DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Examiner’s Note
The indentations of claim 8 suggest that the “room communication kiosk” comprises “a housing” and nothing else. The placement of “and” conjunctions suggest otherwise. Examiner assumes the indentations are misleading and the kiosk of claim 8 comprises a list of components similar to the kiosk of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 8 recites “the plurality of rooms.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes the “campus” comprises a plurality of rooms. Dependent claims inherit the same issue from parent claims and do not resolve it.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in this application because portions of figures 11A, 11C, and 11D are too blurry to be readable. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0159386 A1, hereinafter Kang) in view of Sudman et al. (US 2020/0219217 A1, hereinafter Sudman) and Zimmerman et al (US 2010/0031198 A1, hereinafter Zimmerman).
As to independent claim 1, Kang teaches a room communication kiosk (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet is mobile and may be placed anywhere, such as in a room, making it a room communication kiosk) integrated within a [] communication system, the [] communication system providing integrated communication services for [] integrating the [] communication system (“the wireless communication unit 110 includes a broadcast reception module 111, a mobile communication module 113, a wireless internet module 115, a short-range communication module 117, and a global positioning system (GPS) module 119,” paragraph 0021 lines 1-5), the room communication kiosk comprising:
a housing configured for installation within a room [] (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet may be “installed” by placing it in a room);
a power interface configured to provide power to the room communication kiosk (“power supply unit 190,” paragraph 0020 line 7);
a network interface configured to communicate with the [] communication system (“the wireless communication unit 110 includes a broadcast reception module 111, a mobile communication module 113, a wireless internet module 115, a short-range communication module 117, and a global positioning system (GPS) module 119,” paragraph 0021 lines 1-5);
a speaker configured to play audio signals from the [] communication system (“an audio output module 153,” paragraph 0035 line 3);
a microphone configured to accept audio input from the room (“a microphone 123,” paragraph 0027 line 3);
a touchscreen (“when the user input unit 130 is implemented as a touch pad and forms a mutual layer structure with the display module 151, the user input unit 130 and the display module 151 may be collectively referred to as a touch screen,” paragraph 0029 lines 11-15) device configured to:
display one or more user function widgets on the touchscreen [] (“Referring to FIGS. 8(a) and 8(b), when the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation 433 on a display screen showing a shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays a widget 435 instead of the shortcut icon 431,” paragraph 0070 lines 1-4);
sense one or more user touch gestures interacting with the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
generate a signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
a processor (“a controller 180,” paragraph 0020 lines 6-7) configured to:
receive the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8);
interpret the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures based on the one or more user function widgets to determine a kiosk action for the [] communication system (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
communicate the kiosk action to the [] communication system over the network interface (fetch information to display in the selected application, e.g. the web page of figure 9(a)).
Kang does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein:
the communication system is a campus communication system, the campus communication system providing integrated communication services for a plurality of rooms within a campus integrating the campus communication system; and
the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus.
Sudman teaches a system wherein:
the communication system is a campus communication system, the campus communication system providing integrated communication services for a plurality of rooms within a campus integrating the campus communication system (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” paragraph 0006 lines 1-3); and
the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” paragraph 0006 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kiosk of Kang to comprise the campus of Sudman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely integrating the kiosk into a campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” Sudman paragraph 0006 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Kang/Sudman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device.
Zimmerman teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman to comprise the location of Zimmerman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on location (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen comprise one or more of: workflow widgets, information widgets (“Widgets can be classified into accessory widgets such as clock or calendar widgets, application widgets such as games or contact lists, or information widgets such as weather forecasts or stock information,” Kang paragraph 0059 lines 7-11), or local control widgets.
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the workflow widgets automate workflow functionality of the campus communication system at the room communication kiosk, the workflow functionality comprises: call-in functionality, emergency initiation functionality, and room attribute functionality (Due to the alternative language (“or,” “and/or,” “at least one of,” Markush phrasing, etc.) claim 4 recites alternative limitations such that only one (selected limitation) of the possible limitations is need to be taught to properly reject the claims. Consequently, subsequent limitations further limiting the non-selected, alternative limitations are not required.).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the information widgets display campus communication system information on the touchscreen, the campus communication system information comprises one or more of: emergency response information, campus schedule information, and room specific information for a room containing the room communication kiosk (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the local control widgets control local functionality of the room communication kiosk (Due to the alternative language (“or,” “and/or,” “at least one of,” Markush phrasing, etc.) claim 4 recites alternative limitations such that only one (selected limitation) of the possible limitations is need to be taught to properly reject the claims. Consequently, subsequent limitations further limiting the non-selected, alternative limitations are not required.).
As to independent claim 8, Kang teaches a networked [] communication system (“the wireless communication unit 110 includes a broadcast reception module 111, a mobile communication module 113, a wireless internet module 115, a short-range communication module 117, and a global positioning system (GPS) module 119,” paragraph 0021 lines 1-5), the system comprising:
a room communication kiosk (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet is mobile and may be placed anywhere, such as in a room, making it a room communication kiosk), the room communication kiosk comprising:
a housing configured for installation within a room [] (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet may be “installed” by placing it in a room);
a power interface configured to provide power to the room communication kiosk (“power supply unit 190,” paragraph 0020 line 7);
a network interface configured to communicate with the at least one communication system (“the wireless communication unit 110 includes a broadcast reception module 111, a mobile communication module 113, a wireless internet module 115, a short-range communication module 117, and a global positioning system (GPS) module 119,” paragraph 0021 lines 1-5);
a speaker configured to play audio signals from the at least one communication system (“an audio output module 153,” paragraph 0035 line 3);
a microphone configured to accept audio input from the room (“a microphone 123,” paragraph 0027 line 3);
a touchscreen device (“when the user input unit 130 is implemented as a touch pad and forms a mutual layer structure with the display module 151, the user input unit 130 and the display module 151 may be collectively referred to as a touch screen,” paragraph 0029 lines 11-15) configured to:
display one or more user function widgets on the touchscreen [] (“Referring to FIGS. 8(a) and 8(b), when the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation 433 on a display screen showing a shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays a widget 435 instead of the shortcut icon 431,” paragraph 0070 lines 1-4);
sense one or more user touch gestures interacting with the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
generate a signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
a processor (“a controller 180,” paragraph 0020 lines 6-7) configured to:
receive the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8);
interpret the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures based on the one or more user function widgets to determine a kiosk action for the at least one communication system (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
communicate the kiosk action to the at least one communication system over the network interface (fetch information to display in the selected application, e.g. the web page of figure 9(a)).
Kang does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the networked communication system is a networked campus communication system, the system comprising:
a district server configured to manage at least one communication system located within a campus managed by the district server;
a district network configured to communicatively couple the at least one communication system and the district server; and
a user interface configured to allow access to the district server to control the at least one communication system;
wherein the at least one communication system comprises:
a network switch configured to integrate communication equipment associated with the campus into the at least one communication system;
a campus controller communicatively coupled to the network switch and configured to control the communication equipment associated with the campus;
a room controller communicatively coupled to the campus controller and configured to control room communication equipment of a room within the campus; and
the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus.
Sudman teaches a system wherein the networked communication system is a networked campus communication system (“a networked school communication system,” paragraph 0005 lines 1-2), the system comprising:
a district server configured to manage at least one communication system located within a campus managed by the district server (“a district server configured to manage at least one communication system located within a district location managed by the district server,” paragraph 0005 lines 2-5);
a district network configured to communicatively couple the at least one communication system and the district server (“a district network configured to communicatively couple the at least one communication system and the district server,” paragraph 0005 lines 5-7); and
a user interface configured to allow access to the district server to control the at least one communication system (“a user interface configured to allow access to the district server to control the at least one communication system,” paragraph 0005 lines 7-9);
wherein the at least one communication system comprises:
a network switch configured to integrate communication equipment associated with the campus into the at least one communication system (“a network switch configured to integrate communication equipment associated with the district location into the at least one communication system,” paragraph 0005 lines 8-10);
a campus controller communicatively coupled to the network switch and configured to control the communication equipment associated with the campus (“a campus controller communicatively coupled to the network switch and configured to control the communication equipment associated with the district location,” paragraph 0005 lines 11-13);
a room controller communicatively coupled to the campus controller and configured to control room communication equipment of a room within the campus (“a classroom controller communicatively coupled to the campus controller and configured to control classroom communication equipment,” paragraph 0005 lines 14-17); and
the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” paragraph 0006 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kiosk of Kang to comprise the server, network, and campus of Sudman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely integrating the kiosk into a campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” Sudman paragraph 0006 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Kang/Sudman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device.
Zimmerman teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman to comprise the location of Zimmerman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on location (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen comprise one or more of: workflow widgets, information widgets (“Widgets can be classified into accessory widgets such as clock or calendar widgets, application widgets such as games or contact lists, or information widgets such as weather forecasts or stock information,” Kang paragraph 0059 lines 7-11), or local control widgets.
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the workflow widgets automate workflow functionality of the at least one communication system at the room communication kiosk, the workflow functionality comprises: call-in functionality, emergency initiation functionality, and room attribute functionality (Due to the alternative language (“or,” “and/or,” “at least one of,” Markush phrasing, etc.) claim 11 recites alternative limitations such that only one (selected limitation) of the possible limitations is need to be taught to properly reject the claims. Consequently, subsequent limitations further limiting the non-selected, alternative limitations are not required.).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the information widgets display campus communication system information on the touchscreen, the campus communication system information comprises one or more of: emergency response information, campus schedule information, and room specific information for a room containing the room communication kiosk (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the local control widgets control local functionality of the room communication kiosk (Due to the alternative language (“or,” “and/or,” “at least one of,” Markush phrasing, etc.) claim 11 recites alternative limitations such that only one (selected limitation) of the possible limitations is need to be taught to properly reject the claims. Consequently, subsequent limitations further limiting the non-selected, alternative limitations are not required.).
As to independent claim 15, Kang teaches a [] communication system [], the system comprising:
a room, communication kiosk [] (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet is mobile and may be placed anywhere, such as in a room, making it a room communication kiosk);
wherein the room communication kiosk comprises:
a housing configured for installation within a room [] (“The exterior structure of the mobile terminal 100 (e.g., a tablet computer) will now be described in detail with reference to FIG. 2, which is a front perspective view of the mobile terminal 100. Referring to FIG. 2, the exterior of the mobile terminal 100 includes a front case 100-1 and a rear case 100-2. Various electronic devices can be installed in the space formed by the front case 100-1 and the rear case 100-2,” paragraph 0048 lines 1-7 – the tablet may be “installed” by placing it in a room);
a power interface configured to provide power to the room communication kiosk (“power supply unit 190,” paragraph 0020 line 7);
a network interface configured to communicate with the [] communication system (“the wireless communication unit 110 includes a broadcast reception module 111, a mobile communication module 113, a wireless internet module 115, a short-range communication module 117, and a global positioning system (GPS) module 119,” paragraph 0021 lines 1-5);
a speaker configured to play audio signals from the [] communication system (“an audio output module 153,” paragraph 0035 line 3);
a microphone configured to accept audio input from the room (“a microphone 123,” paragraph 0027 line 3);
a touchscreen device (“when the user input unit 130 is implemented as a touch pad and forms a mutual layer structure with the display module 151, the user input unit 130 and the display module 151 may be collectively referred to as a touch screen,” paragraph 0029 lines 11-15) configured to:
display one or more user function widgets on the touchscreen [] (“Referring to FIGS. 8(a) and 8(b), when the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation 433 on a display screen showing a shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays a widget 435 instead of the shortcut icon 431,” paragraph 0070 lines 1-4);
sense one or more user touch gestures interacting with the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
generate a signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
a processor (“a controller 180,” paragraph 0020 lines 6-7) configured to:
receive the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8);
interpret the signal responsive to the one or more user touch gestures based on the one or more user function widgets to determine a kiosk action for the [] communication system (“When the controller 180 detects a pinching-out input operation on the widget 435 or a tap on the shortcut icon 431, the controller 180 displays an application screen corresponding to the widget 435,” paragraph 0070 lines 4-8); and
communicate the kiosk action to the [] communication system over the network interface (fetch information to display in the selected application, e.g. the web page of figure 9(a)).
Kang does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the communication system is a campus communication system for a campus with a plurality of rooms, the system comprising:
a campus controller configured for controlling communication equipment associated with the campus; and
a room, communication kiosk communicatively coupled to the campus controller through a network switch;
wherein the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus.
Sudman teaches a system wherein the communication system is a campus communication system for a campus with a plurality of rooms, the system comprising:
a campus controller configured for controlling communication equipment associated with the campus (“a campus controller communicatively coupled to the network switch and configured to control the communication equipment associated with the district location,” paragraph 0005 lines 11-13); and
a room, communication kiosk (“a classroom controller communicatively coupled to the campus controller and configured to control classroom communication equipment,” paragraph 0005 lines 14-17) communicatively coupled to the campus controller through a network switch (“a campus controller communicatively coupled to the network switch and configured to control the communication equipment associated with the district location,” paragraph 0005 lines 11-13);
wherein the room is a room of the plurality of rooms within the campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” paragraph 0006 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kiosk of Kang to comprise the campus of Sudman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely integrating the kiosk into a campus (“a school communication system for at least one school campus with a plurality of classrooms,” Sudman paragraph 0006 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Kang/Sudman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device.
Zimmerman teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen are selected for inclusion on the touchscreen based on a location of the touchscreen device (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman to comprise the location of Zimmerman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on location (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the one or more user function widgets displayed on the touchscreen comprise one or more of: workflow widgets, information widgets (“Widgets can be classified into accessory widgets such as clock or calendar widgets, application widgets such as games or contact lists, or information widgets such as weather forecasts or stock information,” Kang paragraph 0059 lines 7-11), or local control widgets.
As to dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the workflow widgets automate workflow functionality of the campus communication system at the room communication kiosk, the workflow functionality comprises: call-in functionality, emergency initiation functionality, and room attribute functionality (Due to the alternative language (“or,” “and/or,” “at least one of,” Markush phrasing, etc.) claim 18 recites alternative limitations such that only one (selected limitation) of the possible limitations is need to be taught to properly reject the claims. Consequently, subsequent limitations further limiting the non-selected, alternative limitations are not required.).
As to dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman further teaches a system wherein the information widgets display campus communication system information on the touchscreen, the campus communication system information comprises one or more of: emergency response information, campus schedule information, and room specific information for a room containing the room communication kiosk (“These actions may be dynamically generated based on context, including such factors as what data sources are available on the computing device, recognized entity from which the action originated, user activity, user preferences and tracked behavior, GPS-position of the device, proximity of other computing devices and network bandwidth available at the time of activity. In one embodiment, an action option is only displayed if the information relevant to the recognized entity with respect to the contextual action is known and available. … Whereas certain actions are relevant to people, such as calling them, emailing them, and scheduling a meeting with them, other actions may be relevant to location entities, such as mapping the location, viewing appointments scheduled for the location, and so forth,” Zimmerman paragraph 0053 lines 9-17, 25-29, emphases added).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Sudman, Zimmerman, and Ramaswamy et al. (US 2011/0265188 A1, hereinafter Ramaswamy).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets.
Ramaswamy teaches a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman to comprise the profiles of Ramaswamy. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on user profile (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” Ramaswamy paragraph 0018 lines 5-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets.
Ramaswamy teaches a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman to comprise the profiles of Ramaswamy. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on user profile (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” Ramaswamy paragraph 0018 lines 5-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets.
Ramaswamy teaches a system wherein multiple user profiles are accessible at the room communication kiosk, wherein each user profile of the multiple user profiles causes the touchscreen to display a particular configuration of the one or more user function widgets (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widgets of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman to comprise the profiles of Ramaswamy. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely displaying widgets based on user profile (“an RBAC permissions model may be used to allow or restrict certain GUI elements from being displayed based on a user’s assigned role,” Ramaswamy paragraph 0018 lines 5-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Sudman, Zimmerman, Ramaswamy, and Penilla et al. (US 2015/0210287 A1, hereinafter Penilla).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy does not appear to expressly teach a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles, and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the campus communication system;
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen; and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the campus communication system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets upon entrance of an administrative PIN.
Penilla teaches a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles (“determine whether the access is registered access via a user account or guest access,” paragraph 0023 lines 3-4), and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the [] system (“guest access includes limits to functionality of the user interface,” paragraph 0023 lines 5-6);
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” paragraph 0023 lines 6-10) and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen (“The input from a user can also be provided by voice input, facial recognition, eye-retina scans, fingerprint scans, a combination of biometrics, or via a capacitive or regular touchscreen contained or displayed within the vehicle, the vehicle’s glass, doors, dashboard, etc.,” paragraph 0300 lines 1-5); and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the [] system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets (“the user account of the administrator including one or more of an identification of the vehicle and the settings and privileges managed by the administrator,” paragraph 0028 lines 12-17) upon entrance of an administrative PIN (“the credential information includes one of a user name, or a password, or biometric data of the passenger, or a pin, or code, or a name, or a word, or combinations of two or more thereof,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiles of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy to comprise the profile levels of Penilla. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely securing sensitive functions (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” Penilla paragraph 0023 lines 6-10). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy does not appear to expressly teach a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles, and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the campus communication system;
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen; and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the campus communication system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets upon entrance of an administrative PIN.
Penilla teaches a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles (“determine whether the access is registered access via a user account or guest access,” paragraph 0023 lines 3-4), and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the [] system (“guest access includes limits to functionality of the user interface,” paragraph 0023 lines 5-6);
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” paragraph 0023 lines 6-10) and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen (“The input from a user can also be provided by voice input, facial recognition, eye-retina scans, fingerprint scans, a combination of biometrics, or via a capacitive or regular touchscreen contained or displayed within the vehicle, the vehicle’s glass, doors, dashboard, etc.,” paragraph 0300 lines 1-5); and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the [] system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets (“the user account of the administrator including one or more of an identification of the vehicle and the settings and privileges managed by the administrator,” paragraph 0028 lines 12-17) upon entrance of an administrative PIN (“the credential information includes one of a user name, or a password, or biometric data of the passenger, or a pin, or code, or a name, or a word, or combinations of two or more thereof,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiles of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy to comprise the profile levels of Penilla. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely securing sensitive functions (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” Penilla paragraph 0023 lines 6-10). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated.
Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy does not appear to expressly teach a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles, and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the campus communication system;
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen; and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the campus communication system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets upon entrance of an administrative PIN.
Penilla teaches a system:
wherein the multiple user profiles comprise public profiles, standard profiles (“determine whether the access is registered access via a user account or guest access,” paragraph 0023 lines 3-4), and override profiles;
wherein the public profiles are available to all users and configured by the [] system (“guest access includes limits to functionality of the user interface,” paragraph 0023 lines 5-6);
wherein the standard profiles are configured for a specified user level (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” paragraph 0023 lines 6-10) and accessible via entrance of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) at the touchscreen (“The input from a user can also be provided by voice input, facial recognition, eye-retina scans, fingerprint scans, a combination of biometrics, or via a capacitive or regular touchscreen contained or displayed within the vehicle, the vehicle’s glass, doors, dashboard, etc.,” paragraph 0300 lines 1-5); and
wherein the override profiles are configured for administrative personnel interacting with the [] system and configured to provide administrative widgets of the one or more user function widgets to the administrative widgets (“the user account of the administrator including one or more of an identification of the vehicle and the settings and privileges managed by the administrator,” paragraph 0028 lines 12-17) upon entrance of an administrative PIN (“the credential information includes one of a user name, or a password, or biometric data of the passenger, or a pin, or code, or a name, or a word, or combinations of two or more thereof,” paragraph 0018 lines 5-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiles of Kang/Sudman/Zimmerman/Ramaswamy to comprise the profile levels of Penilla. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely securing sensitive functions (“registered access has more functionality relative to guest access; wherein registered access includes one or more levels of access as defined by privilege settings made by an administrator of the vehicle,” Penilla paragraph 0023 lines 6-10). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Ferrans et al. (US 2019/0362087 A1) disclosing location-based access control (paragraph 0019). A combination of Ferrans and Ramaswamy may be used to replace Zimmerman.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148