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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 9, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934).
Regarding claim 1, Burkea teaches a mobile computing device comprising: a display; one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage unit storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors(Figs 1-4), cause the mobile computing device to:
receive, using an input device of the mobile computing device, a user selection of a first network interface corresponding to a vehicle(P[0023], establishing a short range wireless connection between vehicle audio interface and mobile device; P[0021], short range wireless connection with the driver’s mobile device);
receive, using a second network interface, an incoming text message during a drive of the vehicle and while a user of the mobile computing device has a driver status for the vehicle, the driver status being based on the user selection(P[0076], incoming text message received at the mobile device; status is set to vehicular; P[0077], mobile device restricted ).
Pletka did not teach specifically present, at a user interface of the display, an indication of one or more access control action performed responsive to the incoming text message and based on the user of the mobile computing device having the driver status. However, Stunteback teaches in an analogous art present, at a user interface of the display, an indication of one or more access control action performed responsive to the incoming text message and based on the user of the mobile computing device having the driver status(P[0004], delay the ring of an incoming text until the vehicle is stopped, and display only a simple user interface that can be understood with quick glances). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to present, at a user interface of the display, an indication of one or more access control action performed responsive to the incoming text message and based on the user of the mobile computing device having the driver status in order to have improved safety features.
Regarding claim 9, Gurke teaches the mobile computing device of claim 1, wherein: the first network interface includes a Bluetooth network interface for connecting the mobile computing device to the vehicle; and the second network interface includes a cellular network interface(P[0023], Bluetooth; cellular).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 11-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Sanchez et al. (hereinafter Sanchez)(US 2016//0134744).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein presenting the indication includes presenting a prompt at the user interface of the display based on a determination that the drive has ended. However, Sanchez teaches in an analogous art wherein presenting the indication includes presenting a prompt at the user interface of the display based on a determination that the drive has ended(P[0114], reminder is displayed; mobile device is out of reach ). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein presenting the indication includes presenting a prompt at the user interface of the display based on a determination that the drive has ended in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Sanchez teaches the mobile computing device wherein the prompt includes a reminder to send a text message which was prevented from being sent during the drive (P[0114], reminder is displayed in the device’s screen).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine based on identifying the first network interface corresponds to the vehicle, and a communication between the first network interface and the mobile computing device, that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status, rather than a passenger status, of the vehicle. However, Sanchez teaches in an analogous art wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine based on identifying the first network interface corresponds to the vehicle, and a communication between the first network interface and the mobile computing device, that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status, rather than a passenger status, of the vehicle(P[0012], restricted zone; driving mode; P[0103], Bluetooth blocked; P[0102], driver’s mobile device; driving mode; decodes the ID label sent by the NFC transmitter ; passenger’s mobile device is in normal operating mode). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine based on identifying the first network interface corresponds to the vehicle, and a communication between the first network interface and the mobile computing device, that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status, rather than a passenger status, of the vehicle in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, further comprising: a global positioning system receiver configured to obtain location information; and a gyroscope configured to obtain acceleration data, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status based on at least one of the location information or the acceleration data. However, Sanchez teaches in an analogous art further comprising: a global positioning system receiver configured to obtain location information; and a gyroscope configured to obtain acceleration data, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status based on at least one of the location information or the acceleration data(P[0103], Global positioning system; user of the driver’s mobile device; accelerometer, claim 9; proximity with the NFC transmitter; P[0078], driver’s seat area of the vehicle). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device further comprising: a global positioning system receiver configured to obtain location information; and a gyroscope configured to obtain acceleration data, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the mobile computing device to determine that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status based on at least one of the location information or the acceleration data in order to have improved efficiency .
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, generate, based on the user selection, a setting for discerning whether a user of the mobile computing device is a driver or only a passenger of the vehicle, wherein the setting indicates that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status when the mobile computing device communicates with a Bluetooth interface of the vehicle. However, Sanchez teaches in an analogous art. generate, based on the user selection, a setting for discerning whether a user of the mobile computing device is a driver or only a passenger of the vehicle, wherein the setting indicates that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status when the mobile computing device communicates with a Bluetooth interface of the vehicle(P[0103], Bluetooth; passenger; P[0012], driving mode). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device generate, based on the user selection, a setting for discerning whether a user of the mobile computing device is a driver or only a passenger of the vehicle, wherein the setting indicates that the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status when the mobile computing device communicates with a Bluetooth interface of the vehicle in order to have user friendly view.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Ning et al. (hereinafter Ning)(US 2014/0323111).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein the one or more access control action includes a chime, a beep, or an audio message indicating that an outgoing text message is not allowed. However, Ning teaches in an analogous art wherein the one or more access control action includes a chime, a beep, or an audio message indicating that an outgoing text message is not allowed(P[0037], alarm sound; enter your mobile phone into safe driving mode; text message will be blocked). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein the one or more access control action includes a chime, a beep, or an audio message indicating that an outgoing text message is not allowed in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein, based on a determination that the incoming text message is received while the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status: blocking, by the mobile computing device, the incoming text message from being output on the display of the mobile computing device; and transmitting, by the mobile computing device via the second network interface, an outgoing text message generated as a reply to the incoming text message. However, Ning teaches in an analogous art wherein, based on a determination that the incoming text message is received while the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status: blocking, by the mobile computing device, the incoming text message from being output on the display of the mobile computing device; and transmitting, by the mobile computing device via the second network interface, an outgoing text message generated as a reply to the incoming text message(abstract, automatically block an incoming message; rejecting incoming text message; responding predetermined message). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein, based on a determination that the incoming text message is received while the user of the mobile computing device has the driver status: blocking, by the mobile computing device, the incoming text message from being output on the display of the mobile computing device; and transmitting, by the mobile computing device via the second network interface, an outgoing text message generated as a reply to the incoming text message in order to have improved efficiency.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Nathwani et al. (hereinafter Nathwani)(US 2014/0379920).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein first network interface includes a Bluetooth interface presented at the display. However, Nathwani teaches in an analogous art wherein first network interface includes a Bluetooth interface presented at the display(Fig.6, Bluetooth settings; paired devices). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein first network interface includes a Bluetooth interface presented at the display in order to have user friendly view.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein: receiving the user selection includes displaying, on a display of the mobile computing device, a list of a plurality of Bluetooth devices previously paired with the mobile computing device. However, Nathwani teaches in an analogous art wherein: receiving the user selection includes displaying, on a display of the mobile computing device, a list of a plurality of Bluetooth devices previously paired with the mobile computing device(Fig.6, Bluetooth settings; paired devices). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein: receiving the user selection includes displaying, on a display of the mobile computing device, a list of a plurality of Bluetooth devices previously paired with the mobile computing device in order to have user friendly view.
Regarding claim 7, Nathwani teaches the mobile computing device of claim 6, wherein the plurality of Bluetooth devices comprises a first Bluetooth interface of a first vehicle and at least one other Bluetooth interface for another vehicle(fig. 6, car 1, Car 2; Bluetooth settings).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and McWithey et al. (hereinafter McWIthey)(US 2011/0219080).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the mobile computing device, wherein the one or more access control action includes: automatically generating a response text message indicating that the user has the driver status; prompting the user for voice confirmation to send the response text message; and transmitting, using the second network interface, the response text message to a sender of the incoming text message. However, McWithey teaches in an analogous art wherein the one or more access control action includes: automatically generating a response text message indicating that the user has the driver status; prompting the user for voice confirmation to send the response text message; and transmitting, using the second network interface, the response text message to a sender of the incoming text message(abstract; mobile device is in a driver position; prompt is presented to a recipient; how to handle incoming message; response input received from recipient; response message to the sender; P[0008], prompt is presented audibly to a recipient). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device wherein the one or more access control action includes: automatically generating a response text message indicating that the user has the driver status; prompting the user for voice confirmation to send the response text message; and transmitting, using the second network interface, the response text message to a sender of the incoming text message in order to have user friendly view.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Cohen et al. (hereinafter Cohen)(US N2017/0201619).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, wherein: the one or more access control action includes blocking the incoming text message from being presented at the display of the mobile computing device; and the method further comprises sending, from the mobile computing device and using a third network interface, a report of blocking the incoming text message to a server computing device. However, Cohen teaches in an analogous art wherein: the one or more access control action includes blocking the incoming text message from being presented at the display of the mobile computing device; and the method further comprises sending, from the mobile computing device and using a third network interface, a report of blocking the incoming text message to a server computing device(P[0019], sending driver data to a server; blocking mode . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein: the one or more access control action includes blocking the incoming text message from being presented at the display of the mobile computing device; and the method further comprises sending, from the mobile computing device and using a third network interface, a report of blocking the incoming text message to a server computing device in order to have user friendly view.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Schrader et al. (hereinafter Schrader)(US 2013/0303143).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method converting, responsive to the user having the driver status, the incoming text message to an audio message; and outputting, using one or more speakers of the mobile computing device or an onboard vehicle computing device, the audio message. However, Schrader teaches in an analogous art converting, responsive to the user having the driver status, the incoming text message to an audio message; and outputting, using one or more speakers of the mobile computing device or an onboard vehicle computing device, the audio message(P[0051], incoming text messages are converted to audio so that driver can listen to incoming text message). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of converting, responsive to the user having the driver status, the incoming text message to an audio message; and outputting, using one or more speakers of the mobile computing device or an onboard vehicle computing device, the audio message in order to have user friendly way.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Helm et al. (hereinafter Helm)(US 2016/0073240).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method prompting the user to record an audio message if the user attempts to create an outgoing text message while the user is driving; converting the audio message to create the outgoing text message; and sending the outgoing text message. However, Helm teaches in an analogous art prompting the user to record an audio message if the user attempts to create an outgoing text message while the user is driving; converting the audio message to create the outgoing text message; and sending the outgoing text message(abstract, incoming message sent to driver’s mobile device using a Bluetooth connection; speech-to-text processing; outgoing message as a reply; P[0003], outgoing text message). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the device prompting the user to record an audio message if the user attempts to create an outgoing text message while the user is driving; converting the audio message to create the outgoing text message; and sending the outgoing text message in order to have improved efficiency.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke)(US 2014/0066053) in view of Haley et al. (hereinafter Haley)(US 2015/0054934) and Xiao et al. (hereinafter Xiao)(US 2013/0029650).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Burke and Hale teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method wherein presenting the indication of the one or more access control action includes presenting, at the user interface of the display, an indication of conditions which were determined to be unsafe resulting in a restriction on text messaging capabilities. However, Xiao teaches in an analogous art wherein presenting the indication of the one or more access control action includes presenting, at the user interface of the display, an indication of conditions which were determined to be unsafe resulting in a restriction on text messaging capabilities(P[0016], determine unsafe conditions are present; text messages may be blocked; messages from other devices for display to the user mobile device; application does not display text messages or receive user input when safety logic determines that text messaging should be turned off). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein presenting the indication of the one or more access control action includes presenting, at the user interface of the display, an indication of conditions which were determined to be unsafe resulting in a restriction on text messaging capabilities in order to have improved safety features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Alison T Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights