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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-22 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, applicant argues that Prakah-Asante does not teach or suggest "autonomously present the secondary user responded call report with call response details following detection of the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device" (Remarks, p.10; emphasis in original) because "the trigger of a DND expiring as provided by Prakah-Asante would not be considered by one skilled in the relevant art to be suggestive of the specific implementation of Applicants' claimed features that involves the transition from a second user mode (involving device use by a second user) to a primary user mode (with primary user actively paying attention to the device)" (Remarks, p.11).
Prakah-Asante teaches reporting a call log to the user when a do not disturb function has been disabled or ended (Fig. 3 and ¶0049; see also Fig. 5 and ¶0058). Prakah-Asante specifies that the do not disturb function "is activated through a vehicle computing system, using, for example, without limitation, a control on the steering wheel, a touch control on a navigation display, a verbal command, etc." (¶0041), and that "the user may be able to select the DND feature off" (¶0070 and Fig. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a user selectively turning off/disabling the DND feature as the electronic device "detect[ing] the primary user monitoring the electronic device". Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Prakah-Asante teaches "autonomously present the secondary user responded call report with call response details following detection of the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device”.
Additionally, examiner notes that the claim as written does not specify a "transition from a second user mode to a primary user mode" nor that the primary user mode requires the "primary user actively paying attention to the device". Examiner further notes that these limitations are taught by the cited combination of references (see, for instance, Chavez, Figs. 6-7 and ¶¶0108-0114 and the above-noted portions of Prakah-Asante).
Regarding the dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, which applicant amended to recite “…wherein the second operating mode comprises a prevent response mode, and while the electronic device is in the prevent response mode, the at least one processor: prevents the secondary user from responding to the first incoming call”:
Chavez teaches first and second operating mode, wherein the first operating mode corresponds to the primary user, and the second operating mode corresponds to a "borrowing user", and "the second borrowing user 120c may not have access to certain functions of the user device 104 that are provided by the operating system (e.g., texting functions, calling functions, etc.)" (¶0068). In Chavez, in the case where the secondary user cannot access call functions, they are prevented from responding to the incoming call; thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this "borrowing user mode" is a prevent response mode.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains that the cited combination of Chavez, McWithey, and Prakah-Asante discloses the limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as the dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, including the amendments filed in Remarks on 2025-12-22. The rejections to the claims are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claims 21 and 22 (Remarks, p.11) have been fully 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 Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “…a memory having stored thereon a call management module (CMM) comprising program code for managing…” (see Remarks, p.9). Thus, the claim no longer invokes 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “…a memory having stored thereon a call management module (CMM) comprising program code for managing…” (see Remarks, p.9). The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0125704 to Chavez et al. (“Chavez”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0219080 to McWithey et al. (“McWithey”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0277932 to Prakah-Asante et al. (“Prakah-Asante”).
As to Claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 8 and 15), Chavez discloses an electronic device comprising: a first camera (Fig. 2 and ¶0086, "user interface 220 may include…a camera"); a memory having stored thereon a call management module (CMM) comprising program code for managing incoming calls to the electronic device; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the first camera and to the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the CMM, which enables the electronic device to (Fig. 2 and ¶0069-86: a processor 204 is coupled to memory 208 and user interface 220; collectively, the blocks contained within memory 208 work together to accomplish the functionality of a call management module): detect activation of the electronic device to a second operating mode from a first operating mode, the first operating mode associated with the electronic device being operated by a primary user of the electronic device and the second operating mode associated with the electronic device being operated by a secondary user of the electronic device (Figs. 1B-D and 6; ¶0108-111); in response to detecting a first incoming call while the electronic device is in the second operating mode: determine whether the second operating mode enables the secondary user to respond to the first incoming call (Figs. 1B-D, 2, and 3, and ¶0068, calling functions may or may not be enabled for a borrowing user; Fig. 6, step 628, and ¶0111, device functionality (e.g., answering calls) is allowed based on borrowing user permissions); and in response to the secondary user being able to respond to the first incoming call: detect whether the first incoming call is responded to by the secondary user (Figs. 1B-D, 2, and 3, and ¶0068, "the AI system 118 may be configured to track and record some or all of the borrowing user's actions"; and ¶0079, "the activity monitoring instructions 240 may be configured to determine…that certain features (e.g., text features, calling features…) are being utilized").
Chavez does not disclose: in response to detecting that the first incoming call was responded to by the secondary user: record a response during the first incoming call to a secondary user responded (SUR) call report; or autonomously present the secondary user responded call report with call response details following detection of the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device.
However, McWithey discloses: in response to detecting that the first incoming call was responded to by the secondary user: record a response during the first incoming call to a secondary user responded (SUR) call report (Fig. 6 and ¶0046, "the executing automated response module 609 stores the call and response selection into a safety log 613").
Additionally, Prakah-Asante discloses: autonomously present the secondary user responded call report with call response details following detection of the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device (Fig. 3 and ¶0049, "if the do not disturb function has ended 303 [i.e., the primary user is monitoring the electronic device], then the illustrative system reports the call/message log").
Chavez, McWithey, and Prakah-Asante are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: telephonic communication, including substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers; user authentication, i.e. establishing the identity or authorization of security principles, using biometric data, e.g. fingerprints, facial scans, etc.; and/or user interfaces with means for restricting the functionality of the device according to specific conditions, e.g. limiting access to the user interface, or wherein functions are triggered by incoming communication events. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chavez to incorporate the teachings of McWithey to include: in response to detecting that the first incoming call was responded to by the secondary user: record a response during the first incoming call to a secondary user responded (SUR) call report. Doing so would provide an employer (or primary user of a device) a means to "maintain a record of how their employees [or secondary user(s) of the device] are assessing safe or dangerous response situations" (McWithey, ¶0037).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chavez to incorporate the teachings of Prakah-Asante to include: autonomously present the secondary user responded call report with call response details following detection of the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device. Doing so would provide increased convenience for user(s) of the electronic device, e.g. by providing "hands-free connectivity for their portable wireless devices, such that calls can more safely be made while operating a vehicle" (Prakah-Asante, ¶0003).
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claims 9 and 16), Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein to detect whether the first incoming call is responded to by the secondary user, the at least one processor: receives first biometric data from at least one sensor of the electronic device; and determines whether the first biometric data is substantially similar to reference biometric data that corresponds to an identity of the primary user of the electronic device (Chavez, Figs. 3 and 6; ¶0108-111, step 616; and ¶0090).
As to claim 4 (and similarly applied to claims 11 and 18), Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second operating mode comprises a prevent response mode, and while the electronic device is in the prevent response mode, the at least one processor: prevents the secondary user from responding to the first incoming call (Chavez, Figs. 1B-D and 3, ¶0068, "the second borrowing user 120c may not have access to certain functions of the user device 104 that are provided by the operating system (e.g., texting functions, calling functions, etc.)").
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claims 13 and 20), Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein to detect the primary user subsequently monitoring the electronic device, the at least one processor detects at least one of: a handover of the electronic device to the primary user (Chavez, Figs. 3 and 6; ¶0108-111, step 616; and ¶0090); an image of the primary user looking towards a display of the electronic device (Chavez, Fig. 2 and ¶0082, device may "capture one or more images of the user to determine whether the current user is a primary or borrowing user"); and a transition of the electronic device to the first operating mode (Prakah-Asante, Fig. 3 and ¶0049, "if the do not disturb function has ended 303 [i.e., the device has transitioned to the first operating mode], then the illustrative system reports the call/message log").
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0116175 to Chu (“Chu”).
As to claim 3 (and similarly applied to claims 10 and 17), Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a display communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; an audio output device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Chavez, Fig. 2 and ¶0086, the processor 204 is coupled to the user interface 220, which may include a touch-sensitive display screen and/or a speaker); and wherein, the at least one processor: captures a first image using the first camera; determines if the first image includes the primary user within a field of view and in a line of sight to view the display of the electronic device or within an audible range of an incoming call ring signal generated by the audio output device of the electronic device (Chavez, Fig. 2 and ¶0082, device may "capture one or more images of the user to determine whether the current user is a primary or borrowing user").
Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante does not disclose: gradually increases a ringer volume to attract attention of the primary user to the incoming call.
However, Chu discloses: gradually increases a ringer volume to attract attention of the primary user to the incoming call (¶0025).
Chavez, McWithey, Prakah-Asante, and Chu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: telephonic communication, including substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers; user authentication, i.e. establishing the identity or authorization of security principles, using biometric data, e.g. fingerprints, facial scans, etc.; and/or user interfaces with means for restricting the functionality of the device according to specific conditions, e.g. limiting access to the user interface, or wherein functions are triggered by incoming communication events. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante to incorporate the teachings of Chu to include: gradually increases a ringer volume to attract attention of the primary user to the incoming call. Doing so would provide a "better and more comprehensive solution to the problem of alerting a user of a handheld communications device of incoming transmissions in view of ever changing environments" (Chu, ¶0010) by allowing for the "volume setting…[to be] continually adjusted, i.e., on a dynamic basis, to appropriately adapt to the current environment. In this manner, users are unlikely to miss audible call alerts due to extraneous surrounding noise sources" (Chu, ¶0024).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,347,145 to Braunberger et al. (“Braunberger”).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claims 12 and 19), Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor: updates the SUR call report with each subsequent call response made by the secondary user during operation in the second operating mode (McWithey, Fig. 6 and ¶0046, "each time the driver is called and presented with the response option, the executing automated response module 609 stores the call and response selection into a safety log 613"); and disables a call response function on the electronic device for the secondary user (Chavez, Figs. 1B-D and 3, ¶0068, "the second borrowing user 120c may not have access to certain functions of the user device 104 that are provided by the operating system (e.g., texting functions, calling functions, etc.)").
Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante does not disclose: identifies when a number of secondary user answered calls recorded within the SUR call report reaches a threshold value of secondary user answered calls.
However, Braunberger discloses: identifies when a number of secondary user answered calls recorded within the SUR call report reaches a threshold value of secondary user answered calls (Fig. 16, Abstract, and Col. 27: lines 15-26).
Chavez, McWithey, Prakah-Asante, and Braunberger are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: telephonic communication, including substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers; user authentication, i.e. establishing the identity or authorization of security principles, using biometric data, e.g. fingerprints, facial scans, etc.; and/or user interfaces with means for restricting the functionality of the device according to specific conditions, e.g. limiting access to the user interface, or wherein functions are triggered by incoming communication events. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante to incorporate the teachings of Braunberger to include: identifies when a number of secondary user answered calls recorded within the SUR call report reaches a threshold value of secondary user answered calls. Doing so would allow for "[suspending] computer and other applications on a wireless or mobile device until a user successfully performs an educational task" (Braunberger, Col. 1: lines 26-28).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,645,213 to Bennett.
As to claim 21, Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante disclose the electronic device of claim 1.
Chavez in view of McWithey and Pakah-Asanta does not disclose: wherein the SUR call report comprises call identifying data and message.
However, Bennett discloses: wherein the SUR call report comprises call identifying data and message (Fig. 1A and Col. 12: lines 43-65).
Chavez, McWithey, Prakah-Asante, and Bennett are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: telephonic communication, including substation equipment, e.g. for use by subscribers; user authentication, i.e. establishing the identity or authorization of security principles, using biometric data, e.g. fingerprints, facial scans, etc.; and/or user interfaces with means for restricting the functionality of the device according to specific conditions, e.g. limiting access to the user interface, or wherein functions are triggered by incoming communication events. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante to incorporate the teachings of Bennett to include: wherein the SUR call report comprises call identifying data and message. Doing so would allow for oversight of users of a call system (Bennett, Abstract) and "overcome the limitations of dedicated hardware switches, as well as provide additional benefits in logging source-hander communications such as audio communication and messaging communications" (Bennett, Col. 3: lines 44-48).
As to claim 22, Chavez in view of McWithey and Prakah-Asante and further in view of Bennett discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the processor causes the electronic device to: transcribe a recorded conversation from the first incoming call into the message (Bennett, Fig. 1A and Col. 12: lines 43-65); and present at least one of the SUR call report (Prakah-Asante, Fig. 3 and ¶0049, "if the do not disturb function has ended 303 [i.e., the primary user is monitoring the electronic device], then the illustrative system reports the call/message log"; see also Fig. 5 and ¶0058) or a recording of the message in an audio format via a speaker (Prakah-Asante, Fig. 6 and ¶0068).
References Cited
Bennett, Christopher Ryan (2020). Virtual numbers for intelligence operations (US 10,645,213 B1). Filed 2017-03-28.
Braunberger, Alfred S. et al. (2019). Method and apparatus for periodically questioning a user using a computer system or other device to facilitate memorization and learning of information (US 10,347,145 B1). Filed 2009-05-15.
Chavez, David et al. (2020). Device utilization monitoring and prevention of unsolicited activities (US 2020/0125704 A1). Filed 2018-10-19.
Chu, Steve C. (2006). Handheld communications device with automatic alert mode selection (US 2006/0116175 A1). Filed 2004-11-29.
McWithey, Preston W. et al. (2011). Automated messaging response in wireless communication systems (US 2011/0219080 A1). Filed 2010-03-05.
Prakah-Asante, Kwaku O. et al. (2014). Method and system for supervising information communication based on occupant and vehicle environment (US 2014/0277932 A1). Filed 2013-03-13.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ackley, Jonathan (2005). Cell phone parental control (US 2005/0096009 A1). Filed 2004-09-27.
Boesen, Peter Vincent (2018). Digital signature using phonometry and compiled biometric data system and method (US 2018/0060555 A1). Filed 2017-07-24.
Darak, Anand et al. (2021). Age-based app lock (US 10,990,654 B1). Filed 2018-09-26.
Delco, Fallon M. et al. (2013). Automatic escalation/degradation of notifications of repetitive calls (US 2013/0267280 A1). Filed 2012-04-09.
Fischer, John J. et al. (2011). Standard mobile communication device distraction prevention and safety protocols (US 2011/0063098 A1). Filed 2010-09-16.
Jung, Edward K.Y. et al. (2008). Transferable device with alterable usage functionality (US 2008/0032682 A1). Filed 2006-06-23.
Kumar, Akash et al. (2018). Smart touchscreen display (US 2018/0232506 A1). Filed 2017-02-14.
Mai, Xiao Ming (2019). Secure and private processing of gestures via video input (US 2019/0147905 A1). Filed 2018-06-18.
Mardikar, Upendra (2018). Systems and methods for authenticating facial biometric data against secondary sources (US 10,127,435 B2). Filed 2016-09-22.
Rauenbuehler, Keith W. et al. (2019). Intelligent digital assistant for declining an incoming call (US 10,230,841 B2). Filed 2017-10-20.
Riemer, Michael S. et al. (2010). Safety features for portable electronic device (US 2010/0216509 A1). Filed 2010-04-06.
Rodriguez Bravo, Cesar Augusto et al. (2021). Mobile device application software security (US 2021/0211868 A1). Filed 2020-01-07.
Schuster, Bob A. et al. (2020). System and method for authentication across multiple platforms using biometric data (US 2020/0410075 A1). Filed 2020-09-09.
Sheha, Michael A. et al. (2005). Method and system for collecting synchronizing, and reporting telecommunication call events and work flow related information (US 2005/0032527 A1). Filed 2004-08-09.
Wendt, Scott J. (2014). System and method for generating and delivering automated reports concerning the performance of a call center (US 2014/0211931 A1). Filed 2013-01-31.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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 (Kevin) 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649