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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Horton Para. 49 reinforces the security paradigm, not distraction reduction” stated on pages 11-12, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
To summarize, applicant argues that the disclosure of Horton and the claimed invention are “fundamentally different” “where: (1) the user personally owns the key device; (2) the user makes a deliberate, conscious choice each time to connect it or leave it stored away (Spec. Para. [0051]: "the conscious act of adding the 'key' to their 'digital device"'); (3) the restricted apps are apps the user personally identifies as distracting (social media, games, etc.), not business/security apps; and (4) the default restricted state is the user's chosen normal mode of operation for self-discipline.”
Initially, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (1) the user personally owns the key device and (4) the default restricted state is the user's chosen normal mode of operation for self-discipline) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Response to element (1): There is no evidence in Horton that the user does not personally own the token.
Response to element (2): There is no evidence in Horton that the user does not make a “deliberate, conscious choice” to utilize or not utilize the token. Horton’s token may be a key fob-type device that may be carried with the user or deliberately left at a location.
Response to element (3): There is no evidence in Horton that the user does not find a business/security app as “distracting” and nothing in the claims clarifies the types of apps that are considered distracting. For example, the user may deliberately leave the token at an office in order to prevent the business app from displaying notifications. Horton discloses the user performing setup of the security application for use with the token (Fig. 7; Para. 51).
Response to element (4): There is no evidence in Horton that the default restricted state is not the user’s chosen normal mode of operation. For example, the “normal mode of operation” may be considered an operation for non-work activities.
Along the same lines, applicant further states “The token described in this embodiment is permanently installed in a building—it is building infrastructure, not a personal device” and “The only scenario where the token is separate from the user (Para. 49) involves a permanently installed building fixture” on page 12 The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 49 states “a proximity security token may be in a fixed location”. Paragraph 49 and nowhere else in Horton’s disclosure indicates that the token is “permanently installed in a building” or is a “permanently installed building fixture”. The proximity token is consistently described as a key fob (Para. 39). Furthermore, paragraph 49 indicates an example embodiment.
Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Horton and Kim divide apps on fundamentally different bases” stated on page 13 and similar arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Horton discloses if the proximity security token is not required for the selected application, then the application is available for use by the user and, if the proximity security token is required for the application, then the application remains inaccessible until the device logic determines whether the proximity security token is present, wherein if the proximity security token is present, then the application is unlocked for use by the user (Fig. 6, el. S652, S654; Para. 48).
Kim discloses activating and deactivating the concentration improvement mode. (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170). The concentration improvement mode hides the icons of the selected apps, prevents push notification messages from the network, and prevents pop-up messages with respect to the selected applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1465; Para. 169). The system further ignores the selection of a restricted application and does not execute the application (Para. 136).
Applicant argues that “Horton divides apps into ‘token-required’ and ‘non-token-required’” and “Kim divides apps into ‘restricted’ and ‘unrestricted’”. Horton does not require any particular type of app to require a token for use. Any app may be considered to be “distracting” to the user whether work-related or otherwise. Similarly, Kim does not require any particular type of app to be considered for the concentration improvement mode. Therefore, nothing in Horton’s disclosure would have to be “reversed” since Horton does not require any particular type of app to be restricted.
Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Neither Horton nor Kim teaches motivation to be away from a key device” stated on pages 13-14 and similar arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, Horton discloses if the proximity security token is not required for the selected application, then the application is available for use by the user and, if the proximity security token is required for the application, then the application remains inaccessible until the device logic determines whether the proximity security token is present, wherein if the proximity security token is present, then the application is unlocked for use by the user (Fig. 6, el. S652, S654; Para. 48).
Furthermore, in one embodiment of Horton, the proximity token may be located in an office building, such that a business application may only be used in that location. Applications such as notepad may be used at any location (Para. 49). In this case, the user would benefit from being able to leave work at the office building, thereby improving work-life balance.
Applicant states “In the claimed invention, the user is motivated to keep the key stored away to reduce their own distraction” on page 14 and similar arguments. This statement would also apply to Horton’s disclosure. As stated above, the user may wish to not receive notifications from work-related apps, i.e., distracting apps, while at home so the user deliberately leaves the token at the office.
Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Kim does not teach the ‘operation mode parameters’ of Claim 9” stated on pages 14-15 and similar arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the “time information” element is not required by claim 9. Claim 9 states “defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information” (emphasis added). The examiner suggests amending the claim to indicate that each of the listed items of information are included as operation mode parameters.
Kim discloses activating multitasking restriction mode when the application is requested for execution (Fig. 21, el. 2145; Para. 206) and deactivating multitasking restriction mode when the predefined time has expired or the application has been terminated (Fig. 21, el. 2155; Para. 207), wherein the multitasking restriction mode may be provided as a sub-function of the concentration improvement mode or a separate function (Para. 181)
Kim further discloses deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired and releasing the restriction of the applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170);
Examiner note: The concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions, as disclosed by Kim, and the concentration improvement mode may have a longer expiration time than the multitasking restriction mode. Therefore, the concentration improvement mode would still be in effect once the multitasking restriction mode is deactivated.
Combining the cited prior art brings about a system that includes defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters. Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is taught by the combination of the cited prior art.
Applicant states “Locking a device and preventing the device from being usable when a key device is not present as in Horton…” on page 16 and similar arguments. Horton discloses locking the device entirely, locking certain applications, or locking specific features of the wireless communication device 100 (Para. 38). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 13, 16, and 20—“the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps” should be amended to state --the one or more apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps-- in order to correct the plurality issue.
Claims 11, 14, and 15 include similar language and are similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 2, line 2—“the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps” should be amended to state --the one or more apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps-- in order to correct the plurality issue.
Claim 12 includes similar language and is similarly analyzed.
Regarding claim 2, line 7—“a user” should be amended to state --the user-- in order to refer to “a user” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, lines 5 and 7—“the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps” should be amended to state --the one or more apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps-- in order to correct the plurality issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0056974 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horton teaches a method for selectively restricting interaction with apps installed on a digital device…, e.g., a wireless communication device (Fig. 1A, el. 100), wherein the device may be a smartphone (Para. 35), the digital device comprising a launcher, e.g., a security application (Para. 35), the method comprising:
selecting a first set of one or more apps identified…by the user and storing information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps with the launcher, e.g., a business application is locked when not in proximity to the proximity security token while the notepad application remains unlocked (Para. 49); wherein the security application restricts and allows access to applications (Para. 37);
storing information identifying a key device with the launcher, e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Para. 35); and
the launcher automatically switching between a first operation mode and a second operation mode in response to detecting a connection between the digital device and the key device, e.g., unlocking the device when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 3; Para. 42); unlocking an application when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 6; Para. 48),
wherein in the first operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is not connected and prevents the user from using…apps: the launcher prevents the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in a foreground while still allowing one or more apps not in the first set of the one or more selected apps to run, e.g., If the proximity security token is not required, then the application is available for use by the user and, if the proximity security token is required for the application, then the application remains inaccessible until the device logic determines whether the proximity security token is present (Fig. 6, el. S652, S654; Para. 48); the business application is locked when not in proximity to the proximity security token while the notepad application remains unlocked (Para. 49); and
…
wherein in the second operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is connected and allows the user to use…apps: the launcher does not prevent the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground so that the first set of the one or more selected apps is only able to run on the digital device when the key device is connected while the one or more apps not in the first set of the one or more selected apps is able to run whether or not the key device is connected, e.g., If the proximity security token is not required, then the application is available for use by the user and, if the proximity security token is required for the application, then the application remains inaccessible until the device logic determines whether the proximity security token is present, wherein if the proximity security token is present, then the application is unlocked for use by the user (Fig. 6, el. S652, S654; Para. 48); and
….
Horton does not explicitly teach a method for selectively restricting interaction with apps installed on a digital device to reduce distractions from the digital device in contexts chosen by a user,…,
the method comprising:
selecting a first set of the one or more apps identified as distracting by the user and storing information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps with the launcher;
wherein in the first operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is not connected and prevents the user from using distracting apps:
the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps; and
wherein in the second operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is connected and allows the user to use distracting apps:
the launcher does not block notifications originating from the one or more apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps.
Kim teaches a method for selectively restricting interaction with apps installed on a digital device, e.g., a portable device (Figs. 1, 2, el. 100), wherein the portable device may be a smart phone (Para. 47), to reduce distractions from the digital device in contexts chosen by a user, e.g., the above-configured portable device 100 is very useful to a user due to a great portability and various functions, whereas notification messages such as push notification messages, pop-up messages, SMS and MMS tend to disturb the user, to thereby deteriorate his or her concentration, which sometimes leads to inordinate use of the portable device (Para. 106); the concentration improvement mode may be activated by setting up the portable device, or by executing an application of concentration improvement mode installed in the portable device—reduces distraction in contexts chosen by the user-- (Para. 122), the digital device comprising a launcher, e.g., an application of concentration improvement mode (Para. 122), the method comprising:
selecting a first set of one or more apps identified as distracting by the user and storing information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps with the launcher, e.g., selecting apps to be restricted (Fig. 6; Para. 128); storing the identification information of the applications corresponding to the selected icons (Para. 129);
…and
the launcher automatically switching between a first operation mode and a second operation mode…, e.g., deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170),
wherein in the first operation mode that is automatically active when the restriction time has not expired and prevents the user from using distracting apps: the launcher prevents the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in a foreground while still allowing one or more apps not in the first set of the one or more selected apps to run, e.g., the portable device receives, by detecting the user input, a selection of at least one application of the application list 600 (Fig. 6, el. 600; Fig. 14A, el. 1420; Para. 163); the concentration improvement mode hides the icons of the selected apps, prevents push notification messages from the network, and prevents pop-up messages with respect to the selected applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1465; Para. 169); ignoring the selection of a restricted application and not executing the application (Para. 136); and
the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps, e.g., the concentration improvement mode hides the icons of the selected apps, prevents push notification messages from the network, and prevents pop-up messages with respect to the selected applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1465; Para. 169); the application menu 802 may include icons of applications except for the use-restricted applications, while the blank or deactivated icons of the restricted applications may not be shown (Fig. 8, el. 802; Para. 136); and
wherein in the second operation mode that is automatically active when the restriction time has expired and allows the user to use distracting apps: the launcher does not prevent apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground so that the first set of the one or more selected apps is…able to run on the digital device when the restriction time has expired while the one or more apps not in the first set of the one or more selected apps is able to run whether or not the restriction time has expired, e.g., deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired and releasing the restriction of the applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170); and
the launcher does not block notifications originating from the one or more apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps, e.g., deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170); storing received notifications and generated pop-up messages while in concentration improvement mode and informing the user of the corresponding messages (Para. 171); displaying the stored messages and notifications (Para. 222);.
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 Horton to include a method for selectively restricting interaction with apps installed on a digital device to reduce the distraction from the digital device in contexts chosen by a user, the method comprising: selecting a first set of one or more apps identified as distracting by the user and storing information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps with the launcher; wherein in the first operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is not connected and prevents the user from using distracting apps: the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps; and wherein in the second operation mode that is automatically active when the key device is connected and allows the user to use distracting apps: the launcher does not block notifications originating from the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps., using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, for the purpose of restricting the display of notifications that are particularly distracting to the user (Kim-Para. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the launcher blocking notifications comprises:
the launcher receiving a notification, e.g., receiving a push notification message associated with a certain application (Kim-Fig. 22, el. 2205; Para. 213); storing the push notification messages received from the network and pop-up messages generated with respect to the selected applications while under the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 134, 171), wherein the concentration improvement mode may be activated by executing an application of concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 122);
the launcher determining information identifying which app created the notification, e.g., determining whether the push notification message is related to the first application to be restricted by the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Fig. 22, el. 2210; Para. 213); storing the push notification messages received from the network and pop-up messages generated with respect to the selected applications while under the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 134, 171), wherein the concentration improvement mode may be activated by executing an application of concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 122);
if the information identifying the app that created the notification matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, the launcher cancelling the notification, e.g., storing the push notification messages received from the network and pop-up messages generated with respect to the selected applications while under the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Fig. 22, el. 2220; Para. 134, 171, 216), wherein the concentration improvement mode may be activated by executing an application of concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 122).
Regarding claim 4, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the launcher blocking notifications further comprises: the launcher storing information associated with the notification, e.g., storing the push notification messages received from the network and pop-up messages generated with respect to the selected applications while under the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 134, 171, 213), wherein the concentration improvement mode may be activated by executing an application of concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 122); and
wherein the launcher switching from the first operation mode to the second operation mode further comprises: the launcher outputting at least part of the stored information associated with the notification, e.g., displaying the stored messages and notifications (Kim-Fig. 23, el. 2325; Para. 222).
Regarding claim 5, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting a connection between the digital device and the key device comprises: receiving a connection event, e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Horton-Para. 35); communicating to detect a distance between the token and the device, wherein the data includes the unique identifier identifying the token (Horton-Para. 40);
determining information identifying a connected device and comparing the determined information with the stored information identifying the key device, e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Horton-Para. 35); communicating to detect a distance between the token and the device, wherein the data includes the unique identifier identifying the token (Horton-Para. 40); and
determining whether the connection event is associated with the connected device being connected or with the connected device being disconnected, e.g., unlocking the device when the token is within the proximity of the device (Horton-Fig. 3; Para. 42); unlocking an application when the token is within the proximity of the device (Horton-Fig. 6; Para. 48).
Regarding claim 6, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the key device is a physical device, selected from the group consisting of a USB device, an audio jack device, a short-range wireless technology device or a Near-Field Communication (NFC) device; and/or wherein the information identifying the key device comprises one or more of a vendor identifier and a device identifier stored on the key device, e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Horton-Para. 35); the proximity security token communicates via Bluetooth or NFC with the device (Horton-Para. 40);
Also note: Kim discloses the portable device may communicate with an electronic device via Bluetooth, NFC, or WiFi Direct (Kim-Para. 49).
Regarding claim 7, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the key device is a virtual device, selected from the group consisting of a Wi-Fi device or a GPS device; and/or wherein key information comprises one or more of: an SSID and location information, e.g., the proximity security token communicates via WiFi with the device (Horton-Para. 40);
Also note: Kim discloses the portable device may communicate with an electronic device via Bluetooth, NFC, or WiFi Direct (Kim-Para. 49);
Regarding claim 8, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Horton does not clearly teach further comprising: selecting a second set of one or more apps and storing information identifying the second set of selected apps with the launcher;
defining a third operation mode wherein in the third operation mode: the launcher prevents the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground; and
the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps.
Kim further teaches further comprising: selecting a second set of one or more apps and storing information identifying the second set of selected apps with the launcher, e.g., receiving user input for selecting at least one application and storing the information of the selected application using the setting menu (Kim-Fig. 16, el. 1602; Fig. 21, el. 2125; Para. 204); in the multitasking restriction mode, the device restricts execution of applications except for the desired application (Kim-Para. 180, 181);
defining a third operation mode wherein in the third operation mode: the launcher prevents the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground, e.g., activating multitasking restriction mode and ignoring detection of the user’s gesture on the area other than the execution screen area (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2150; Para. 206), wherein in the multitasking restriction mode, the device restricts execution of applications except for the desired application (Kim-Para. 180, 181); and
the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps, e.g., activating multitasking restriction mode and blocking or hiding the display of the push notification messages and pop-up messages (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2150; Para. 180, 181, 206).
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 Horton to include selecting a second set of one or more apps and storing information identifying the second set of selected apps with the launcher; defining a third operation mode wherein in the third operation mode: the launcher prevents the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground; and the launcher blocks notifications originating from the apps in the second set of the one or more selected apps, using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, using the same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 8.
Horton does not clearly teach further comprising: defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and
switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters.
Kim further teaches defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode, e.g., setting the amount of time that the multitasking restriction mode is to be applied to the selected application (Kim-Fig. 16, el. 1604; Para. 185); activating multitasking restriction mode when the application is requested for execution (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2145; Para. 206); and
switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters, e.g., activating multitasking restriction mode when the application is requested for execution (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2145; Para. 206); the predefined time has expired or the application has been terminated and deactivating multitasking restriction mode (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2155; Para. 207), wherein the concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions instead of the multitasking restriction mode being a sub-function of the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 181); deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired and releasing the restriction of the applications (Kim-Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170);
Examiner note: The concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions, as disclosed by Kim, and the concentration improvement mode may have a longer expiration time than the multitasking restriction mode. Therefore, the concentration improvement mode would still be in effect once the multitasking restriction mode is deactivated.
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 Horton to include defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters, using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, using the same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1. Horton in view of Kim further teaches a digital device, e.g., a wireless communication device (Horton-Figs. 1A, 1B, el. 100), wherein the device may be a smartphone (Horton-Para. 35); a portable device (Kim-Figs. 1, 2, el. 100), wherein the portable device may be a smart phone (Kim-Para. 47), comprising
a memory, e.g., memory 113 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 113); a storage unit (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 175), storing a launcher, e.g., device logic 114 includes a security application for wireless communication device 100 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 114; Para. 37); the storage unit stores a control program and applications for controlling the apparatus or the controller (Kim-Para. 81, 83), wherein a concentration improvement application is installed in the portable device (Kim-Para. 121),
a processor, e.g., CPU 111 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 111); a controller that includes a CPU (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 110, 111), coupled to the memory, and
a connector, e.g., transceiver 119 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 119); a wireless LAN module (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 131); a short distance communication module (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 132), for communicatively coupling the device to a key device, e.g., antenna 107 provides a means for sending and receiving signals from transceiver 119 to other devices, such as the proximity security token (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 107; Para. 36); communicating with a Bluetooth communication device, an NFC device, or a WiFi Direct device (Kim-Para. 49); the wireless LAN module that can perform near field communication (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 131; Para. 64); the short distance communication module that can perform Bluetooth, WiFi-Direct communication, and NFC (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 132; Para. 64),
wherein the processor is configured to perform executable operations, e.g., CPU 111 controls the components of wireless communication device 100 by executing device logic 114 from memory 113 (Horton-Para. 37); the controller controlling the portable device (Kim-Para. 53).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is analyzed with respect to claims 1 and 11. Horton in view of Kim further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, e.g., memory 113 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 113); a storage unit (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 175), storing at least one software code portion, the software code portion, when executed or processed by a computer, e.g., CPU 111 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 111); a controller that includes a CPU (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 110, 111), configured to perform executable operations.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is analyzed with respect to claims 1, 11, and 14.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton in view of Kim and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2015/0079943 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 1.
Horton in view of Kim does not clearly teach wherein the launcher preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground; and if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the identified at least one app running in the foreground, the overlay making the identified at least one app running in the foreground invisible and the overlay preventing user interaction with the identified at least one app running in the foreground.
Williams teaches wherein the launcher, e.g., a control application (Fig. 1, el. 116), preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground, e.g., determining the types of applications that are running (Para. 48); ensuring that the control application loads as a foreground process (Para. 27); the user interface component of the control application may enable execution of a predetermined set of allowed applications (Para. 28, 30); the user interface component disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications (Para. 28); the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application (Para. 44); and
if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the identified at least one app running in the foreground, the overlay making the identified at least one app running in the foreground invisible and the overlay preventing user interaction with the identified at least one app running in the foreground, e.g., entering state 202 corresponding to an active state in which the control application is executing as the primary executing application after a user initiates the control application and begins to move at more than a threshold rate of speed, wherein the control application presents a user interface that enables only limited functionality that enables a user to execute a set of allowed applications and disallow execution of non-approved applications (Fig. 2, el. 202; Para. 30); the user interface component of the control application disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications (Para. 28); displaying a user interface at least partially generated by the control application, wherein the user interface includes a restriction notification 401 which reflects that functionality is currently limited due to excessive speed (Fig. 4, el. 304, 401; Para. 43); the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application (Para. 44).
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 Horton in view of Kim to include wherein the launcher preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground; and if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the identified at least one app running in the foreground, the overlay making the identified at least one app running in the foreground invisible and the overlay preventing user interaction with the identified at least one app running in the foreground, using the known methods of entering state 202 corresponding to an active state in which the control application is executing as the primary executing application after a user initiates the control application and begins to move at more than a threshold rate of speed, wherein the control application presents a user interface that enables only limited functionality that enables a user to execute a set of allowed applications and disallow execution of non-approved applications, wherein the user interface component of the control application disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications, wherein the user interface includes a restriction notification which reflects that functionality is currently limited due to excessive speed, and the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application, as taught by Williams, in combination with the application and notification restriction system of Horton in view of Kim, for the purpose of enabling restriction of functionality of a protected mobile communication device by ensuring that a protected mobile communication device is placed in one of a number of known states (Williams-Para. 16). Another benefit of the combination includes forcing the device to display the user interface of the control application when attempting to access an unapproved application, thereby effectively restricting the user in their use of the device (Williams-Para. 21).
Regarding claim 12, Horton in view of Kim teaches the digital device according to claim 11.
Horton in view of Kim does not clearly teach wherein the launcher preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground; and if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the at least one app that is running in the foreground.
Williams teaches wherein the launcher, e.g., a control application (Fig. 1, el. 116), preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises:
determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground, e.g., ensuring that the control application loads as a foreground process (Para. 27); determining the types of applications that are running (Para. 48); the user interface component of the control application may enable execution of a predetermined set of allowed applications (Para. 28, 30); the user interface component disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications (Para. 28); the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application (Para. 44); and
if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and preferably outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the at least one app that is running in the foreground, e.g., entering state 202 corresponding to an active state in which the control application is executing as the primary executing application after a user initiates the control application and begins to move at more than a threshold rate of speed, wherein the control application presents a user interface that enables only limited functionality that enables a user to execute a set of allowed applications and disallow execution of non-approved applications (Fig. 2, el. 202; Para. 30); the user interface component of the control application disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications (Para. 28); displaying a user interface at least partially generated by the control application, wherein the user interface includes a restriction notification 401 which reflects that functionality is currently limited due to excessive speed (Fig. 4, el. 304, 401; Para. 43); the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application (Para. 44).
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 Horton in view of Kim to include wherein the launcher preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground; and if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the at least one app that is running in the foreground, using the known methods of entering state 202 corresponding to an active state in which the control application is executing as the primary executing application after a user initiates the control application and begins to move at more than a threshold rate of speed, wherein the control application presents a user interface that enables only limited functionality that enables a user to execute a set of allowed applications and disallow execution of non-approved applications, wherein the user interface component of the control application disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications, wherein the user interface includes a restriction notification which reflects that functionality is currently limited due to excessive speed, and the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application, as taught by Williams, in combination with the application and notification restriction system of Horton in view of Kim, for the purpose of enabling restriction of functionality of a protected mobile communication device by ensuring that a protected mobile communication device is placed in one of a number of known states (Williams-Para. 16). Another benefit of the combination includes forcing the device to display the user interface of the control application when attempting to access an unapproved application, thereby effectively restricting the user in their use of the device (Williams-Para. 21).
Regarding claim 13, Horton in view of Kim teaches the digital device of claim 11.
Horton in view of Kim further teaches wherein the key device, e.g., a proximity security token (Horton-Fig. 2A, 2B, el. 220), comprises a memory, e.g., memory (Horton-Fig. 2B, el. 223), for storing key information, e.g., the memory contains token logic (Horton-Para. 40), and a connector…for connecting to the digital device, e.g., a wireless communication device (Horton-Fig. 1A, el. 100), wherein the device may be a smartphone (Para. 35);
Also note: Kim further discloses communicating with a Bluetooth communication device, an NFC device, or a WiFi Direct device (Kim-Para. 49).
Horton in view of Kim does not clearly teach wherein the key device comprises a memory for storing key information and a connector selected from the group consisting of: a USB-A connection, a USB type C connector, or a USB-micro connector, for connecting to the digital device.
Williams teaches wherein the key device, e.g., a USB protocol keyboard (Para. 45); a vehicle navigation system or audio player, or a headset (Para. 47), comprises a memory for storing key information, e.g., logic may be included within the keyboard to send a key lock code (Para. 45), and
a connector selected from the group consisting of: a USB-A connection, a USB type C connector, or a USB-micro connector, e.g., sending a key lock code over the USB interface to lock the device (Para. 45, 47), for connecting to the digital device, e.g., a protected mobile device (Fig. 1, el. 100).
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 Horton in view of Kim to include wherein the key device comprises a memory for storing key information and a connector selected from the group consisting of: a USB-A connection, a USB type C connector, or a USB-micro connector, for connecting to the digital device, using the known system of a USB protocol keyboard that includes logic to send a key lock code over the USB interface to lock the device, as taught by Williams, in combination with the application and notification restriction system of Horton in view of Kim, for the purpose of enabling restriction of functionality of a protected mobile communication device by ensuring that a protected mobile communication device is placed in one of a number of known states (Williams-Para. 16). Another benefit of the combination includes forcing the device to display the user interface of the control application when attempting to access an unapproved application, thereby effectively restricting the user in their use of the device (Williams-Para. 21).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton in view of Kim and further in view of Coyle-Gilchrist (US 2020/0296178 A1) (see foreign priority document—EP 3 709 613 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Horton in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1.
Horton in view of Kim does not clearly teach further comprising: the launcher in the first operation mode using display colors from a greyscale color palette, and the launcher in the second operation mode using display colors from a full-color palette.
Coyle-Gilchrist teaches the launcher in the first operation mode using display colors from a greyscale color palette, and the launcher in the second operation mode using display colors from a full-color palette, e.g., modifying the color range of the mobile device’s display to provide a greyscale UI, wherein the modification is to hinder/impede user interaction and mildly inconvenience the user (Para. 100, 101, 120, 121).
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 Horton in view of Kim to include the launcher in the first operation mode using display colors from a greyscale color palette, and the launcher in the second operation mode using display colors from a full-color palette, using the known method of modifying the color range of the mobile device’s display to provide a greyscale UI, wherein the modification is to hinder/impede user interaction and mildly inconvenience the user, as taught by Coyle-Gilchrist, in combination with the application and notification restriction system of Horton in view of Kim, for the purpose of hindering/impeding user interaction and mildly inconveniencing the user (Coyle-Gilchrist-Para. 120). Another benefit of the combination includes providing a clear indication that the device is in a particular mode.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (US 2013/0184933 A1)—Smith et al. discloses an apparatus that restricts or disables electronic device functionality based on vehicle status data received from the on-board computer ("OBD") of a public service vehicle (Abstract).
Singh (US 9,661,127 B1)—Singh discloses automatically, selectively, and temporarily blocking certain device functions on the handheld mobile device (Col. 5, lines 60-67).
Vaughn et al. (US 2020/0389551 A1)—Vaughn discloses blocking the appearance of calls on mobile devices in certain situations (Para. 59).
Ben Ayed (US 8,595,810 B1)—Ben Ayed discloses when the application is launched or brought to the foreground, the security layer displays a lock screen that prevents the user from accessing the app. If the user tries to unlock the lock screen, an authentication procedure is initiated, for example, verifying that a Bluetooth token is present within proximity. Once the user is authenticated, the lock screen is removed, and the user can access the application. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token is not within proximity while the application is in the foreground, the lock screen is displayed, and alarms/alerts are triggered. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token is not within proximity while the application is in the background, the application may ignore the event or the lock screen is displayed, and/or alarms/alerts are triggered. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token after alarms are triggered, or if an unlock code is entered, the security layer stops alarming (Col. 13, line 62-Col. 14, line 13).
Maragoudakis (US 2018/0007558 A1)—Maragoudakis discloses establishing a verified session with a host device by establishing that the wearable device is present in the vicinity of the host device. The existence of such a verified session can be used to control access to sensitive information stored on the host device (Abstract).
Ashili (US 2017/0339270 A1)—Ashili discloses running an application in the background on the mobile device to monitor for events or speed configurations and thereafter transitions into the foreground to control the operations of the mobile device (Para. 41).
Buchanan et al. (US 2009/0089565 A1)—Buchanan discloses proximity rules, wherein a child device rule has a requirement that the child device is within range of the parent cell phone in order to not operate with limited functionality (Para. 19).
Ladouceur (US 2008/0058006 A1)—Ladouceur discloses a mobile device that allows picture taking upon insertion of a removable key (Fig. 21; Para. 49).
Elliott (US 2018/0316788 A1)—Elliott discloses restricting features of a mobile device based on the operating condition of a vehicle and the position of the mobile device in the vehicle interior (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM (ET).
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
04 March 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498