PFDETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Pub. 20160192152 A1) in view of Vendrow et al. (US Pat. 11013042 B1) in further view of Shaw (US Pub. 20130072178 A1).
For claims 1, 9, and 15, Taylor discloses a system comprising: a mobile device (110/2000) comprising:
one or more sensors (2060, e.g. GPS sensor for 111) configured to detect a velocity of the mobile device (detecting driving or walking speed) [0021, 0035, 0112]; and
one or more processors configured to determine a presence status of a user of the mobile device based on the detected velocity (GPS location based on the movement of the user device), wherein the presence status indicates a travel state of the user (steps 520-540, speed relative to location of the device) [0037, 0039, 0060];
a transmitter (2070) configured to transmit a presence update associated with the determined presence status to a server (120) of a unified communications as a service (CaaS) platform (111) based on the detected velocity to update a presence indicator on a remote client display (transmitting location updates to 120/123 from 110/112, on the display, updating time of arrival (ToA) reference based on the updated speed range) [0024, 0034-35, 0056]; and
But Taylor doesn’t explicitly teach route an incoming communication to a first device associated with a first user when a modality is a first modality and route the incoming communication to a second device associated with a second user when the modality is a second modality.
However, Vendrow discloses route an incoming communication to a first device (130C) associated with a first user when a modality is a first modality (col. 5, lines 27-49, col. 10, lines 55-67) and route the incoming communication to a second device (130D) associated with a second user when the modality is a second modality (col. 10, lines 10-25, col. 11 lines 15-39).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission in a telecommunication network used by mobile devices; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Taylor with Vendrow to ensure different data formats can be communicated to other relevant parties; thus, improving information sharing capabilities.
But Taylor and Vendrow don’t explicitly teach route, based on the travel state, an incoming communication;
However, Shaw discloses route, based on the travel state, an incoming communication to a first device (113) associated with a first user when a modality is a first modality and route the incoming communication to a second device (120) associated with a second user when the modality is a second modality (Steps 310-350; Claim 1) [0043-47].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission in a telecommunication network used by mobile devices; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Taylor, Vendrow with Shaw to ensure depending on the motion of the targeted device, the system can convert the incoming communication into a proper data formats; thus, improving user convenience and experience.
Claim 1 differs from claim 9 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. Taylor further discloses a method [0034-35]. All identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. Taylor further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored on a memory, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations [0105]. All identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2, 10, and 16, Taylor, as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, discloses the presence update indicates that a user of the mobile device is driving (determining whether a speed is above a threshold of a driving speed) [0052-53].
For claim 6, Taylor as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, Vendrow further discloses the first user is a supervisor of the user of the mobile device (abstract). See motivation to combined the references from the above.
For claim 7, Taylor as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, Vendrow further discloses the first modality is a video call (col. 10, lines 10-25, col. 11 lines 15-39). See motivation to combined the references from the above.
For claim 8, Taylor as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, Vendrow further discloses the second modality is an audio call (col. 5, lines 27-49, col. 10, lines 55-67). See motivation to combined the references from the above.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Pub. 20160192152 A1) in view of Vendrow et al. (US Pat. 11013042 B1) in further view of Shaw (US Pub. 20130072178 A1) in further view of Deak et al. (US Pub. 20170358022 A1).
For claims 3, 11, and 17, Taylor, as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Taylor, as modified by Vendrow and Shaw, doesn’t explicitly discloses the following limitations taught by Deak.
Deak discloses determining that the detected velocity exceeds a velocity threshold [0059]; and
determining that a user of the mobile device is flying based on the determination that the detected velocity exceeds the velocity threshold (step 408) [0059, 0044].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission in a telecommunication network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Taylor, Vendrow, Shaw and Deck to ensure different user profiles can be properly determined; thus, allowing the system the flexibility to improve its operating mode based on different user profile needs.
For claims 4, 12, and 18, Taylor as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, Deak further discloses the presence update indicates that the user of the mobile device is flying (step 408) [0044]. See motivation to combined the references from the above.
For claim 14, Taylor as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, Deak further discloses the velocity threshold is based on a velocity that is outside a normal driving range or capability of an automobile [0059]. See motivation to combined the references from the above.
For claim 19, Taylor as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, Vendrow further discloses the first modality is a short messaging service (SMS) message (col. 7 lines 50-55, col. 10, lines 45-48). See motivation to combined the references from the above.
For claim 20, Taylor as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, Vendrow further the second modality is a chat message (col. 10, lines 23-25). See motivation to combined the references from the above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Pub. 20160192152 A1) in view of Vendrow et al. (US Pat. 11013042 B1) in further view of Shaw (US Pub. 20130072178 A1) in further view of Deak et al. (US Pub. 20170358022 A1) in further view of Smith (US Pub. 20150080016 A1).
For claims 5 and 13, Taylor, as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Taylor, as modified by Vendrow, Shaw and Deak, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitations taught by Smith.
Smith discloses detecting an altitude (46) of the mobile device using the one or more sensors of the mobile device (Fig. 3B) [0087-97]; and
determining that the detected altitude exceeds an altitude threshold (Fig. 3B) [0087-97].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data transmission in a telecommunication network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Taylor, Vendrow, Shaw, Deck, and Smith to allow the mobile device to detect altitude changes; thus, allowing the system to make adjustments to improve its operating mode based on different service environments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights