DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 06/12/2026 in which claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-13, and 17-19 were amended, claims 2-4 canceled, and claims 21-23 added. Therefore, claims 1 and 5-23 are pending for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: It still depends from canceled claim 3 and instead should be dependent from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-12, 14-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipman, Jr. et al. [US 10,678,302] in view of Alvarez [US 2016/0135618].
With respect to claim 1, Shipman discloses a mobile device management system for a plurality of portable computing devices [Fig. 1], the mobile device management system comprising: at least one controller [i.e. various controlling circuitry to perform the functions of charging, communications, control access, etc.]; and at least one charging bay device responsive to the controller, the at least one charging bay device [100] including: a closed cabinet housing [102, including four walls] including a front face formed with a plurality of charging slot apertures extending through the front face [i.e. “retention arms” protrude to support an external housing]; charging slots and charging circuitry accessible through each respective one of the charging slot apertures [see 122], wherein each charging slot is configured to at least partly receive and automatically charge one of the plurality of portable computing devices [via 124/126 charging contacts]; and a locking mechanism in the closed cabinet housing [see locking finger 182] and being operative to clear the charging slot apertures and allow a passage of one or more of the plurality of portable computing devices through the respective charging slots when in an unlocked state and to block the charging slot apertures and prevent a passage of the plurality of portable computing devices through the respective charging slots when in a locked state [i.e. when finger 182 is engaged the device cannot be removed and when 182 is not engaged the device is free to be removed]; and wherein the locking mechanism is operable in a combination of an automated positioning by the controller to assume the locked or unlocked state and also a manual positioning to assume at least one of the locked or unlocked state [Fig. 27-28 detail the method of requesting authorization/checking credentials of a user to allow removal of the device combined with user insertion]. However, Shipman fails to disclose the entire system (each individual charging slot) being inside a closed cabinet such that passage is allowed through the charging slots.
The difference between the prior art and the instant invention is providing a closed housing/cabinet for the entire system. Alvarez relates to a latch system for dispensing devices and teaches providing a closed cabinet for the entire system [Fig. 1c] such that each slot is provided with allowing/denying passage of the portable device its respective slot [Figs. 4-5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Shipman such that the individual charging slot section was additionally enclosed as taught by Alvarez, for the benefit of providing additional protection against theft and the elements to the devices and the charging ports as suggest by Alvarez.
With respect to claim 5, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: as a first access restriction for the plurality of portable computing devices, accept a user login to verify an authorized user according to the authorized user data and information in the database [Fig. 32]; as a second restriction for the plurality of portable computing devices, assess an authorized user privilege status for the verified authorized user according to the authorized user privilege status data and information in the database [216; col. 13 line 40 to col. 14 line 43]; an as a third access restriction for the plurality of portable computing devices verify whether a time of login for the verified authorized user falls within a predetermined facility schedule access time window, and only when the time of the accepted user login falls within the predetermined facility schedule access time window, allow one of the portable computing devices to be retrieved and used by the verified authorized user [col. 14 lines 15-30; “time periods”].
With respect to claim 6, Shipman further discloses wherein the system further comprises a database including authorized user data and information and portable computing device data and information [Fig. 32]; and wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: as a first access restriction for the plurality of portable computing devices accept a user login to verify an authorized user according to the authorized user data and information in the database [214]; assess an available portable computing device inventory in the at least one charging bay device according to predetermined criteria and the portable computing device data and information in the database and select a preferred one of the portable computing devices in the available portable computing device inventory for the verified authorized user according to the predetermined criteria and identify the preferred one of the portable computing devices for the verified authorized user [col. 13 lines 4-13, 45-67 and col. 14 lines 1-67; “the server assigns a device to a user”, also not the rule verify whether a device is sufficiently charged and deny access if it is not, therefore an assigned/selected device is equated to a preferred device].
With respect to claim 7, Shipman further discloses wherein the predetermined criteria includes an assessment of battery charge level for each of the respective computing devices in the available portable computing device inventory or an assessment of software or firmware version for each of the respective computing devices in the available portable computing device inventory [col. 13 lines 45-67].
With respect to claim 8, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: as a second restriction for the preferred one of the portable computing devices assign the preferred one of the portable computing devices to the verified authorized user, wherein after the preferred portable computing device is assigned to the verified authorized user the preferred portable computing device is operable only by the verified authorized user, whereby no other user may log in to the retrieved assigned device after it has been assigned [Fig. 27]; and log the assigned preferred one of the portable computing devices in the database [228 and/or 328].
With respect to claim 9, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: identify the preferred one of the portable computing devices when returned to the at least one charging bay device, unassign the preferred one of the portable computing devices from the verified authorized user, and log the unassigned preferred one of the portable computing devices in the database [col. 20 lines 1-5].
With respect to claims 10-12, Shipman further discloses comprising an indicator for the user to identify the preferred one of the portable computing devices in the at least one charging bay device, wherein the approved portable computing device indicator is a light emitting diode (LED), wherein the portable computing device indicator includes a flashing light [186; i.e. a status light indicator to show access status and/or charging status based on turning on and off].
With respect to claim 14, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one charging bay device is equipped with a portable computing device detector in each charging slot [col. 16 lines 48-67].
With respect to claim 15, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one controller is responsive to the portable computing device detector in each charging slot to enable or disable an output of the charging circuitry when the portable computing device detector does not detect a portable computing device in the respective charging slots [col. 17 lines 23-35].
With respect to claim 16, Shipman further discloses a charging interface in each charging slot, the charging interface establishing a physical wire connection between the charging circuitry and the portable computing device [122; i.e. charging “contacts” 124/126].
With respect to claim 17, Shipman further discloses wherein the system further comprises a database and wherein the portable computing devices are pre-assigned to respective authorized users in the database with device data and information and charging slot information for the pre-assigned portable computing devices [i.e. the server]; and the at least one controller further configured to: as a first access restriction for the plurality of portable computing devices accept a user login to verify an authorized user according to the authorized user data and information in the database [Fig. 34 shows a communications system 96/98 to a server and Figs 27-28 detail the server determines whether a proper identification has been made to unlock the device]; locate in the at least once charging bay device the portable computing devices that is pre-assigned to a verified authorized user according to the pre-assigned portable computing device data and information and charging slot information in the database [col. 12 lines 15-25; i.e. a status light]; assess the located pre-assigned one of the portable computing devices according to predetermined criteria and if the pre-assigned one of the portable computing devices satisfies the predetermined criteria, as a second restriction for allow the pre-assigned one of the portable computing devices to be retrieved and used by the verified authorized user, whereby no other user may log in to the retrieved pre-assigned one of the devices after it has been assigned [col. 13 lines 52-56].
With respect to claim 18, Shipman further discloses wherein if the pre-assigned one of the portable computing devices does not pass the assessment, the at least one controller is configured to: reassign another one of the portable computing devices to the verified authorized user and allow the reassigned portable computing device to be retrieved and used by the verified authorized user; wherein the system generates a notice of the reassigned portable computing device; and wherein the system logs the reassigned portable computing device in the database [col. 13 lines 30-60; i.e. checks for charge level, among other rules, and only allows removal if it passes, see Fig. 33 for log states].
With respect to claim 19, Shipman further discloses wherein the at least one controller further configured to: verify an authorized user requesting access to one of the portable computing devices as a first access restriction; after the verified authorized user logs in to one of the portable computing devices, assign one of the portable computing devices to the verified authorized user for system oversight of usage of the portable computing device by the verified authorized user, whereby no other user may log in to the device after it has been assigned; and log the assignment of the portable computing device in the database [Figs 27 and 33, note “for system oversight” is a functional recitation and is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform, here at least col. 18 lines 50-67 discuss administrator access].
With respect to claim 21, Shipman further discloses wherein the controller is configured to switch an operation of the at least one charging bay between a plurality of distinct operating modes including respectively different combinations of features of the at least one charging bay device being enabled or disabled [col. 13 line 40 to col. 14 line 20].
With respect to claims 22-23, wherein the plurality of distinct operating modes includes a basic mode, an intermediate mode or an advanced mode respectively realizing a different degree of security compliance for respectively different locations in a facility/facilities, whereby the at least one charging bay device is universally operable in the respectively different locations to meet varying security needs at the respectively different locations [col. 3 lines 20-30 discloses security measures at different facilities/locations, also not the claim is recited in the “or” format and therefore only 1 mode need be disclosed, not all three].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipman, Jr. et al. [US 10,678,302] and Alvarez [US 2016/0135618] as applied above, and further in view of Choi et al. [US 2022/0239347].
With respect to claim 13, Shipman discloses wherein the at least one charging bay device comprises multiple charging bay devices each respectively being equipped with a wireless communication element in each charging slot cooperating with a portable computing device to uniquely identify the portable computing device in each slot; wherein the system further comprises a database including charging slot information; wherein the system is configured to store the uniquely identified portable computing device and corresponding slot information in the database; and the at least one controller further configured to generate a notice regarding an identified portable computing device that was retrieved from a first device and that was returned to second device [Fig. 34; see also col. 22 lines 1-67, see also Fig. 27; i.e. if access is denied it reverts back to start and if it succeeds then it proceeds to release]. However, Shipman does not identify the wireless data transfer means as being NFC.
Near field communication is well-known in the art. For example, Choi relates to a wireless power transfer system and teaches exchanging information with NFC [par. 0005,0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Shipman to use NFC for data transfer as taught by Choi for the benefit of using a quick data transfer method that utilizing lower power consumption (as compared to at least Bluetooth).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shipman, Jr. et al. [US 10,678,302] and Alvarez [US 2016/0135618] as applied above, and further in view of Girish et al. [US 11,687,997].
With respect to claim 20, Shipman further discloses the at least one controller further configured to: accept a user login for an authorized user; generate a portable computing device availability notice to the authorized user; reserve one of the portable computing device for checkout [Fig. 27]; and if the authorized user does not complete checkout of the reserved portable computer device before the timer expires generate portable computing device availability notice [col. 20 lines 55-56].
Setting a checkout timer and canceling (returning to inventory) are well-known in the art. For example, Girish teaches that once signed in establishing a checkout expiration time [col. 1 lines 45-55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Shipman to include the checkout timer as claimed for the benefit of preventing a device from becoming accidentally/unnecessarily held up and reserved for an extended about of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/12/2026 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection to Alverez has been applied above, and applicant has not yet had a chance to consider the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights