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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites software per se.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2009/0179752) hereinafter “Patel”.
As to claim 1, (Original) Patel discloses A method of selectively limiting functionality of a mobile terminal MT, the method (Figs 10-11) comprising the steps of:
determining a mobile terminal location (step 1002) MTL of the mobile terminal MT;
determining a hazard rating (step 1004) at the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT (considered inherent in the step of determining if the device is currently in or near a hazard as the BRI would read on knowing (rating), also see [0034]: digital 1/0) whether or not an area was considered hazardous;
enabling the mobile terminal MT to operate in a full functionality mode if the determined hazard rating is at or less than an acceptable level (no restrictions or alarm when negative, see [0068], also see [0075], step 1112); and
(in an another embodiment Patel discloses wherein the alarm may pause operation of the device, see [0022]-[0026] depending on user preferences) enabling the mobile terminal MT to operate in a limited functionality mode if the determined hazard rating is above the acceptable level. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method by enabling the mobile terminal MT to operate in a limited functionality mode if the determined hazard rating is above the acceptable level as suggested by Patel for the purpose of increasing safety and/or enabling user customization.
It is noted that The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. See MPEP 2111.04. In claim 1 the BRI is that either one of the contingent “enabling” steps be required, but not both.
As to claim 2, (Original) Patel discloses The method according to claim 1, rails to explicitly recite wherein:
the step of determining a mobile terminal location MTL of the mobile terminal MT further comprises the step of requesting a map overlay from a map database; and
wherein: the step of determining a hazard rating at the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT further comprises the step of requesting a hazard overlay from a hazard database. However provides for a virtual map including location of the mobile terminal on a map including hazardous areas. See [0036]. Further the examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date the use of “overlays” was well known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method by requesting map and hazard overlays from respective databases in order to obtain the necessary information to obtain a virtual map and determinations.
As to claim 3, (Original) Patel discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the step of determining the hazard rating at the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT comprises the steps of:
identifying the closest inherently hazardous area IHA to the mobile terminal MT (step 1004 provides for a determination of whether the mobile is in or near a predefined hazard area, thus it is considered that the all hazardous areas near the mobile are identified, including the closest / nearest) ; and
if the mobile terminal location MTL is inside the identified inherently hazardous area IHA, specifying the hazard rating at the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT to be above the acceptable level (YES to block 1006).
As to claim 5. (Original) Patel discloses A method according to claim 1 wherein the step of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT is: (i) hard-wired into the mobile terminal to continually operate during operation of the mobile terminal MT; or (ii) is disposed on mobile terminal function limiting module (806) integral or associated with the mobile terminal such that the module causes operation of the method steps when the mobile terminal MT is operational. See [0051].
As to claim 10, (Currently amended) Patel discloses A method according to claim 5 wherein functionality of the mobile terminal includes telephone calls, messaging, email, one or more predetermined application software programs loaded on the mobile terminal MT. See [0024].
As to claims 11 and 18, (Original) Patel discloses A system / program for selectively limiting functionality of a mobile terminal MT, the system comprising:
a server (930/814) having a processor for executing a computer executable software program;
one or more mobile terminals MT (900/802) each having a processor (904) for executing a computer executable software program;
wherein the server and the one or more mobile terminals MT communicate over a communications network (922/928) ; and
wherein the server and the one or more mobile terminals MT communicating over a communications network perform a method of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT, the method comprising the steps as applied above to claim 1.
As to claim 12 and 17, Patel discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 11 further see corresponding claims 5 and 10, respectively.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Obeid (WO 2018/232446).
As to claim 6, (Currently amended) Patel discloses A method according to claim 1 is silent to yet in analogous art Obeid discloses wherein the of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT is configured to disengage when the mobile terminal MT is connected to a vehicle communications system and/or the mobile terminal MT is disposed in a vehicle mobile terminal mount, caddy or cradle and connected to a vehicle communication system via the mount, caddy or cradle. See [0022] disabled functions can remain enabled when docked to allow additional interactions. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patel such that the of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT is configured to disengage when the mobile terminal MT is connected to a vehicle communications system and/or the mobile terminal MT is disposed in a vehicle mobile terminal mount, caddy or cradle and connected to a vehicle communication system via the mount, caddy or cradle as taught by Obeid for the purpose of enabling additional interaction.
As to claim 7, (Currently amended) Patel discloses A method according to claim 1 is silent to yet in analogous art Obeid discloses wherein the step of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT is engaged in response to communication from a vehicle communication system of a vehicle operator at controls of the vehicle and the mobile terminal MT is not either or both disposed within a mobile terminal mount, caddy or cradle and connected to the vehicle communication system. See [0022] disabled functions can remain enabled when docked to allow additional interactions. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patel such that the step of selectively limiting functionality of the mobile terminal MT is engaged in response to communication from a vehicle communication system of a vehicle operator at controls of the vehicle and the mobile terminal MT is not either or both disposed within a mobile terminal mount, caddy or cradle and connected to the vehicle communication system as taught by Obeid for the purpose of enabling additional interaction.
As to claims 13-14, Patel discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 11 further see corresponding claims 6-7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baylin et al. (11,032,670) hereinafter “Baylin”.
As to claim 8, (Currently amended) Patel discloses A method according to claim 5 is silent yet in an analogous art Baylin discloses wherein when the mobile terminal MT has lost or is not in communication with the server via the communications network,
As to claim 9, (Original) the combination of Patel and Baylin discloses the method according to claim 8 Baylin discloses wherein the predicted location of the mobile terminal MT is predetermined or based on a derived location history of the mobile terminal MT. Step 908 provides for basing on identified trajectory and col 2 lines 11-21 provides for basing such on derived location history. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patel such that the predicted location of the mobile terminal MT is predetermined or based on a derived location history of the mobile terminal for the purpose of increased accuracy.
As to claims 15-16, Patel discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 11 further see corresponding claims 8-9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Patel provides for the method as applied above to claim 2 and generally provide for the steps of: identifying the closest inherently hazardous area IHA to the mobile terminal MT (as applied above) and determining a mobile terminal hazard velocity (MTHV) of the mobile terminal MT towards the location of the closest point of the inherently hazardous area to the mobile terminal Location (MTL) [0037],[0044]; and determining the hazard rating at the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT dependent upon the location MTL of the mobile terminal MT and the mobile terminal hazard velocity (MTHV) of the mobile terminal MT [0068] but fails to provide or reasonably suggest the steps of
determining a location of the closest point of the identified inherently hazardous area IHA to the mobile terminal Location (MTL) and determining an inherent hazard rating IHR at the location of the closest point of the inherently hazardous area to the mobile terminal Location (MTL).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vose et al. (10417914) provide for a notification (block 825, Fig. 8) and col 16 lines 4-37, etc.
Silver (2019/0082377) provides for restrictions near high traffic areas. See Fig. 9C and [0179], etc.
Sharma et al. (2021/0285788) provides for map overlays including restriction zones. See Figs 3A-C, etc.
Xin (10,469,984) Provides for selection of a closest area / poi (see col 8, lines 53-65, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649