DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025, 01/13/2026 and 02/17/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 (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, 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, 2, 9, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior arts of record, Knauerhase et al., (US 2004/0128394 A1) (hereinafter “Knauerhase”) in view of the prior art of record, Rajakarunanayake et al., (US 2014/0123209 A1) (hereinafter “Rajakarunanayake”) and the prior art of record, Tadayon et al., (US 2011/0105097 A1) (hereinafter “Tadayon”).
Regarding claim 1, Knauerhase discloses; a computer-implemented method [i.e., flow diagram performed by the access policy enforcement system 7 (see figures 1 and 6), (page 4, para 0039], comprising:
receiving, by a service, an update to device usage policy to enforce on a first mobile device of a plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available…add, remove or modify data entries in the service directory as more or fewer services are offered by the service providing device 4 (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)], the device usage policy restricting access to one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device based on a usage context [i.e., if, however, the number or level of services provided by the service-providing device 10 do not match those that should be offered based on the present mobile state “usage context” (emphasis added), the flow 600 leaves the process 630 in the NO direction. Then, a process 640 instructs the access gate 14 of the service-providing device 10 the proper level of services to offer from the service-providing device 10, and the access gate 14 adjusts “restrict” (emphasis added) those services to match those appropriate for the present mobile state (emphasis added), (page 4, para 0042), (see figure 6) i.e., the environmental detector 12 (page 3, para 0034), (see figure 3) i.e., context (page 4, para 0043)];
modifying, by the service and based on the update, the device usage policy [i.e., the access policy enforcement system 7 add, remove or modify (emphasis added) data entries in the service directory (page 2, para 0024), (page 4, para 0042), (see figures 1 and reference 640 of figure 6)].
Knauerhase does not disclose;
transmitting by the service the modified device usage policy to the plurality of mobile devices; generating a user prompt for an acknowledgment of the device usage policy; transmitting the user prompt to the first mobile device; and upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of the one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device.
However, Rajakarunanayake discloses;
transmitting by a service a modified device usage policy to a plurality of mobile devices [i.e., transmits the policy 154 by broadcasting the policy to a plurality of PWDCs 101 (page 4, para 0047), i.e., the PWCD 101 is a cellular phone, personal digital assistant, tablet, laptop, notebook, media player, or any other mobile computing device (page 1, para 0011), (see figure 1)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase by adapting the teachings of Rajakarunanayake for allowing third-party entities to issue various policies for controlling the functionalities of wireless devices.
Knauerhase and Rajakarunanayake do not disclose;
determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain based on communications received from one or more networked beacons external to the first mobile device, each of the networked beacons co-located within a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles, the networked beacons defining the context domain; and generating, in response to the determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain, a user prompt for an acknowledgment of the device usage policy; transmitting the user prompt to the first mobile device; and upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of the one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device.
However, Tadayon discloses;
determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain [i.e., the effective range (e.g., 102) of the transmitter/transceiver is set so that within the effective range, the received power level by a mobile device (e.g., 126) is above the threshold signal power level, while substantially outside the effective range (e.g., at 120, 122, or 124), the received power level by the mobile device from the localized transmitter/transceiver (108) is lower than the threshold signal level power (page 2, para 0038), (see figure 1) Note; determines when signal power exceeds a threshold therefore, determines it is within the effective range of the transmitter. The received signal level above a threshold indicates the mobile device is within range. The effective RF range of the transmitter constitutes a domain and detecting the signal means the mobile device has entered that domain] based on communications received from one or more networked beacons external to the first mobile device [i.e., multiple local transmitter/transceivers (e.g., 204, 230, 232, 234, and 236) are placed on a vehicle (200) (page 4, para 0052), (see figure 2) i.e., localized transmitter/transceiver (e.g., 108) sends a coded RF signal to the mobile device (page 2, para 0037), (see figure 1) i.e., the mobile device keeps monitoring for the RF signal from the localized transmitter/transceiver (page 3, para 0049), (see figure 4) i.e., one can use a beacon using tags using RFID to find and identify the objects (page 17, para 0204) Note; the localized transmitter/transceiver act as beacons because they periodically transmit signals detectable by nearby mobile device. i.e., local computer/control in the vehicle communicates with a localized unit and transceiver (page 2, para 0024) Note; the transmitters are networked via the vehicle control system/localized unit because they communicate within the same system], each of the networked beacons co-located within a vehicle [i.e., transmitter are placed inside the vehicle (see figures 1 and 2), (page 4, para 0052)] of a plurality of vehicles [i.e., each vehicle would contain its own set of transmitters (page 6, para 0067)], the networked beacons defining the context domain [Note; The effective RF range of the transmitter constitutes a domain and detecting the signal means the mobile device has entered that domain].
generating, in response to the determination that the first mobile device has entered the context domain, a user prompt for an acknowledgment of a device usage policy [i.e., mobile device user interface or car user interface for inquiring a user to indicate whether the current location of the mobile device is in a car (page 17, para 0210)];
transmitting the user prompt to a first mobile device [i.e., inquiring the user on the user interface of the mobile device (page 17, para 0210)]; and
upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device [i.e., if the user indicates YES, the mobile device modifies the features of the mobile device i.e., disabling SMS and/or call (page 17, para 210) Note; if the user indicates Yes, the mobile device disables some of the features such as SMS app or phone app. Thus, if the user indicates “NO” the mobile device grant access to the SMS app or phone app].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase and Rajakarunanayake by adapting the teachings of Tadayon to limit/disable the use of some of mobile device features which could cause distraction to the user when the user is engaged in another activity (See Tadayon; page 1, para 0010).
Regarding claim 2, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the device usage policy to the plurality of mobile devices comprises transmitting the device usage policy to a first mobile device in response to the first mobile device entering a first context domain [i.e., this state is detected by the environmental detector 12. The device access policy enforcement system 7 automatically uses this information when deciding which service to allow the service-providing device 10 to provide (page 3, para 0034), (see figure 3)].
Regarding claim 9, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-method of claim 1, wherein the device usage policy comprises a list of applications prohibited from access on the plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Regarding claim 11, Knauerhase discloses; a system [i.e., (see figure 11)], comprising:
one or more processor [i.e., (see figure 11)]; and
a memory storing program code, which, when executed by the one or more processor, causes the system to perform an operation [i.e., (see figure 11)], comprising:
receiving, by a service, an update to device usage policy to enforce on a first mobile device of a plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available…add, remove or modify data entries in the service directory as more or fewer services are offered by the service providing device 4 (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)], the device usage policy restricting access to one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device based on a usage context defined by a context domain [i.e., if, however, the number or level of services provided by the service-providing device 10 do not match those that should be offered based on the present mobile state “usage context” (emphasis added), the flow 600 leaves the process 630 in the NO direction. Then, a process 640 instructs the access gate 14 of the service-providing device 10 the proper level of services to offer from the service-providing device 10, and the access gate 14 adjusts “restrict” (emphasis added) those services to match those appropriate for the present mobile state (emphasis added), (page 4, para 0042), (see figure 6) i.e., the environmental detector 12 (page 3, para 0034), (see figure 3) i.e., context (page 4, para 0043)];
modifying, by the service and based on the update, the device usage policy [i.e., the access policy enforcement system 7 add, remove or modify (emphasis added) data entries in the service directory (page 2, para 0024), (page 4, para 0042), (see figures 1 and reference 640 of figure 6)].
Knauerhase does not disclose;
transmitting by the service the modified device usage policy to the plurality of mobile devices; generating a user prompt for an acknowledgment of the device usage policy; transmitting the user prompt to the first mobile device; and upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of the one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device.
However, Rajakarunanayake discloses;
transmitting by a service a modified device usage policy to a plurality of mobile devices [i.e., transmits the policy 154 by broadcasting the policy to a plurality of PWDCs 101 (page 4, para 0047), i.e., the PWCD 101 is a cellular phone, personal digital assistant, tablet, laptop, notebook, media player, or any other mobile computing device (page 1, para 0011), (see figure 1)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase by adapting the teachings of Rajakarunanayake for allowing third-party entities to issue various policies for controlling the functionalities of wireless devices.
Knauerhase and Rajakarunanayake do not disclose;
determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain based on communications received from one or more networked beacons external to the first mobile device, each of the networked beacons co-located within a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles, the networked beacons defining the context domain; and generating, in response to the determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain, a user prompt for an acknowledgment of the device usage policy; transmitting the user prompt to the first mobile device; and upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of the one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device.
However, Tadayon discloses;
determining that the first mobile device has entered the context domain [i.e., the effective range (e.g., 102) of the transmitter/transceiver is set so that within the effective range, the received power level by a mobile device (e.g., 126) is above the threshold signal power level, while substantially outside the effective range (e.g., at 120, 122, or 124), the received power level by the mobile device from the localized transmitter/transceiver (108) is lower than the threshold signal level power (page 2, para 0038), (see figure 1) Note; determines when signal power exceeds a threshold therefore, determines it is within the effective range of the transmitter. The received signal level above a threshold indicates the mobile device is within range. The effective RF range of the transmitter constitutes a domain and detecting the signal means the mobile device has entered that domain] based on communications received from one or more networked beacons external to the first mobile device [i.e., multiple local transmitter/transceivers (e.g., 204, 230, 232, 234, and 236) are placed on a vehicle (200) (page 4, para 0052), (see figure 2) i.e., localized transmitter/transceiver (e.g., 108) sends a coded RF signal to the mobile device (page 2, para 0037), (see figure 1) i.e., the mobile device keeps monitoring for the RF signal from the localized transmitter/transceiver (page 3, para 0049), (see figure 4) i.e., one can use a beacon using tags using RFID to find and identify the objects (page 17, para 0204) Note; the localized transmitter/transceiver act as beacons because they periodically transmit signals detectable by nearby mobile device. i.e., local computer/control in the vehicle communicates with a localized unit and transceiver (page 2, para 0024) Note; the transmitters are networked via the vehicle control system/localized unit because they communicate within the same system], each of the networked beacons co-located within a vehicle [i.e., transmitter are placed inside the vehicle (see figures 1 and 2), (page 4, para 0052)] of a plurality of vehicles [i.e., each vehicle would contain its own set of transmitters (page 6, para 0067)], the networked beacons defining the context domain [Note; The effective RF range of the transmitter constitutes a domain and detecting the signal means the mobile device has entered that domain].
generating, in response to the determination that the first mobile device has entered the context domain, a user prompt for an acknowledgment of a device usage policy [i.e., mobile device user interface or car user interface for inquiring a user to indicate whether the current location of the mobile device is in a car (page 17, para 0210)];
transmitting the user prompt to a first mobile device [i.e., inquiring the user on the user interface of the mobile device (page 17, para 0210)]; and
upon receiving an acknowledgement of the device usage policy from the first mobile device, granting access to at least one of one or more mobile device applications on the first mobile device [i.e., if the user indicates YES, the mobile device modifies the features of the mobile device i.e., disabling SMS and/or call (page 17, para 210) Note; if the user indicates Yes, the mobile device disables some of the features such as SMS app or phone app. Thus, if the user indicates “NO” the mobile device grant access to the SMS app or phone app].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase and Rajakarunanayake by adapting the teachings of Tadayon to limit/disable the use of some of mobile device features which could cause distraction to the user when the user is engaged in another activity (See Tadayon; page 1, para 0010).
Regarding claim 12, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 11, wherein transmitting the device usage policy to the plurality of mobile devices comprises transmitting the device usage policy to a first mobile device in response to the first mobile device entering a first context domain [i.e., the wireless device has entered a certain zone or geographic area (page 11, para 0156), (see reference 802 in figure 8) i.e., the wireless device enters enterprise or corporate setting or automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0184 – 0185)].
Regarding claim 19, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 11, wherein the device usage policy comprises a list of applications prohibited from access on the plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Claim(s) 3 – 8 and 13 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knauerhase in view of Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of the prior art of record, Bell et al., (US 2009/0325566 A1) (hereinafter “Bell”).
Regarding claim 3, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
detecting, by the service, an event to trigger context-based management of the first mobile device
However, Bell discloses;
detecting, by the service, an event to trigger context-based management of the first mobile device [i.e., wireless device continually listen for a signal that determine that the wireless device is being used in conference room or inside an automotive vehicle or certain zone or geographic area (page 13, para 0184 – 0185), (see figure 8) (page 11, para 0156), (see reference 802 in figure 8) i.e., detecting a signal that triggers when the wireless device enters enterprise or corporate setting or automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0184 – 0185)];
updating, by the service, the device usage policy based on the event [i.e., if at the decision step “State changed” 802 detects that the wireless device has entered a work zone or a geographical area designated, switching the default policy to a modified policy at step 804 “Switch to modified set of functions” (page 11, para 0156 - 0157), (see figure 8)]; and
transmitting, by the service, the updated device usage policy to the first mobile device [i.e., upon receiving the signal that the wireless device is in the conference room, the wireless device enforces audible policy or security policy (page 13, para 0184) i.e., upon receiving the signal that the user of the wireless device is driving a vehicle, enforcing policy that prevent incoming calls in the wireless device (page 13, para 0185) i.e., upon receiving the signal, the wireless device then changes to a modified set of functionality. For example disabling sound on the wireless device (page 11, para 0157), (see reference 804 in figure 8)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 3 [i.e., (see claim 3 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the event comprises a detection, by the service, of the first mobile device entering a second context domain.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the event comprises a detection, by the service, of the first mobile device entering a second context domain [i.e., the wireless device enters enterprise or corporate setting or automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0184 – 0185)]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 5, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 3 [i.e., (see claim 3 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the event comprises a detection by the service, of the first mobile device exiting the first context domain.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the event comprises a detection by the service, of the first mobile device exiting the first context domain [i.e., a signal is transmitted upon detecting that that wireless device has exited the zone or geographic area designated for the policy (page 11, para 0157)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 6, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the device usage policy comprises a whitelist of applications accessible on the plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Regarding claim 7, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein updating the device usage policy comprises updating the whitelist of applications accessible on the plurality of mobile devices based on the usage policy [i.e., if, however, the number or level of services provided by the service-providing device 10 do not match those that should be offered based on the present mobile state “usage context” (emphasis added), the flow 600 leaves the process 630 in the NO direction. Then, a process 640 instructs the access gate 14 of the service-providing device 10 the proper level of services to offer from the service-providing device 10, and the access gate 14 adjusts “restrict” (emphasis added) those services to match those appropriate for the present mobile state (emphasis added), (page 4, para 0042), (see figure 6) add, remove or modify data entries in the service directory as more or fewer services are offered by the service providing device 4 (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Regarding claim 8, Knauerhase discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the first context domain is associated with a driving environment.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the first context domain is associated with a driving environment [i.e., detecting a signal that triggers when the wireless device enters automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0185)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 13, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 12 [i.e., (see claim 12 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
detecting, by the service, an event to trigger context-based management of the first mobile device
However, Bell discloses;
detecting, by the service, an event to trigger context-based management of the first mobile device [i.e., wireless device continually listen for a signal that determine that the wireless device is being used in conference room or inside an automotive vehicle or certain zone or geographic area (page 13, para 0184 – 0185), (see figure 8) (page 11, para 0156), (see reference 802 in figure 8) i.e., detecting a signal that triggers when the wireless device enters enterprise or corporate setting or automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0184 – 0185)];
updating, by the service, the device usage policy based on the event [i.e., if at the decision step “State changed” 802 detects that the wireless device has entered a work zone or a geographical area designated, switching the default policy to a modified policy at step 804 “Switch to modified set of functions” (page 11, para 0156 - 0157), (see figure 8)]; and
transmitting, by the service, the updated device usage policy to the first mobile device [i.e., upon receiving the signal that the wireless device is in the conference room, the wireless device enforces audible policy or security policy (page 13, para 0184) i.e., upon receiving the signal that the user of the wireless device is driving a vehicle, enforcing policy that prevent incoming calls in the wireless device (page 13, para 0185) i.e., upon receiving the signal, the wireless device then changes to a modified set of functionality. For example disabling sound on the wireless device (page 11, para 0157), (see reference 804 in figure 8)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 14, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 13 [i.e., (see claim 13 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the event comprises a detection, by the service, of the first mobile device entering a second context domain.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the event comprises a detection, by the service, of the first mobile device entering a second context domain [i.e., the wireless device enters enterprise or corporate setting or automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0184 – 0185)]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 15, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 13 [i.e., (see claim 13 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the event comprises a detection by the service, of the first mobile device exiting the first context domain.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the event comprises a detection by the service, of the first mobile device exiting the first context domain [i.e., a signal is transmitted upon detecting that that wireless device has exited the zone or geographic area designated for the policy (page 11, para 0157)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Regarding claim 16, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 13, wherein the device usage policy comprises a whitelist of applications accessible on the plurality of mobile devices [i.e., the service providing device 4 includes a service directory, which is a repository of data entries that define what services are available on a device and for whom they are available (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Regarding claim 17, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 15, wherein updating the device usage policy comprises updating the whitelist of applications accessible on the plurality of mobile devices based on the usage policy [i.e., if, however, the number or level of services provided by the service-providing device 10 do not match those that should be offered based on the present mobile state “usage context” (emphasis added), the flow 600 leaves the process 630 in the NO direction. Then, a process 640 instructs the access gate 14 of the service-providing device 10 the proper level of services to offer from the service-providing device 10, and the access gate 14 adjusts “restrict” (emphasis added) those services to match those appropriate for the present mobile state (emphasis added), (page 4, para 0042), (see figure 6) add, remove or modify data entries in the service directory as more or fewer services are offered by the service providing device 4 (page 2, para 0024), (see figures 1, 3 and 6)].
Regarding claim 18, Knauerhase discloses; the system of claim 12 [i.e., (see claim 12 above)].
Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon do not disclose;
wherein the first context domain is associated with a driving environment.
However, Bell discloses;
wherein the first context domain is associated with a driving environment [i.e., detecting a signal that triggers when the wireless device enters automotive vehicle (page 13, para 0185)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Knauerhase, Rajakarunanayake and Tadayon by adapting the teachings of Bell to automatically disabling, replacing, or modifying the functionality of a wireless device upon the occurrence of a certain condition i.e., entering a particular location or venue (See Bell; page 3, para 0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 in the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the followings;
Regarding claims 1 and 11; applicant argued that “Further, although Tadayon describes controlling mobile device activity in a vehicle, nothing in Tadayon generally describes a networked beacon being co-located within a vehicle or even one or more networked beacons defining a context domain” (See Remarks; page 6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because Tadayon discloses multiple local transmitter/transceivers (e.g., 204, 230, 232, 234, and 236) are placed on a vehicle (200) (page 4, para 0052), (see figure 2) i.e., localized transmitter/transceiver (e.g., 108) sends a coded RF signal to the mobile device (page 2, para 0037), (see figure 1) i.e., the mobile device keeps monitoring for the RF signal from the localized transmitter/transceiver (page 3, para 0049), (see figure 4) i.e., one can use a beacon using tags using RFID to find and identify the objects (page 17, para 0204) Note; the localized transmitter/transceiver act as beacons because they periodically transmit signals detectable by nearby mobile device. i.e., local computer/control in the vehicle communicates with a localized unit and transceiver (page 2, para 0024) Note; the transmitters are networked via the vehicle control system/localized unit because they communicate within the same system. Tadayon further discloses transmitter are placed inside the vehicle (see figures 1 and 2), (page 4, para 0052). Each vehicle would contain its own set of transmitters (page 6, para 0067). Note; The effective RF range of the transmitter constitutes a domain and detecting the signal means the mobile device has entered that domain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432