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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-10-16 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Examiner Note
Claims 6 and 16 include the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of signal transmission devices is mounted such that it is hidden from view by a user of the client smart device”. However, this limitation appears to be nothing more than a recitation of intended use of the signal transmission device(s), and therefore would provide no patentable weight to the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Please see MPEP § 2114(II) and § 2103(I)(C). Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner has given patentable weight to the limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 2-3, the limitation “the client smart device, including scan for the control signal from the signal transmission device…” is unclear. Examiner notes that it appears that this limitation should read “permitting interaction between the client smart device, by way of a mobile application, with the at least one signal transmission devices, including scanning for the control signal from a signal transmission device of the at least one signal transmission device” as read in corresponding claim 15. For the purposes of examination, this is how the claim will be read.
In claim 11, line 4, it appears that “wherein the control signal that requires turning off of camera function on the smart client device” should read “wherein the control signal requires turning off of a camera function on the smart client device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitations, and their respective structural interpretations, are:
In claims 1 and 7, “a plurality of signal transmission devices configured to broadcast” is being interpreted to cover the following corresponding structure described in the specification: Fig. 1, signal transmission devices 102 that include microcontroller 102A, battery 102B, and reset button 102C; please also see ¶0056.
In claims 1-4 and 8-10, “an administration device configured to [activate; set the specified distance; set day, time, and period; interact with a backend server; authenticate…; manage…; save and analyze system data; control system security; transmit…; detect…; add…; delete…; and monitor…]” is being interpreted to cover the following corresponding structure described in the specification: Fig. 1, administration device 106 that includes processor 106A and memory 106B; please also see ¶0060
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0181716 to Benco et al. (“Benco”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0149652 to Rodriguez Bravo et al. (“Rodriguez Bravo”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0238257 to Anson (“Anson”), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0045449 to Cook et al. (“Cook”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Benco discloses a system for restricting camera use in a photography prohibited zone (Benco, Fig. 1; ¶0019 and ¶0024), comprising: a … signal transmission device (Benco, Fig. 1, Base Station 110; ¶0022) configured to broadcast a control signal at a specified distance (Benco, Fig. 1, Coverage Area 116; ¶¶0022-0024); wherein the control signal requires turning off of camera function on the client smart device (Benco, Fig. 1, ¶0024); an administration device (Benco, Fig. 1, Mobile Switching Center 106; ¶0022) configured to interact with a backend server (Benco, Fig. 1, Subscriber Database 108; ¶0022).
Benco does not disclose: a plurality of signal transmission devices; notify a client smart device that the client smart device has entered the … prohibited zone; set the specified distance that each of the plurality of signal transmission devices broadcasts the control signal in order to define a boundary of the photography prohibited zone; set day, time, and period in which the photography prohibited zone is considered active; and wherein the backend server is configured to authenticate the administration device and the plurality of signal transmission devices, manage operation of the administration device, save and analyze system data, and control system security.
However, Rodriguez Bravo discloses: a plurality of signal transmission devices (Rodriguez Bravo, Fig. 1, Transmitters 110a and 110b; ¶0024 and ¶0034); and set the specified distance that each of the plurality of signal transmission devices broadcasts the control signal in order to define a boundary of the photography prohibited zone (Rodriguez Bravo, Fig. 1 and ¶0024 and ¶0034).
Additionally, Anson discloses: set day, time, and period in which the photography prohibited zone is considered active (¶0018, "a feature restriction 36 includes a set of one or more functions that are disabled under predetermined conditions, such as a defined time period." Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the example given--an academic location during a testing period--would necessarily include a set day, time, and period in which the function(s) are prohibited), and wherein the backend server is configured to authenticate the administration device and the plurality of signal transmission devices (Fig. 1 and ¶0019. Server Information Handling System 40, Feature Controller 42, and Desktop Information Handling System 46, perform authentication of an administrative device (i.e., the teacher's device) and other devices (i.e., student devices)), manage operation of the administration device (Fig. 1, Server Information Handling System 40 and Feature Controller 42; ¶0019, "feature restrictions for selected of plural portable telephones 10 are managed through a server information handling system 40 that executes a feature controller 42"), save and analyze system data (Fig. 1, Server Information Handling System 40 and Feature Controller 42; ¶0019, "feature controller 42 tracks feature restrictions by a unique identifier, such as a telephone number, and allows access to adjust feature restrictions to authorized individuals through password protection". Examiner notes that "save and analyze system data" is broad and would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to include tracking of feature restrictions within an information handling system), and control system security (Fig. 1 and ¶0019. Server Information Handling System 40, Feature Controller 42, and Desktop Information Handling System 46, control system security, e.g. by authenticating the various device(s)).
Additionally, Cook discloses: notify a client smart device that the client smart device has entered the … prohibited zone (Cook, ¶0038, "the quiet mode controller 234 provides the functional capability to allow a physical location to identify itself as a "quiet location" or a "quiet zone." The cell phone 102 is configured to receive a signal, such as, for example, an RFID signal, that notifies the cell phone 102 that it has physically entered into a 'quiet zone.'").
Benco and Rodriguez Bravo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco to incorporate the teachings of Rodriguez Bravo to include: a plurality of signal transmission devices; and set the specified distance that each of the plurality of signal transmission devices broadcasts the control signal in order to define a boundary of the photography prohibited zone. Doing so would allow for "effectively block[ing] the usability of certain mobile device features and related applications, drivers, and firmware, in controlled areas … The disabling of a feature may be geolocation and/or proximity-based" (Rodriguez Bravo, ¶0013); for example, it would allow for "automatically disabl[ing] the camera functionality of mobile devices when entering sensitive areas, such as banks or military installations. This may be proximity-based" (Rodriguez Bravo, ¶0015). Using Rodriguez Bravo's plurality of transmitters would allow for defining a geofence (Rodriguez Bravo, ¶0024), which would be useful for different scenarios/applications of Benco's camera-disabling system, i.e. at a concert venue (Rodriguez Bravo, ¶0025). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Rodriguez Bravo and Benco as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, Benco and Anson are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco to incorporate the teachings of Anson to include: set day, time, and period in which the photography prohibited zone is considered active, and wherein the backend server is configured to authenticate the administration device and the plurality of signal transmission devices, manage operation of the administration device, save and analyze system data , and control system security. Doing so would allow for "feature restrictions [to be] selectively enforced at selected of plural portable information handling systems to disable or otherwise restriction functions of the portable information handling systems" (Anson, ¶0008), e.g. selectively enabling and/or disabling device functionality respective to an academic testing environment and schedule (Anson, ¶0009). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Anson and Benco as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, Benco and Cook are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco to incorporate the teachings of Cook to include: notify a client smart device that the client smart device has entered the … prohibited zone. Doing so would add the functionality of notifying the user and/or their device that the device functionality is limited and/or disabled upon entering the geofence (i.e., photography-prohibited zone) (Cook, ¶0038). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Cook and Benco as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 17), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of signal transmission devices is configured to broadcast a low energy control signal including a notification to alert a pedestrian user of the client smart device that a private zone has been entered where camera usage (Benco, Fig. 1; ¶0019 and ¶0024) is prohibited (Cook, ¶0038, "the quiet mode controller 234 provides the functional capability to allow a physical location to identify itself as a "quiet location" or a "quiet zone." The cell phone 102 is configured to receive a signal, such as, for example, an RFID signal, that notifies the cell phone 102 that it has physically entered into a 'quiet zone.'").
***
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0095493 to Xu et al. (“Xu”).
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein the administration device is configured to transmit a search signal for a relevant signal transmission device that is relevant only to the system, detect a response signal to the search signal and verify reliability of the relevant signal transmission device through a verification mechanism, and add the relevant signal transmission device within a range of the administration device so that the relevant signal transmission device begins to receive command signals from the administration device.
However, Xu discloses: wherein the administration device is configured to transmit a search signal for a relevant signal transmission device that is relevant only to the system (Xu, Fig. 1, stage A; ¶¶0050-0051, "the first hybrid device 102 (e.g., the communication unit 103) may broadcast a control message (e.g., a probe message) via some or all of the network interfaces 104, 106, and 108 to indicate that it is ready to establish one or more secure communication links with another hybrid device"), detect a response signal to the search signal (Xu, Fig. 1, stage B; ¶0052) and verify reliability of the relevant signal transmission device through a verification mechanism (Xu, Fig. 1, stage C; ¶¶0052-0053, "the first hybrid device 102 detects the second hybrid device 110 and initiates operations for establishing one or more secure communication links with the second hybrid device"), and add the relevant signal transmission device within a range of the administration device so that the relevant signal transmission device begins to receive command signals from the administration device (Xu, Fig. 1, stage C; ¶¶0052-0053).
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Xu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Xu to include: wherein the administration device is configured to transmit a search signal for a relevant signal transmission device that is relevant only to the system, detect a response signal to the search signal and verify reliability of the relevant signal transmission device through a verification mechanism, and add the relevant signal transmission device within a range of the administration device so that the relevant signal transmission device begins to receive command signals from the administration device. Doing so would allow for "easily establishing multiple secure communication links between hybrid devices in a hybrid communication network" (Xu, ¶0047); in other words, it would allow for simple and dynamic addition or reduction of the number of access points in the network(s) of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook. Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Xu with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
***
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0296671 to Bhattacharyya et al. (“Bhattacharyya”).
As to claim 3 (and similarly applied to claim 13), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein the administration device is configured to delete one signal transmission device among the plurality of signal transmission devices such that the one signal transmission device stops broadcasting control signals.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses: wherein the administration device is configured to delete one signal transmission device among the plurality of signal transmission devices such that the one signal transmission device stops broadcasting control signals (Bhattacharyya, ¶0027, "the management server 160 can … disable the beacon device").
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Bhattacharyya are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharyya to include: wherein the administration device is configured to delete one signal transmission device among the plurality of signal transmission devices such that the one signal transmission device stops broadcasting control signals. Doing so would allow for "dynamically configuring wireless beacon or tag devices based on policies … scal[ing] and implement[ing] policies to configure beacons or tags in overlay networks based on user intent rather than configuring individual wireless beacon devices … defin[ing] and extend[ing] the overlay network lifetime and ensure improved, uninterrupted overlay network performance … adjust[ing] and tun[ing] overlay network configuration policies for beacons or tags based on externally observed parameters that affect overlay network lifetime and performance … address[ing] security vulnerabilities, thus reducing the threat surface in an overlay network … [and] reduce[ing] the burden of maintaining an overlay beacon or tag network" (Bhattacharyya, ¶0016). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Bhattacharyya with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 4 (and similarly applied to claim 14), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein the administration device is configured to monitor the plurality of signal transmission devices, including detecting their activity level, and battery level.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses: wherein the administration device is configured to monitor the plurality of signal transmission devices, including detecting their activity level, and battery level (Bhattacharyya, ¶0042, "the management server may detect an event in which a wireless beacon device enters the network; a wireless beacon device moves from a first zone of the network to a second zone of the network; a wireless beacon device is remove from the network; a battery power level of a wireless beacon device is lower than a predetermined threshold; and a new user policy to be implemented is received by the management server"; please also see ¶0023 and ¶0026).
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Bhattacharyya are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharyya to include: wherein the administration device is configured to monitor the plurality of signal transmission devices, including detecting their activity level, and battery level. Doing so would allow for "dynamically configuring wireless beacon or tag devices based on policies … scal[ing] and implement[ing] policies to configure beacons or tags in overlay networks based on user intent rather than configuring individual wireless beacon devices … defin[ing] and extend[ing] the overlay network lifetime and ensure improved, uninterrupted overlay network performance … adjust[ing] and tun[ing] overlay network configuration policies for beacons or tags based on externally observed parameters that affect overlay network lifetime and performance … address[ing] security vulnerabilities, thus reducing the threat surface in an overlay network … [and] reduce[ing] the burden of maintaining an overlay beacon or tag network" (Bhattacharyya, ¶0016). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Bhattacharyya with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
***
Claims 5, 8-10, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0365554 to Williams, Jr. et al. (“Williams, Jr.”).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claim 15), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: permitting interaction between the client smart device, by way of a mobile application, with the at least one signal transmission devices (Rodriguez Bravo, ¶0018-0021), including scanning for the control signal from a signal transmission device of the at least one signal transmission device, when the control signal is detected indicating the photography prohibited zone, disable the camera function on the client smart device (Benco, Fig. 1, ¶0024) … and when the control signal indicates that the client smart device is exiting the photography prohibited zone, reactivate the camera function (Benco, Fig. 1, ¶0024).
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: display a notification that the camera function has been disabled … and display a notification that the camera function has been reactivated.
However, Williams, Jr. discloses: display a notification that the camera function has been disabled (Williams, Jr., ¶0048, "The Device Owner Application running on mobile device 102 may also send notifications, such as ‘app installed’, ‘app disabled’, or ‘app functioning normally’") … and display a notification that the camera function has been reactivated (Williams, Jr., ¶0048, "The Device Owner Application running on mobile device 102 may also send notifications, such as ‘app installed’, ‘app disabled’, or ‘app functioning normally’").
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Williams, Jr. are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Williams, Jr. to include: display a notification that the camera function has been disabled … and display a notification that the camera function has been reactivated. Doing so would allow for "a system and method that can automatically limit mobile device or computer functionality, including the ability to text, place calls, interact with user input or output devices, and to restrict web site access when a mobile device mobile devices and computer is within a geographic area that … has been predefined" (Williams, Jr., ¶0007) in a way that allows for variable degrees of functionality at different times (Williams, Jr., ¶0017). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Williams, Jr. with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 8 (and similarly applied to claim 18), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein the administration device is further configured to monitor status of the plurality of signal transmission devices to include transmission of a switching command signal for switching to different photography prohibited zones.
However, Williams, Jr. discloses: wherein the administration device is further configured to monitor status of the plurality of signal transmission devices to include transmission of a switching command signal for switching to different photography prohibited zones (Williams, Jr., Figs. 13 and 15; ¶0137, "inputting fixed geographic area boundary information into one or more system administrator computers such as 1501, 1502, 1503 (or web-accessible system administrator application residing on an Internet-connected server) for the purpose of defining one or more fixed geographic areas 1200 or sub-areas (the sub-areas not shown in FIG. 13 but depicted in FIG. 15 as sub-areas a through l)").
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Williams, Jr. are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Williams, Jr. to include: wherein the administration device is further configured to monitor status of the plurality of signal transmission devices to include transmission of a switching command signal for switching to different photography prohibited zones. Doing so would allow for "a system and method that can automatically limit mobile device or computer functionality, including the ability to text, place calls, interact with user input or output devices, and to restrict web site access when a mobile device mobile devices and computer is within a geographic area that … has been predefined" (Williams, Jr., ¶0007) in a way that allows for variable degrees of functionality at different times (Williams, Jr., ¶0017). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Williams, Jr. with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9 (and similarly applied to claim 19), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein the administration device is further configured to transmit a power command signal to turn on and off subsets of the plurality of signal transmission devices for different photography prohibited zones.
However, Williams, Jr. discloses: wherein the administration device is further configured to transmit a power command signal to turn on and off subsets of the plurality of signal transmission devices for different photography prohibited zones (Williams, Jr., Figs. 13 and 15; ¶0137).
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Williams, Jr. are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Williams, Jr. to include: wherein the administration device is further configured to transmit a power command signal to turn on and off subsets of the plurality of signal transmission devices for different photography prohibited zones. Doing so would allow for "a system and method that can automatically limit mobile device or computer functionality, including the ability to text, place calls, interact with user input or output devices, and to restrict web site access when a mobile device mobile devices and computer is within a geographic area that … has been predefined" (Williams, Jr., ¶0007) in a way that allows for variable degrees of functionality at different times (Williams, Jr., ¶0017). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Williams, Jr. with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 10 (and similarly applied to claim 20), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Williams, Jr. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the administration device is further configured to transmit a scheduling command signal to turn on and off the subsets of the plurality of signal transmission devices according to a schedule of time periods (Williams, Jr., Figs. 13 and 15; ¶0137).
***
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,174,176 to Liu (“Liu”).
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claim 16), Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook discloses the system of claim 1.
Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook does not disclose: wherein at least one of the plurality of signal transmission devices is mounted such that it is hidden from view by a user of the client smart device.
However, Liu discloses: wherein at least one of the plurality of signal transmission devices is mounted such that it is hidden from view by a user of the client smart device (Liu, Col. 8: lines 50-53).
Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, Cook, and Liu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: disabling or limiting the functionality of mobile device features (e.g., camera), when such devices are located within predetermined geographic areas (e.g., geofences, restricted-use zones, etc.); connecting, configuring, and managing devices (e.g., beacons, access points, tag devices, etc.) in wireless communication networks; and/or privacy protection and security in wireless communications systems with multiple stations. 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 Benco in view of Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook to incorporate the teachings of Liu to include: wherein at least one of the plurality of signal transmission devices is mounted such that it is hidden from view by a user of the client smart device. Doing so would keep the access points out of sight which would prevent tampering, damage, or sabotage (Liu, Col. 2: lines 23-26; Col. 7: lines 1-2; and Col. 8: lines 50-53). Further, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Liu with those of Benco, Rodriguez Bravo, Anson, and Cook as doing so merely combines elements of closely related prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
References Cited
Anson, Douglas M. (2012). System and method for selectively restricting portable information handling system features (US 2012/0238257 A1). Filed 2011-03-16.
Benco, David S. et al. (2009). Network disabling of mobile phone camera operation (US 2009/0181716 A1). Filed 2008-01-11.
Bhattacharyya, Abhishek et al. (2020). Event-driven policy based management of wireless beacon and tag devices (US 2020/0296671 A1). Filed 2019-03-12.
Cook, Charles et al. (2014). System, method and apparatus for automatic location-based silencing of wireless transceivers (US 2014/0045449 A1). Filed 2013-10-16.
Liu, F. (2007). Cordless security system and method (US 7,174,176 B1). Filed 2004-07-12.
Rodriguez Bravo, Cesar Augusto et al. (2019). Mobile device feature disablement (US 2019/0149652 A1). Filed 2017-11-14.
Williams, Jr., Donald Edward et al. (2025). System and method for limiting mobile device functionality in a geographic area (US 2025/0365554 A1). Filed 2025-08-04.
Xu, Kegang et al. (2015). Push button configuration for hybrid network devices (US 2015/0095493 A1). Filed 2012-09-28.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Atkin, et al. (2005). Method and apparatus for managing functions in a camera phone (US 20050064856 A1). Filed 2003-09-18.
Bocking, Andrew Douglas et al. (2009). Disabling operation of features on a handheld mobile communication device based upon location (US 20090322890 A1). Filed 2006-09-01.
Boss, Gregory J. et al. (2008). Disablement of camera functionality for a portable device (US 20080030588 A1). Filed 2006-08-04.
Chi Kwong, Archer (2012). Method for monitoring and controlling photographs taken in a proprietary area (US 20120229658 A1). Filed 2012-05-24.
Davis, Harvey Edd et al. (2006). Automatic deactivation/activation of cellular phones in restricted areas (US 20060160562 A1). Filed 2005-12-16.
Ferren, Bran et al. (2010). Context-based limitation of mobile device operation (US 20100317336 A1). Filed 2009-12-23.
Klimek, Marcin et al. (2017). System and method for beacon fleet management (US 20170245104 A1). Filed 2017-05-09.
Liu, F. (2004). Wireless node multiple handset cordless telephone system (US 20040242244 A1). Filed 2003-05-28.
Mardiks, Eitan et al. (2007). Territorial enforcement of device functionality (US 20070270167 A1). Filed 2006-10-18.
Mase et al. (2021). Systems and methods for delivering timely personalized information of vulnerable persons to authorities and/or caregivers (US 20210274034 A1). Filed 2021-03-01.
Nathan Brown, Joe (2005). Location-based control of wireless communications device features (US 20050277428 A1). Filed 2004-05-13.
Rodkey, Jr., JOHN FRANK et al. (2012). System, method and computer readable medium for restricting mobile device services (US 20120046019 A1). Filed 2010-08-18.
Rothman, Michael A. et al. (2006). Mobile phone policy management (US 20060135140 A1). Filed 2004-12-16.
Sprigg, Stephen A. et al. (2013). Intelligent parental controls for wireless devices (US 20130017806 A1). Filed 2011-07-13.
Shaw, V. et al. (2012). System, method and apparatus for protecting privacy when a mobile device is located in a defined privacy zone (US 20120220285 A1). Filed 2012-05-10.
Sinha, Bhartendu et al. (2008). Controlling use of devices in large restricted areas (US 20080220715 A1). Filed 2007-03-09.
Snow, Patrick et al. (2009). Controlling portable digital devices (US 20090197584 A1). Filed 2005-09-29.
Conclusion
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, please 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
Prosecution Insights