDoS attack (Par. 67, anomaly is compared to the anomaly data in the historical file 16. If a match is found, it means a similar type of DOS attack has been previously encountered and the protection means to deploy are known.' Par. 70, "alarm the call center administrator that a DOS condition is happening,")
Kamboh discloses to improve the DDoS attack detection system by using additional data provided to the emergency network during the silent call (Par. 65).
Kamboh does not disclose monitoring, by the ESRP, the silent call for the presence of ambient noise;
analyzing, by the ESRP, the ambient noise to identify a specific sound pattern in case ambient noise has been detected;
aligning, by the ESRP, any ambient noise and/or any specific sound pattern with the corresponding location pattern for the silent call and the one or more other parallel
silent calls and/or callbacks as claimed.
However, Thaker teaches localization of devices using ambient noise, monitoring, by the ESRP, the silent call for the presence of ambient noise; analyzing, by the ESRP, the ambient noise to identify a specific sound pattern in case ambient noise has been detected; aligning, by the ESRP, any ambient noise and/or any specific sound pattern with the corresponding location pattern for the silent call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks; (detecting an ambient noise signal near a user device and identifying a specific audio sample that corresponds to the ambient noise signal (Fig. 3, Par. 32, 34) then a current location of the user device is determined by matching the source of the identified audio sample to the location pattern (Fig. 5, Steps 505 " 507, Par. 40 - 42).
Kamboh and Thaker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thaker in Kamboh to detect ambient noise in the silent call and the specific audio sample as the specific sound pattern and match it with the location pattern to determine the current location of the silent call, thereby improving the localization of the silent call which leads to a higher reliability of the DDoS attack detection.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitatons of claim 1, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses pattern to identify an emergency pattern (predictive analysis engine builds a pattern of behavior over time of how calls are received and handled, 0052) (identifies a pattern of DOS attacks, 0053) (that can provide additional input to identify a real emergency scenario versus a DOS attack., 0064).
Thaker teaches comprising: analyzing, by the ESRP, the specific sound pattern to identify an pattern after the analyzing of the ambient noise (detecting an ambient noise signal near a user device and identifying a specific audio sample that corresponds to the ambient noise signal (Fig. 3, Par. 32, 34) then a current location of the user device is determined by matching the source of the identified audio sample to the location pattern (Fig. 5, Steps 505 " 507, Par. 40 - 42).
Kamboh and Thaker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
The motivation for combining Kamboh and Thaker is recited in claim 1.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitatons of claim 1, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses verifying, by the ESRP, an identified emergency pattern by retrieving, receiving and analyzing additional data regarding the identified emergency pattern form another source (To detect these calls, there will need to be a pattern detection software that analyzes the calls 6, 8 and call center 2 environment and start building a pattern to look for the above hints. If there is a normal call 6 and an incident record is created, this will be fed into the pattern detector software so that the software can start isolating volume of calls from a specific incident 0063) (that can provide additional input to identify a real emergency scenario versus a DOS attack, 0064).
Thaker teaches analyzing the specific sound pattern (detecting an ambient noise signal near a user device and identifying a specific audio sample that corresponds to the ambient noise signal (Fig. 3, Par. 32, 34) then a current location of the user device is determined by matching the source of the identified audio sample to the location pattern (Fig. 5, Steps 505 " 507, Par. 40 - 42).
Kamboh and Thaker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
The motivation for combining Kamboh and Thaker is recited in claim 1.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitatons of claim 1, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses comprising: treating, by the ESRP, the silent call according to the standard emergency process, if no other parallel silent call and/or callback is found after the step of checking for one or more other parallel silent call and/or callback in one or more PSAPs of the emergency network,. (A single malicious call 8 does not form an anomaly. , so that marginal malicious calls do not create a DOS condition in the call center 2, which would be more harmful than helpful. 0066).
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 1, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses wherein the other source comprises social media, smart city
sensors, and/or meteorological stations (These calls are regrouped under sources 4 which may represent different geographical areas from which the calls come from. In what follows, only one source will be considered, but the invention naturally extends to a greater number of sources. 0043).
Thaker teaches wherein the other source comprises social media, smart city
sensors, and/or meteorological stations (a temperature sensor of a device may be utilized to track an ambient temperature around the device. 0021).
Kamboh and Thaker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
The motivation for combining Kamboh and Thaker is recited in claim 1.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 1, as addressed.
Thaker teaches wherein the specific sound pattern comprises walking sound
patterns, running sound patterns, environmental sound patterns, office sound patterns,
crowd sound patterns, water or waves sound patterns, traffic sound patterns, alarm
sound patterns, extraneous speech sound patterns, bioacoustics sound patterns from
animals, and electrical sound patterns from devices such as refrigerators, air
conditioning, power supplies, motors and/or weather sound patterns (detects an ambient noise signal proximate to a user device. to conversations, traffic, trains, church bells, music concerts, sporting events, casinos, restaurants, and so on. 0032).
Kamboh and Thaker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
The motivation for combining Kamboh and Thaker is recited in claim 1.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 1, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses wherein the emergency sound pattern comprises weapon shot, alarm, explosion, human screaming, and/or crackling and popping noises when a
fire is burning something (a center where calls from the public using an emergency number are received and processed for assistance to the public, 0002) (that can provide additional input to identify a real emergency scenario versus a DOS attack. 0064).
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 9, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses also comprising: one or more Public safety answering points (PSAP) communicatively connected to the ESRP (An emergency call center, also named PSAP which is the acronym of “Public Safety Answering Point”, 0002).
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 9, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses also comprising:
one or more network service providers; a recorder element which is used to monitor and track emergency calls, a media server, and/or an session border controller (SBC) (The caller location is identified and routed using the NG core services to a PSAP for handling of the call., 0006) (an incident record is created, 0063-0064).
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 9, as addressed.
Kamboh discloses wherein the ESRP has an application, a software and/or
an associated service that supports handling, analysis and/or verification of different
types of data and/or communication with the different PSAP elements (there will need to be a pattern detection software that analyzes the calls 6, 8 and call center 2, 0063).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamboh (US2020/0204582 A1, publish date 06/25/2020) in view of Thaker (US2016/0109552 A1, publish date 04/21/2016) further in view of Do (US2012/0052872 A1, publish date 03/01/2012).
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kamboh and Thaker discloses the limitations of claim 1, as addressed.
Neither Kamboh and Thaker discloses wherein the method further comprising the steps of:
requesting, by the ESRP, from one or more PSAPs, image and/or video data of
the silent call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks and
analyzing, by the ESRP, the image and/or video data for an image and/or video pattern;
and
wherein the aligning, by the ESRP, of any ambient noise and/or any specific
sound pattern with the corresponding location pattern for the silent call and the one or
more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks includes aligning any emergency pattern
and/or any image and/or video pattern of the silent call and the one or more other
parallel silent calls and/or callbacks with the corresponding location pattern for the silent
call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks.
However, Do teaches wherein the method further comprising the steps of:
requesting, by the ESRP, from one or more PSAPs, image and/or video data of
the silent call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks and
analyzing, by the ESRP, the image and/or video data for an image and/or video pattern;
and
wherein the aligning, by the ESRP, of any ambient noise and/or any specific
sound pattern with the corresponding location pattern for the silent call and the one or
more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks includes aligning any emergency pattern
and/or any image and/or video pattern of the silent call and the one or more other
parallel silent calls and/or callbacks with the corresponding location pattern for the silent
call and the one or more other parallel silent calls and/or callbacks (visual information 70 preferably comprises image data gathered by the cameras 30 of the mobile device 12. 0045) (The analysis module 96 is configured to analyze the audio and visual information both to populate the records in tables such as the table 60 shown in FIG. 4 and to use information stored in tables such as the table 60 to help determine information useful in determining the location of the mobile device 12, 0052).
Kamboh, Thaker, and Do are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of device source locations.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thaker in Kamboh to provide a more accurate and distinctive description of the environment, thereby improving the localization of the silent call which leads to a higher reliability of the DDoS attack detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helai Salehi whose telephone number is 571-270-7468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9 am to 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, Jeff Pwu, can be reached on 571-272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HELAI SALEHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433