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 .
Applicant’s response dated 09/25/2025 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending in Application 18/473,004.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Halmstad as detailed below.
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.
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(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmstad (US 2015/0304484 A1) in view of Murphy (US 2021/0144140 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Halmstad discloses A computer-implemented method (Halmstad: Claim 1, “A method”) comprising:
receiving, responsive to a managed device communicating with a (Halmstad: Paragraph [0004], “the device management server may determine a location of a particular managed device based on a message received from the particular managed device indicating which wireless beacon (or multiple wireless beacons) is detected by the particular managed device”, and Paragraph [0081], “The first message 1255 may include a user identifier (ID) 1258 associated with a user of the managed computing device 1250, a device ID 1257 associated with the managed computing device 1250, a device type 1256 of the managed computing device 1250, the identifier 1242, or a combination thereof”);
identifying device information corresponding to configuration settings, hardware details, or device type of the managed device associated with the user data and the access information, the device information (Halmstad: Paragraph [0082], “The device management server 1220 may receive the first message 1255 and may determine, based on data included in the first message (e.g., the identifier 1242), that the managed computing device 1250 is a particular wireless beacon region associated with the wireless beacon 1240. In response, the device management server 1220 may determine whether any rules associated with the wireless beacon region are stored in the region rules database 1223. When rule(s) for the wireless beacon region are stored in the region rules database 1223 (and the rule(s) have not already been applied to the managed computing device 1250), the device management server 1220 may generate a second message 1225 based on the rule(s)”);
determining at least one mobile device action based on the device information, the user data, and the access information, the at least one mobile device action configured to cause the managed device to perform an action that restricts a functionality of the managed device (Halmstad: Paragraph [0090], “ the device management server 1220 may also revoke access by the managed computing device 1250 to particular functionality in response to determining that the managed computing device 1250 is in a particular wireless beacon region. For example, the command 1283 or the configuration settings 1285 may revoke access to the printer 1264, the second access point 1262, the managed application 1254, the data 1253, etc. To illustrate, the managed computing device 1250 may be prevented from accessing a web browsing application or a game application in response to the first message 1255 indicating that the managed computing device 1250 has detected a wireless beacon associated with a classroom”);
responsive to determining the at least one mobile device action, transmitting a message to a push notification service, wherein the message initiates the managed device to communicate with a mobile device management server (Halmstad: Paragraph [0037], “the MDM server 120 may send a notification request 124 to a push notification service 130. The push notification service 130 may correspond to one or more network accessible servers that are configured to send push notifications 131, 132 to the managed mobile devices 140, 150. In a particular embodiment, the push notifications 131, 132 may cause the managed mobile devices 140, 150 to check with the MDM server 120 to see if there are any commands to be performed by the managed mobile devices 140, 150. For example, commands selected by the user 101 via the manager mobile device 110 may be queued by the MDM server 120 and may be retrieved by the managed mobile devices 140, 150 in response to the push notifications 131, 132”, Paragraph [0089], “In a particular embodiment, the second message 1225 includes a command 1283 that is to be executed at the managed computing device 1250. For example, the command 1283 may include a file management command”, and Paragraph [0100], “to communicate a message (e.g., the second message 1225 and/or the fourth message 1325) to the managed computing device 1250, the device management server 1220 sends the message to a push notification service 1230 along with data indicating that the managed computing device 1250 is an intended recipient of the message (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 12). The push notification service 1230 may forward the message to the managed computing device 1250 using a push notification system”);
and responsive to the managed device communicating with the mobile device management server, transmitting a management command to the managed device to perform the at least one mobile device action (Halmstad: Paragraph [0089], “In a particular embodiment, the second message 1225 includes a command 1283 that is to be executed at the managed computing device 1250. For example, the command 1283 may include a file management command”).
Halmstad does not explicitly disclose the use of a reader (instead using a Bluetooth beacon).
However, Murphy discloses the use of a reader (Murphy: Paragraph [0053], “the virtual badge credential can be presented to the access control reader 108 using Bluetooth low energy, near-field communication (NFC) or another local or personal area network interface supported by the client device 106 and the access control reader 108”)
Halmstad and Murphy are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to device management systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Murphy’s use of an NFC reader into the system of Halmstad to increase compatibility such that the system could be used in a wider variety of situations.
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the user data and access information of the managed device is received at the mobile device management server (Halmstad: Paragraph [0004], “the device management server may determine a location of a particular managed device based on a message received from the particular managed device indicating which wireless beacon (or multiple wireless beacons) is detected by the particular managed device”, and Paragraph [0081], “The first message 1255 may include a user identifier (ID) 1258 associated with a user of the managed computing device 1250, a device ID 1257 associated with the managed computing device 1250, a device type 1256 of the managed computing device 1250, the identifier 1242, or a combination thereof”; Murphy: Figure 7 and Paragraph [0076], “The Physical access control server 123 can determine whether the virtual badge credential is entitled to access the physical resource secured by the access control reader 108”)
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one mobile device action is configured to cause the managed device to install device drivers, locate assistance, access potentially sensitive networks, configure WiFi profiles, restrict cellular data usage, specify a virtual private network (VPN), change device configurations, restrict access to secured regions, turn off device camera, or identify lunch locations (Halmstad: Paragraph [0087], “the second message 1225 may include the configuration settings 1285 to configure the managed computing device 1250 to communicate using the VPN. In alternative embodiments, the second message 1225 granting access to the second access point 1262 may include more, fewer, and/or different types of data”, and Paragraph [0099], “the configuration settings 1385 may configure the mobile computing device 1250 to use a different (or no) printer, a different (or no) access point, a different (or no) application, different (or no) data, a different (or no) VPN, or a combination thereof”; Murphy: Paragraph [0076], “The Physical access control server 123 can determine whether the virtual badge credential is entitled to access the physical resource secured by the access control reader 108”).
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the managed device communicates with the reader wirelessly (Halmstad: Paragraph [0004], “the device management server may determine a location of a particular managed device based on a message received from the particular managed device indicating which wireless beacon (or multiple wireless beacons) is detected by the particular managed device”; Murphy: Paragraph [0053], “the virtual badge credential can be presented to the access control reader 108 using Bluetooth low energy, near-field communication (NFC) or another local or personal area network interface supported by the client device 106 and the access control reader 108”).
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the managed device communicates with the reader via one of near-field communication and Bluetooth (Halmstad: Paragraph [0004], “the wireless beacon may broadcast via a personal area network connection or other short range connection, such as Bluetooth® low energy (BLE)”; Murphy: Paragraph [0053], “he virtual badge credential can be presented to the access control reader 108 using Bluetooth low energy, near-field communication (NFC) or another local or personal area network interface supported by the client device 106 and the access control reader 108”).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmstad and Murphy as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Kitchen (US 2017/0054571 A1).
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2.
Halmstad-Murphy does not explicitly disclose that the mobile device management server hosts functions of an integration server.
However, Kitchen teaches that the mobile device management server hosts functions of an integration server (Kitchen: Claim 17 and Paragraph [0786], “The system includes an integration server coupled to the system server”).
Halmstad-Murphy and Kitchen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to wireless device management and access control. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kitchen’s integration server feature into the system of Halmstad-Murphy to allow for ease of system management, greater compatibility, and improved system security.
Halmstad-Murphy teaches 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Halmstad-Murphy does not explicitly disclose that receiving the user data and access information of the managed device is received at an integration server.
However, Kitchen teaches that receiving the user data and access information of the managed device is received at an integration server (Kitchen: Claim 17 and Paragraph [0786], “the integration adapter is configured to process events coming from the integration server, wherein the events comprise device data corresponding to the partner device”).
Halmstad-Murphy and Kitchen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to wireless device management and access control. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kitchen’s integration server feature into the system of Halmstad-Murphy to allow for ease of system management, greater compatibility, and improved system security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olsen (US 2020/0358765 A1) describes remotely configuring communication restrictions for managed devices.
Qureshi (US 2014/0297859 A1) describes configuring browser functionality for a managed device.
Zhou (US 2014/0113593) describes a system for applying restriction policies to managed mobile devices.
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 IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453