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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Rem. 5-7, filed 5 December, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 9 under Leong et al in view of Koyanagi et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as presented herein.
Applicants’ arguments filed on 5 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
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, 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.
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 1–2, 5–7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Grokop et al. (US 2013/0245986 A1, “Grokop”) in view of Inselberg (US 8,401,578 B2, “Inselberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Grokop discloses:
a communication control terminal comprising:Grokop discloses a mobile device configured to perform communication with another device. (fig. 1; para. 22)
a communication unit configured to perform communication with another device;Grokop discloses that the mobile device communicates with other devices. (fig. 1; para. 22)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a value of acceleration;Grokop discloses “accelerometer data is used.” (abstract, para. 20)
a determination unit configured to determine that the communication control terminal is in a state of being brought into a vehicle, based on the value of acceleration;Grokop discloses “Systems and methods herein enable a mobile device to detect that a user is traveling in association with a vehicle based at least on motion data. In some embodiments, accelerometer data is used.” Grokop further discloses “before entering the state of vehicular movement, it can be determined that the user is first in a walking state (e.g., walking to the car, bus, etc., and entering it).” and “when the user is in the walking state, the accelerometer signals appear different to any accelerometer signals seen in the vehicular movement state.” (para. 20, 32, 35) These disclosures teach determining a vehicle-related state based on accelerometer data, including a transition corresponding to entering a vehicle, which reasonably corresponds to being brought into a vehicle.
Grokop does not specifically disclose:a communication control unit configured to perform restriction of use of the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is not in the state of being brought into a vehicle.
Inselberg discloses “prevents a vehicle occupant from text messaging while driving,” “the driver’s cell phone text messaging functionality is turned off … as the driver enters the vehicle through the driver-side door,” and “when the driver exits the vehicle … the cell phone resumes its texting capability.” (fig. 4A, 5A; 10:24-49; 11:7-38) These disclosures teach restricting communication functionality based on a vehicle-related state, and enabling/disabling communication depending on whether the user is entering or exiting the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to modify Grokop to include the communication restriction functionality taught by Inselberg in order to improve safety and reduce distraction. Further, applying such restriction when the device is not in a desired state (i.e., not in the vehicle-entry state) represents a predictable inversion of control logic.
Regarding claim 2, Grokop discloses:
the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into a vehicle and that traveling of the vehicle is in a traveling state, based on a vibration state determined based on the acceleration.Grokop discloses “when the user is in the walking state, the accelerometer signals appear different to any accelerometer signals seen in the vehicular movement state.” (para. 32) This teaches determining a vehicle traveling state based on acceleration-derived motion characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, Grokop discloses:
the determination unit detects a direction of travel of the vehicle based on the acceleration acquired for each of the axes.Grokop discloses use of accelerometer data (para. 32, 69), which inherently includes multi-axis acceleration enabling determination of motion direction.
Regarding claim 6, Grokop discloses:
the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into a vehicle based on a frequency of detection of the acceleration or the deceleration equal to or greater than a threshold.Grokop discloses continuous evaluation of accelerometer signals to distinguish motion states. (para. 35) It would have been obvious to characterize motion using frequency of acceleration/deceleration events relative to a threshold as a routine signal-processing technique.
Regarding claim 7, Inselberg discloses:
the communication control unit turns off a wireless communication function as the restriction of use of the communication.Inselberg discloses “the driver’s cell phone text messaging functionality is turned off,” which teaches turning off a communication function. (11:7-38)
Claim 9 recites a communication control method for use in a communication control terminal, corresponding to the communication control terminal of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 3–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Grokop in view of Inselberg, and further in view of Wilson (US 9,743,260 B2, “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 3, Grokop does not specifically disclose:the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into a vehicle and that traveling of the vehicle is in a traffic congestion state, based on a movement state determined based on the acceleration, and the communication control unit permits the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into a vehicle and the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, and performs restriction of use of the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is not in the state of being brought into a vehicle or the vehicle is not in the traffic congestion state.
Wilson discloses “the mobile computing device … may automatically determine that the user is driving based on a speed associated with the mobile computing device” and “this speed may be ascertained from … accelerometer … of the mobile computing device itself.” (11:1-36) It would have been obvious to refine Grokop’s determination to identify a traffic congestion state based on movement characteristics such as speed and acceleration, and to permit communication in one vehicle condition while restricting it in another as a predictable variation of Inselberg’s control.
Regarding claim 4, Grokop does not specifically disclose:the acquisition unit acquires time-series data of acceleration corresponding to a plurality of axes, and the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into a vehicle and that the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, based on the movement state based on the time-series data of acceleration corresponding to a direction of travel of the vehicle.
Wilson discloses that speed may be ascertained from an accelerometer of the mobile computing device. Accelerometer data inherently is collected over time and corresponds to multiple axes. (11:1-36) It would have been obvious to use time-series, multi-axis acceleration data to improve motion-state determination accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468