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, see pages 5-9, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 102 Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2).
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Moinzadeh teaches a method of managing a driving mode of a mobile device (see fig. 2A, read as controlling application operation modes of a mobile device and a vehicle “) comprising
sending, by the mobile device, a driving mode enabling request to a network (see fig. 2A, column 3 lines 30-40, read as software 32 (located on a remote server 22) receives a request from phone 20 for a particular application 40 on phone 20 to utilize interface of the head unit 21),
receiving, by the mobile device, a response associated with the driving mode enabling request from the network (see fig. 2A, column 4 lines 33-34, read as the software 32 signals the remote software on the mobile device to provide the particular application 40 access to only those ones of the I/O resources”), and
enabling, by the mobile device, a driving mode according to the response, wherein the response from the network comprises an indication that the driving mode enabling request is granted (see “fig. 2A, column 4 lines 36-39, read as signaling can include controlling the software 30A on the mobile phone 20 so that all access requests sent from the mobile phone 20 conform to the identified set of the I/O resources, where the identified set is read as the “indication”).
Regarding claim 6, Moinzadeh teaches an operator network (figs. 1 & 7, column 5 lines 44-48, network device (GPRS, EDGE, etc. including a server) comprising:
a status server configured to store a driving mode of a first mobile device (column 2 lines 3-6, “a network device stores a mapping of application operation modes to vehicle conditions such as a first condition of the vehicle powered but not moving and a second condition of the vehicle moving”); and
a core network coupled to the status server (column 5 lines 44-48, the server and a packet data network such as GPRS, EDGE, etc. are wirelessly connected), configured to:
enable the driving mode of the first mobile device when receiving a driving mode enabling request from the first mobile device (see fig. 2A, column 3 lines 30-40, read as software 32 (located on a remote server 22) receives a request from phone 20 for a particular application 40 on phone 20 to utilize interface of the head unit 21, column 4 lines 33-34, read as the software 32 signals the remote software on the mobile device to provide the particular application 40 access to only those ones of the I/O resources”), and
generate, and send to the first mobile device, a response to indicate that the driving mode has been enabled (see fig. 2A, column 4 lines 36-39, “read as signaling can include controlling the software 30A on the mobile phone 20 so that all access requests sent from the mobile phone 20 conform to the identified set of the I/O resources, where the identified set is read as the “indication”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schrader et al. (US 20130303143 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Moinzadeh fails to teach wherein when the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device displays driving mode enabled status on a user interface of the mobile device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Schrader teaches wherein when the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device displays driving mode enabled status on a user interface of the mobile device (see paragraphs [0033], [0034], FIGS. 1, 2 “read as when safe driving mode is active, the mobile phone displays the corresponding driving mode user interface/ lock screen”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Schrader to the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device displays driving mode enabled status on a user interface of the mobile device thereby to support and implement the safe driving mode as a restricted execution mode as taught by Schrader (see paragraph [0033]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2) in view of Schrader et al. (US 20130303143 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Suri et al. US (PGPUB US 20190349476 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Moinzadeh and Schrader teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. The combination fails to teach wherein when the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device does not connect an incoming call.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Suri teaches wherein when the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device does not connect an incoming call (see paragraph [0028] “FIGS. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 4 and 5 In one particular example, the processor 110 can be configured to automatically reject the incoming call in response to a detection that the mobile device is in an automatic call rejection mode, generate a text message including information related to a location of the mobile device, and send the text message, via a transceiver, for example the WWAN transceiver, to the other device” read as Receiving calls, at the mobile device, an incoming call from another device automatically rejecting, by the mobile device, the incoming call in response to a detection that the mobile device is in an automatic call rejection mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Moinzadeh and Schrader with Suri to include when the driving mode is enabled, the mobile device does not connect an incoming call thereby, to respond to incoming calls on their mobile devices (for example, their mobile phones or tablets, etc.) due to safety, such as when they are driving, or for other reasons as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0002]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view Crawford et al. (US PGPUB 20220159432 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Moinzadeh fails to teach sending, by the mobile device, a driving mode disabling request to the network after the driving mode is enabled; receiving, by the mobile device, a response in associated with the driving mode disabling request from the network, and disabling, by the mobile device, a driving mode according to the response wherein the response from the network comprises an indication that the driving mode disabling request is granted.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Crawford teaches sending, by the mobile device, a driving mode disabling request to the network after the driving mode is enabled. (see fig. 15, paragraph 297, “read as a controllable mobile device (CMD) sends an override signal to the SDS (remote mobile device service provider), where the CMD is clearly already disabled in order to send an override request/signal)”),
receiving, by the mobile device, a response in associated with the driving mode disabling request from the network (see fig. 15, paragraph 297, “read as the SDS grants the override request (please see fig. 15, where SDS sends enable CMD to the CMD/notification to the subscriber (of the CMD)”), and
disabling, by the mobile device, a driving mode according to the response wherein the response from the network comprises an indication that the driving mode disabling request is granted (see fig. 15, paragraph 297, “read as on re-enabling these functions, the SDS’s sent notification to the subscriber (of the CMD) indicates that an override has been received and executed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Crawford to including sending, by the mobile device, a driving mode disabling request to the network after the driving mode is enabled; receiving, by the mobile device, a response in associated with the driving mode disabling request from the network, and disabling, by the mobile device, a driving mode according to the response wherein the response from the network comprises an indication that the driving mode disabling request is granted thereby, to reduce lags and inaccuracies in the ability of the SDS to disable and enable CMDs, as well as to provide data that indicates if a driver of the vehicle has attempted to disable the VDS as taught by Crawford (see paragraph [0298]).
Regarding claim 11, Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above. Moinzadeh fails to teach the core network is further configured to disable the driving mode of the first mobile device when receiving a driving mode disabling request from the first mobile device; and generate, and send to the first mobile device, a response to indicate the driving mode has been disabled.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Crawford teaches the core network is further configured to disable the driving mode of the first mobile device when receiving a driving mode disabling request from the first mobile device (see fig. 15, paragraph 297, “read as a controllable mobile device (CMD) sends an override signal to the SDS (remote mobile device service provider), where the CMD is clearly already disabled in order to send an override request/signal), also read as the SDS grants the override request (please see fig. 15, where SDS sends enable CMD to the CMD/notification to the subscriber (of the CMD)”),
generate, and send to the first mobile device, a response to indicate the driving mode has been disabled (see fig. 15, paragraph 297, “read as on re-enabling these functions, the SDS’s sent notification to the subscriber (of the CMD) indicates that an override has been received and executed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Crawford to including disable the driving mode of the first mobile device when receiving a driving mode disabling request from the first mobile device; and generate, and send to the first mobile device, a response to indicate the driving mode has been disabled thereby, to reduce lags and inaccuracies in the ability of the SDS to disable and enable CMDs, as well as to provide data that indicates if a driver of the vehicle has attempted to disable the VDS as taught by Crawford (see paragraph [0298]).
Claims 5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh et al. (US 8050817 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Suri et al. US (PGPUB US 20190349476 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Moinzadeh fails to teach sending an allowable list to the network.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Suri teaches sending an allowable list to the network (see paragraphs [0029], [0040], lines 8-13 “sending the text message including information related to a location of the mobile device can be limited only to known numbers. Hence, in one example, block 330 is performed responsive to a determination that a phone number associated with the other device is included in a contact list of the mobile device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Suri to include sending an allowable list to the network thereby, to respond to incoming calls on their mobile devices (for example, their mobile phones or tablets, etc.) due to safety, such as when they are driving, or for other reasons as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above. However, Moinzadeh fails to teach wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the first mobile device; and convey the driving mode of the first mobile device has been enabled to the second mobile device.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Suri teaches wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the first mobile device (see paragraph [0013], lines 1-6 “receiving, at a child device, a call from parent device, wherein a driving mode of the child device is enabled”),
convey the driving mode of the first mobile device has been enabled to the second mobile device (see paragraphs [0013], [0028] “automatically transmitting, in response to an incoming communication, a message indicating that the user is driving”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the Moinzadeh with Suri to include wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the first mobile device; and convey the driving mode of the first mobile device has been enabled to the second mobile device thereby, which distraction by a mobile device may be dangerous to the user or others as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Moinzadeh and Suri teaches all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Suri teaches the core network is further configured to receive a call connect inquiry from the second mobile device (see paragraph [0014] “FIG. 3, the mobile device can be configured to send a text message including information related to the location of the mobile device receiving the incoming call“),
send a call connect request to the first mobile device when receiving the call connect inquiry (see paragraph [0015] FIG. 2A “mobile device, for example a wireless mobile device receiving an incoming call that sends a text message including information related to a location of the mobile device receiving the incoming call “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Suri to include to receive a call connect inquiry from the second mobile device; and send a call connect request to the first mobile device when receiving the call connect inquiry thereby, which distraction by a mobile device may be dangerous to the user or others as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moinzadeh and Suri teaches all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Suri teaches wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call termination message from the second mobile device (see paragraph [0031], lines 11-16 “ the user for responding to the call includes touching icon 216, labeled “Message” selection of such an icon could, for example, indicate to the mobile device 100 that the user wishes to manually reject the call, but to send a message to the other device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Suri to include to receive a call termination message from the second mobile device thereby, which distraction by a mobile device may be dangerous to the user or others as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moinzadeh and Suri teaches all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Suri teaches wherein the core network is further configured to send call termination detail to the first mobile device (see paragraphs [0032], [0036] “user would like to respond to the incoming phone by rejecting the call and responding with a text message”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Suri to include to send call termination detail to the first mobile device thereby, which distraction by a mobile device may be dangerous to the user or others as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Moinzadeh teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Moinzadeh fails to teach wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the mobile device; and send a call connect request to the mobile device if the second mobile device is in an allowable list.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Suri teaches wherein the core network is further configured to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the mobile device (see paragraph [0013], lines 1-6 “receiving, at a child device, a call from parent device, wherein a driving mode of the child device is enabled”),
send a call connect request to the mobile device if the second mobile device is in an allowable list. (See paragraph [0029], [0040], lines 8-13 sending the text message including information related to the location of the mobile device can be limited only to known numbers. Hence, in one example, block 330 is performed responsive to a determination that a phone number associated with the other device is included in a contact list of the mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Moinzadeh with Suri to include to receive a call request from a second mobile device to the mobile device thereby, which distraction by a mobile device may be dangerous to the user or others as taught by Suri (see paragraph [0013]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Rodriguez Bravo et al. US 20200302702 A1: IDENTIFYING A DRIVING MODE OF AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE.
Bovis US 20140370857 A1: MOBILE DEVICE INACTIVE MODE AND INACTIVE MODE VERIFICATION.
DOC 1: Please see attached link: priority date: Apr 13, 2023
How to Set Up Do Not Disturb While Driving on iPhone
Transcript at: 0:00 to 0:13 seconds shows that “Mobile phone has very good feature with Do Not Disturb or Driving Mode”.
Transcript at: 2:25 to 3:34 seconds shows that “How it Turns ON: on so if you scroll down a bit towards, the bottom there is a button to turn on, Mobile phone connects automatically when you get inside car in your car only in, it’s the focus mode I use the most for, you it may be the driving anyways if you click on the rectangle, it enlarges it and show you all the focus mode available to you and just by tapping on it you can enable”.
Transcript at: 3:34 to 4:09 seconds shows that: How it turns ON/OFF: “show you all the focus mode available to you and just by tapping on it you can enable or disable the driving focus when you come back and you can turn it off by tapping the circle button inside the big platter but you should also be able to disable it from the lock screen”.
How to Set Up iPhone Driving Focus | Do Not Disturb While Driving .
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTIBEN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 alternate Friday off.
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, Addy Anthony can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/ARTIBEN JAIMIN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights