DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 06/12/2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-19, and 21-23 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 12/08/2025.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the first and second charging bay devices” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 18, 19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0287197 to Best et al. (“Best”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0082445 to Collins (“Collins”).
With regard to claim 1, Best discloses the claimed computer-implemented method of managing mobile computing devices, the method implemented in a system including:
a database including authorized user data and information and authorized user privilege information (see e.g. Best [0080] [0084] [0095]);
at least one controller (see e.g. Best [0053]); and
at least one charging bay device comprising: a cabinet housing including a plurality of charging slot apertures (see e.g. Best, Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
487
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With openings 114…);
a charging slot and charging circuitry accessible through each respective one of the charging slot apertures, wherein each charging slot is configured to at least partly receive and automatically charge one of the plurality of portable computing devices (see e.g. Best [0059-60] automatic wireless charging; [0087-90] [0131-132] etc.); and
a locking mechanism in the cabinet housing and being configured to allow a removal of one or more of the plurality of portable computing devices from the respective charging slots when in an unlocked state and to prevent a removal of the plurality of portable computing devices from the respective charging slots when in a locked state, the locking mechanism being automatically and manually positionable between the locked and unlocked states (see e.g. Best [0058] [0063] automatic and manual lock/unlock; [0097]); and
wherein the method comprises:
accepting, by the at least one controller, an inmate user login to verify an authorized user status according to the authorized user data and information in the database as a first access restriction in the correction facility (see e.g. Best [0055] [0098]);
as a second access restriction in the correctional facility, assessing an inmate user privilege status after the authorized user status is verified and according to the authorized user data and information in the database, wherein the user privilege status is a changeable behavioral based status of active privilege status to access one of the portable computing device or suspended privilege status to access one of the portable electronic computing devices (see e.g. Best [0042] [0054-55]; Best does not disclose the step of assessing a user privilege status.); and
only when the user privilege status is active, unlocking one of the portable computing devices to be retrieved by the verified authorized inmate user (see e.g. Best at [0061] where when inmate logs in and is confirmed to be authorized and to have active privileges to access a tablet computer device 200, one or more of the indicators may be lit in a desired color (e.g., green) to indicate to the inmate that he or she may remove the associated tablet device from the kiosk, while one or more of the other indicators may be lit in another color (e.g., red) to indicate to the inmate that he or she may not remove the associated tablet computer device 200 for use. Best does not indicate that “only” in this instance is the device to be retrieved.).
assigning the retrieved one of the portable computing devices to the verified authorized inmate user as a third access restriction (see e.g. Best, Fig. 26, where the device name is assigned to a device user in the database.); and
accepting a log in by the verified authorized inmate user to the retrieved device for use and operation only by the verified authorized inmate user, whereby no other user may log in to the retrieved assigned device after it has been assigned (see e.g. Best, [0152], [0081], [0095] etc.).
For the limitations that Best does not disclose, such as the “assessing a user privilege status” and the “only when” aspect, the examiner refers to Collins to cure these deficiencies. For example, Collins titled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AN INMATE PRIVILEGE KIOSK teaches verified authorized user at e.g. [0086-89], assessing privilege/privilege status at e.g. [0011], [0069-74], [0093], and the only when privilege is active/not restricted, then allowing use [0096-97], published claim 42 “only when” language such as “store the at least one selection input as a pending privilege request until a subsequent processing time only when the at least one selection input does not violate the updated inmate privilege restriction data and information.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inmate privilege kiosk art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Best’s inmate kiosk to include the features of Collins’ inmate kiosk. While Best already uses a kiosk/database workflow to control inmate tablet retrieval, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include Collins’ restriction-application techniques because as Collins teaches, the inmate privileges are subject to changing facility restrictions and should be screen through a computerized system before the privilege is allowed. Further, applying Collins’ restriction screening in Best would have provided the advantage of more reliable privilege-status enforcement at the point of checkout, so that the system allows tablet retrieval and use only when the inmates privilege status remains active under current facility and individual rules. See Best, [0006], where Best describes an improvement: [0006] Improvements in monitoring and administering inmate privileges, and disseminating and communicating information regarding the same.
With regard to claim 4, Best further discloses as a fourth access restriction, verifying with the at least one controller whether a time of the accepted user login falls within a predetermined facility schedule access time window; and only when the time of the accepted user login falls within a predetermined facility schedule access time window, allowing one of the portable computing devices to be retrieved and used by the verified authorized user (see e.g. Best [0054] privileges revoked for a definite period of time, time after that (predetermined window) the user will have access, but only when that happens).
With regard to claim 5, Best further discloses assessing, with the at least one controller, an available portable computing device inventory in the at least one charging bay device according to predetermined criteria (see [0102] all devices are assessed, are they fully charged or not?); selecting and assigning a preferred one of the portable computing devices according to the predetermined criteria (see Best [102], only fully charged devices are made available and therefore selected, Fig. 26 for assigning); and unlocking the selected preferred one of the portable computing devices to be retrieved and used by the verified authorized user (see e.g. Best [0102]).
With regard to claim 6, Best further discloses the predetermined criteria includes assessment of battery charge level for the available portable computing devices (Best e.g. [102]) and an assessment of software or firmware version for the available portable computing devices (Best e.g. [0142]).
With regard to claim 8, Best further discloses identifying, by the at least one controller, the retrieved assigning portable computing device upon returned to the at least one charging bay device; and unassigning the selected preferred one of the portable computing devices from the authorized user thereby returning the unassigned portable computing device to the available portable computing device inventory for assessment according to predetermined criteria by a subsequent verified authorized inmate user. (see e.g. [0102]).
With regard to claim 9, Best further discloses operating an approved portable computing device indicator for the verified authorized inmate user to locate the selected preferred one of the portable computing devices in the at least one charging bay device (Best [0061]).
With regard to claim 10, Best further discloses the approved portable computing device indicator is a light emitting diode (LED) (Best [0061]).
With regard to claim 11, Best further discloses the portable computing device indicator includes a flashing light (see e.g. Best [0061]).
With regard to claim 12, Best further discloses where the at least one charging bay device is equipped with a near field communication element in each charging slot, the near field communication in each slot cooperating with a near field communication coupled to a portable computing device to uniquely identify the portable computing device in each slot, wherein the method further comprises: creating a database of identified portable computing device is each charging slot with the near field communication elements; and generating a notice regarding an identified portable computing device which has been located in at least one of the charging slots (see Best [0096] [0150] [0100-103] notice or alert, for multiple devices see Best Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 13, Best further discloses where the at least one charging bay device is equipped with a portable computing device detector in each charging slot (see e.g. [0096]), and wherein the method further comprises enabling or disabling an output of the charging circuitry by the at least one controller when the portable computing device detector does not detect a portable computing device in the respective charging slots (see e.g. [0096] the examiner notes that in the current method claims, the “when” conditional statements are not granted patentable weight, and anything dependent upon that condition occurring, is further not granted patentable weight).
With regard to claim 14, Best further discloses establishing a physical wire connection between the charging circuitry and the portable computing device in each charging slot (Best [0074]).
With regard to claim 18, Best further discloses wherein assigning the retrieved one of the portable computing devices to the verified authorized inmate user if the device does not pass an assessment. once the verified authorized user logs into the retrieved portable computing device, assigning the portable computing device to the authorized user for system oversight of usage of the portable computing device by the verified authorized user; and logging the assignment of the portable computing device (Best [0085] [0096-97] [0099] After removal from the tablet computer slot 114, the inmate user may re-enter login information to the tablet device 200 when needed to connect to the kiosk services system 300.).
With regard to claim 19, Best further discloses generating a portable computing device availability notice to the verified authorized user (Best [0100]); reserving one of the portable computing device for checkout by the verified authorized user (Best [0061] user logs in and one indicator for one space goes on indicated the check-out of that device, and that device is thereby “reserved” for that user and the system has set that device to be assigned to that user); setting a timer for the verified authorized user to complete a checkout of the reserved portable computing device (Best [0099]); and if the verified authorized user does not complete checkout of the reserved portable computer device before the timer expires, return the reserved device to an available inventory for a subsequent accepted user login (the condition if statement is not granted patentable weight).
With regard to claims 21, 22, 23, Best further discloses accepting a selected one of a plurality of operating modes for the at least one charging bay device(s) (see e.g. Best, Fig. 28, where for the charging bay device POD1-6 at facility 1, the user can control the selection/acceptance of various modes such as claimed “basic mode” – “Can see the devices tab”; “intermediate mode” – “Can see the Users tab”; “advanced mode” – “Can see the support tab” for instance. See the features that are enabled/disabled based on the selection of the mode(s) such as “block/unlock devices, allow restrict changing the language settings, etc.; see Best [0069] universal applicability of the charging bay device, can be configured for each facility based on needs/desires/preferences at each location)
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best, Collins, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0374554 to Byrne (“Byrne”).
With regard to claim 15, Best does not disclose the limitations of claim 15. However, Byrne cures the deficiency. Byrne teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the portable device art in penal institution(s) to include pre-assigning one of the portable computing devices to a logged in/authorized user (e.g. Byrne [0008], Fig. 2); assessing, by the at least one controller, the pre-assigned one of the portable computing devices according to predetermined criteria (e.g. Byrne [0038] [0058])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inmate portable device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Best/Collins inmate kiosk abilities to include such as pre-assigning, assessing, and if statement, as shown in Byrne, where the advantage is that this allows the system to remotely assign such devices to the inmates, and further allows the system to configure the electronic device for the particular inmate, relating to access to certain files, accounts files, etc. as shown in Byrne [0058-59].
With regard to claim 16, Best/Collins does not teach claim 16. Byrne teaches reassigning one of the portable computing devices to the logged in user and allowing the reassigned portable computing device to be retrieved and used by the logged in user (see Byrne [0008] [0060], Fig. 2 elements 208, 210, 212; if statement not granted patentable weight). See motivation to combine from claim 15.
With regard to claim 17, Best does disclose generating a notice at e.g. [0100] [0103]. Further, in Byrne, Fig. 2, element 212, when the device is provided to the user, this is placing the user on a notice of the device. See combination from claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has addressed each claim amendment above in the 103 rejection. The examiner has added a minor 112 rejection based on the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights