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
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 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recite “Computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” that are normally would fall with the statutory subject matter. In light of the specification, there exists within the scope of the claim an embodiment in which where “Computer-readable storage media” can be a signal or carrier wave (see par. 0050; “the computer-readable media may comprise computer storage media and communication media… The communication media typically embodies computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism, and includes any information delivery media”). Since a carrier wave or signals are considered physical phenomena that are not within the statutory categories of 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), the scope of the claim includes an ineligible embodiment. Inclusion of an ineligible embodiment within the scope of the claim requires a 101 rejection.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hines et al (2013/0006703) in view of Wandelmer et al (2017/0039367).
Consider claims 1, 10 and 16, Hines et al teach a method, system and computer-readable storage media for prioritizing telecommunications subscribers based on collected data, the method comprising: collecting telecommunications data comprising voice call metadata (par. 0014-0015; “The communication system 100 can acquire permission from subscriber leaders and subscriber followers to allow the system to monitor, collect, analyze, use, and share data associated with monitored characteristics and interrelationships between subscriber leaders and subscriber followers”; “The communication system 100 can collect and analyze data corresponding to measured characteristics of the subscriber leaders and the subscriber followers”); processing the telecommunications data to determine a connectivity score, wherein the connectivity score is based on a frequency of interactions between each subscriber and one or more other subscribers within a predetermined timeframe (par. 0068; “the server 130 can determine a reputational score for the subscriber leader based on the collected and analyzed reputational data. For example, the reputational score can be determined from any combination of ratings of the subscriber leader, frequency of subscriber leader activity with subscriber followers, legitimacy of activities of the subscriber leader, credit ratings, and account histories”); and applying the connectivity score to a subscriber's profile (par. 0068; “A single reputational score can be determined for the combination of the subscriber leader and subscriber followers. Individual reputational scores can be determined for the subscriber leader and the subscriber followers. The reputational score can be provided to third parties as an enhancement to the marketable value information of the subscriber leader. The reputational score can be used by third parties as a stand-alone metric for accessing a marketable worthiness of the subscriber leader and/or subscriber followers”).
Hines et al did not explicitly suggest of encrypting the collected telecommunications data. In the same field of endeavor, Wandelmer et al suggest of securing of data by encrypting of information in the data (par. 0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Wandelmer et al into view of Hines et al in order to secure the collected data.
Consider claim 2, Hines et al teach wherein the voice call metadata indicates a connection between one or more telecommunications subscribers (par. 0027; 0052; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”).
Consider claim 3, Hines et al teach further comprising, based on the connectivity score, prioritizing a plurality of subscriber profiles (par. 0010; “identifying subscribers (followers) who directly or indirectly are influenced by other subscribers (leaders)”; par. 0068; “the server 130 can determine a reputational score for the subscriber leader based on the collected and analyzed reputational data”; Thus, reputational scores assigned as leaders (i.e., prioritizing)).
Consider claim 4, Hines et al teach wherein subscribers with higher connectivity scores receive a higher priority (par. 0010; “identifying subscribers (followers) who directly or indirectly are influenced by other subscribers (leaders)”; par. 0068; “the server 130 can determine a reputational score for the subscriber leader based on the collected and analyzed reputational data”; Thus, leaders has higher priority than followers).
Consider claims 5 and 13, Hines et al teach wherein the collected telecommunications data comprises one or more of a frequency of communications between subscribers, duration of voice calls, and type of communication (par. 0052; 0054; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”; “The server 130 can monitor consumption of products and/or services ordered, distributed, or traversing the communication system 100” (i.e., corresponding to duration and duration of calls)”).
Consider claim 6, Hines et al inherently suggest wherein the connectivity score is continuously updated as additional telecommunications data is collected (par. 0068; inherent as reputational score is based on monitored activities of the subscriber and activities are continuously changes).
Consider claim 8, Hines et al teach wherein the connectivity score identifies subscribers with a high priority to receive targeted marketing or service promotions (par. 0050; “Server 530 can be used to identify products and/or services consumed by both subscriber leaders 512 and subscriber followers 506, 514, and 516 as these products and/or services are distributed by or require interaction with the server 530, …. The server 530 can also be used to provide marketing information and/or marketing access to marketing and advertising entities regarding the subscriber leaders 512 and/or the subscriber followers 506, 514, and 516, based upon the marketable value of the subscriber leaders 512”).
Consider claim 11, Hines et al teach wherein the UE communication metadata comprises voice call data, including a call duration and a time of call (par. 0052; 0054; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”; “The server 130 can monitor consumption of products and/or services ordered, distributed, or traversing the communication system 100” (i.e., corresponding to duration and time of call)”).
Consider claim 12, Hines et al teaches wherein the UE communication metadata comprises text message data, including a frequency of text messages sent and received (par. 0052; 0054; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”).
Consider claim 14, Hines et al teach wherein the one or more processors categorize subscriber interactions based on a type of communication, including a voice call type and a text message type par. (0052; 0054; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”).
Consider claim 15, Hines et al teach wherein the one or more processors apply a weighing component to different types of communications, wherein voice call types and text message types contribute differently to the connectivity score (par. 0059; 0069; “a series of reputational scores are determined for the subscriber leader and subscriber followers based on the identified market sector classifications for products and services”).
Consider claim 17, Hines et al teach wherein the one or more processors identify subscribers with high connectivity scores as potential network influencers (par. 0060; “the server 130 can determine a marketable value for the subscriber leader according to the assessed value of consumption. The marketable value represents a conversion of the value of consumption for the products and services consumed by the subscriber followers, as influenced by the subscriber leader, into a value, or score, representing the monetary worth of the subscriber leader as a driver for marketing and advertising products or services”).
Consider claim 18, Hines et al teach wherein the one or more processors prioritize subscribers for customer support services based on the connectivity score (par. 0066; “The server 130 can also collect and analyze the service provider subscription account histories of the subscriber leader and subscriber followers. ... The server 130 can determine heavy or light users of services, tendencies to purchase extra services, or to respond to special offers or incentives. The server 130 can detect subscribers who frequently require customer service, who register complaints about products or services, or who frequently change service providers”).
Consider claim 19, Hines et al teach wherein the one or more processors collect both outgoing and incoming communication data for each subscriber (par. 0052; 0054; “The server 130 can, for example, monitor interactions over the communication system 100 such as website traffic, social media traffic, membership, and activities, instant messaging traffic, and telephone and cellular communications”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hines et al (2013/0006703) in view of Wandelmer et al (2017/0039367) and further in view of Chakravarty et al (2021/0152584).
Consider claim 20, Hines et al disclose of monitoring and detect heavy or light users activities (par. 0066-0067). Hines et al did not explicitly suggest generate alerts when a subscriber's connectivity score exceeds a predefined threshold, indicating a high level of network activity. Chakravarty et al teach method for monitoring call or traffic on a network and generate notification in response to a predefined threshold (abstract; par. 0037-0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to apply the improved network monitoring technique of Chakravarty et al into Hines et al monitoring technique and the result would have been predictable and resulted in generating alert or notification of heavy/high network activities/users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.) Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC DUC TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7503. 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.
/Quoc D Tran/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights