DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 12/09/2025.
2. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 6, 7, have been amended.
4. Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breaux, III et al. (US 2021/0337460), hereinafter Breaux.
Regarding claim 1, Breaux disclosed:
A system of communications among processor based devices (Figures 4, 6, 8, 9, all showing the devices including a processor), the system comprising,
a remote application (Figure 1, management service 116) running on one or more processors (Figure 6, processors 602) of a remote server (Figure 1, management server 114), a monitoring application (Figure 9, discovery service 912) running on a processor (Figure 9, processors 902) of a hardware device (Figure 1, networked beacons 110) located in a premises (Figure 1, context domain 112), and a mobile device application (Figure 1, control application 104) running on at least one processor (Figure 4, processors 402) of a mobile device (Figure 1, mobile device 102), wherein the remote application and the monitoring application are communicatively coupled through a network (Figure 1, network 122), wherein the monitoring application is configured to received one or more instructions (Figure 1, policy data 120) from the remote server, wherein the one or more instructions comprise permissions establishing operational use of the mobile device (Paragraph 30, policies that indicate functions of the mobile device to prohibit) within at least a portion of the premises (Paragraph 34, work, school, building, shopping center) (Paragraph 30, using the mobile device to evaluate characteristics associated with the mobile device and external characteristics such as location in order to determine of usage policies should be applied to the mobile device. The policies indicate one or more functions of the mobile device to prohibit the individual from accessing such functions. Paragraph 31, mobile device being managed based on context policies with the mobile device, control devices, networked beacons, and management server connected through the network. Paragraph 34, context domain 112 defines a context in which usage of the mobile device is subject to one or more policies. The context domain 112 corresponds to a location such as a work campus or a school campus or an enclosed or partially enclosed space such as a vehicle. The network beacon 110 projects to the mobile device an indication that the mobile device is within the context domain 112 by broadcasting the signal within a specified radius indicative of the context domain. Paragraph 39, the management server sends the policy data 120 to the networked beacons);
the monitoring application configured to transmit a monitoring signal (Paragraph 34, indication) throughout the at least a portion of the premises (Paragraph 34, the network beacon 110 projects to the mobile device an indication that the mobile device is within the context domain 112 by broadcasting the signal within a specified radius indicative of the context domain);
the mobile device application configured to detect the monitoring signal, wherein the detecting includes establishing communications with the monitoring application, wherein the establishing communications comprises receiving the one or more instructions (Paragraph 77, usage contexts) from the monitoring application (Paragraphs 76-77, the mobile devices receive the signals and send a request to establish a connection in response. Once connected, the discovery service 912 transmits a usage context to the mobile device which is determined from the context domain configuration. The context domain configuration specifies one or more usage contexts for a context domain projected by the networked beacon. The networked beacon also transmits policy data to the mobile device);
the mobile device application configured to implement the permissions establishing the operational use of the mobile device within the at least a portion of the premises (Paragraph 82, Figure 10, step 1012, the mobile device enforces the one or more policies on the mobile device. Paragraph 83, in block 1014, the mobile device determines whether an exit trigger is detected that causes the control application 104 to cease enforcement of the determined policies. An exit trigger can be the mobile device leaving a context domain or no longer in range of a given beacon).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
the monitoring application communicatively coupling with one or more additional monitoring applications running on processors of one or more additional hardware devices (Breaux, Paragraph 35, each networked beacon receives connections from other networked beacons and communicates with them through specific APIs. Paragraph 42, aggregating data received from multiple networked beacons across multiple context domains).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
the one or more additional monitoring applications transmitting the signal through at least an additional portion of the premises (Paragraph 40, context domains may overlap in the event where multiple beacons are situated within proximity of each other which allows the position of users to be mapped within a given context domain).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein monitoring signal comprises an RF signal (Paragraph 36, network beacon configured for a given radio frequency (RF) range).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the strength of the RF signal defines a boundary region (Paragraph 105, the RSSI is detected for the mobile device which estimates a power level that an RF device is receiving from an access point. If the RSSI are similar between a first and second detected MAC address of the device, the network beacon determines that the MAC addresses are the same device. The network beacon ensures that the first/second MAC addresses in order to reduce the likelihood that the packet originates from a device outside of the vehicle (i.e., boundary region)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 5 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the mobile device application detecting the monitoring signal comprises the mobile device entering the boundary region (Paragraph 34, the network beacon 110 projects to the mobile device an indication that the mobile device is within the context domain 112 by broadcasting the signal within a specified radius indicative of the context domain. Paragraphs 76-77, the mobile devices receive the signals and send a request to establish a connection in response).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 5 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the mobile device application losing the monitoring signal comprises the mobile device exiting the boundary region (Paragraph 83, in block 1014, the mobile device determines whether an exit trigger is detected that causes the control application 104 to cease enforcement of the determined policies. An exit trigger can be the mobile device leaving a context domain or no longer in range of a given beacon).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the one or more instructions comprise instructing the mobile device to enter airplane mode (Paragraph 184, company policy stating that all mobile devices must be in airplane mode).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the one or more instructions comprise instructing the mobile device to disable camera operations (Paragraph 146, the CMDM policy disables camera functions).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the one or more instructions comprise instructing the mobile device to disable notifications (Paragraph 124, CMDM policy preventing incoming notifications from causing distractions by selectively disabling notifications).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the one or more instructions comprise instructing the mobile device to power down (Paragraph 184, policy indicating that all mobile devices must be turned off).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the network comprises a Local Area Networks (LAN) (Paragraph 31, local area networks).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the network comprises a Personal Area Networks (PAN) (Paragraph 33, utilizing Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the network comprises interoffice or backend networks (Paragraph 33, utilizing APIs and therefore, backend networks).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the network comprises cellular networks (Paragraph 181, utilizing a cellular modem).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux disclosed:
wherein the network comprises the Internet (Paragraph 31, connected with a network, such as the Internet).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breaux, III et al. (US 2021/0337460), hereinafter Breaux, in view of Kong et al. (US 2015/0296371).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the network comprises a metropolitan area network (MAN).
However, in an analogous art, Kong disclosed wherein the network comprises a metropolitan area network (MAN) (Paragraph 12, controlling the functionality of a device in order to restrict or temporarily make unavailable functions that may be deemed distracting, undesirable, or dangerous during those instances. Paragraph 15, using metropolitan area networks).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Breaux with Kong because the references involve restricting device usage in certain locations and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MAN of Kong with the teachings of Breaux in order to prevent devices from distracting users and those around users while performing other tasks (Kong, Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Breaux did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the network comprises a wide area network (WAN).
However, in an analogous art, Kong disclosed wherein the network comprises a wide area network (WAN) (Paragraph 15, using wide area networks).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Breaux with Kong because the references involve restricting device usage in certain locations and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the WAN of Kong with the teachings of Breaux in order to prevent devices from distracting users and those around users while performing other tasks (Kong, Paragraph 47).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451