Obviousness

The obviousness of US patent 10841248 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, which is before the priority date of May 18, 2013. The patent itself provides significant insights into the state of the art and the problems it sought to address.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):
A PHOSITA in this field would likely possess a bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering and several years of experience in software development for mobile devices, communication systems, and user interfaces. They would be familiar with existing automatic response systems, smartphone operating systems, and various wired and wireless peripheral connectivity technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, audio jacks).

Scope and Content of the Prior Art:
The patent's "Background of the Invention" and "Brief Summary of the Invention" sections explicitly discuss the state of the art:

1. General Automated Response Systems (Prior Art 1): "Since the invention of the first telephone answering machine, electronic systems that produce automated response messages to various incoming telephone calls, email, text messages, and other forms of electronic communication have become common." These systems are particularly useful for smartphones to manage incoming messages at inconvenient times, such as while driving.
2. Smartphone Peripheral Connectivity and Identification (Prior Art 2): "Modern computerized devices and systems often operate with the aid of one or more connected peripheral devices (peripherals) or networks." These connections include "direct electrical wire connections, other physical connections, as well as various types of wireless connections (e.g. Bluetooth® connections, Wi-Fi connections, and the like)." The patent also notes that "Each device, such as a peripheral device will generally either have its own identification code (e.g. a peripheral device identification code) or other way by which the computerized system (100) can identify when that particular peripheral is attached to the system (100)." This includes using Bluetooth profiles (e.g., Hands-Free Profile (HFP), Device ID Profile (DIP)) or detecting an audio jack connection to identify peripherals or their types.
3. Contextual Understanding from Peripherals (Prior Art 3): The patent itself acknowledges the "insight that there is often a predictable context in which a user may connect a given peripheral or network to the user's computerized systems." Examples given include connecting a Bluetooth speakerphone in a car for driving, or a Bluetooth headset for exercising, or a WiFi network at work or the gym.

The patent also describes "Text Deflector," an app developed by the inventors. While specific publication dates for "Text Deflector" in July and December 2013 occur after the provisional priority date of May 18, 2013, the patent states "Text Deflector's patent pending technology works by sensing and linking to your in-car handsfree device (Bluetooth or wired headset) and automatically responds for you without any user input whatsoever to any incoming texts." This description of their own "patent pending technology" is strong evidence of the technology known or conceived by the inventors at or before the priority date, likely disclosed in the provisional application 61/825,017 from which US10841248 claims priority.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 1:

Independent Claim 1 describes a method comprising:

• Obtaining a handheld computerized device (HCD) (e.g., smartphone) with a processor, memory, wireless cellular network transceiver, and reply software.
• Obtaining at least one peripheral device (PD) capable of connecting to the HCD, each with a device identification code identifiable by the HCD.
• Using the reply software and processor to assign peripheral-linked automatic replies to the PD identification code(s) and storing them in HCD memory.
• When a PD is connected, the reply software determines its ID and selects/retrieves the associated automatic reply from memory.
• In response to an incoming message via the cellular transceiver, using the selected reply to respond.
• The PD is different from the device transmitting the incoming message.

Combination of Prior Art 1, Prior Art 2, and Prior Art 3:

A PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, seeking to improve existing automatic response systems (Prior Art 1) would readily perceive their limitations. The patent itself identifies these limitations, stating that "prior art automatic answering or response systems are suboptimal in that they do not allow users enough flexibility to program in a variety of different automatic response messages in advance. Prior art automatic response systems also did not apply an optimal amount of intelligence in determining under which situations different automatic response answers should be used."

The motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these elements is clearly articulated by the patent's own "insights":

• To provide an "improved automatic answering system that, at least in part, is able to adjust its automatic answering messages depending upon which peripherals or networks are presently connected to the computerized system."
• To leverage the fact that "modern computerized devices and systems often operate with the aid of one or more connected peripheral devices (peripherals) or networks."
• To utilize the "predictable context in which a user may connect a given peripheral or network to the user's computerized systems."

Applying the combination to Claim 1:

1. Handheld computerized device components and general auto-response: Prior Art 1 directly teaches a handheld computerized device (e.g., smartphone) with a processor, memory, wireless cellular network transceiver, and software (reply software) capable of automatically responding to incoming messages received via the cellular network transceiver.
2. Peripheral devices and identification: Prior Art 2 teaches that smartphones connect to various peripheral devices (e.g., Bluetooth, wired headsets) and can identify them via device identification codes or connection status. This covers the PD being capable of connecting with the HCD and having an individually identifiable device identification code.
3. Assignment and Storage of Peripheral-Linked Replies: Knowing that smartphones can identify connected peripherals (Prior Art 2) and that these peripherals often indicate a user's context (Prior Art 3), a PHOSITA would find it obvious to enhance existing auto-response software (Prior Art 1) by allowing users to program specific replies associated with specific peripheral device identification codes. Storing these associations in the HCD's memory is a routine software implementation task.
4. Selection and Retrieval upon Connection: To make the auto-responder more "intelligent" and context-aware, a PHOSITA would be motivated to modify the software to monitor for peripheral connections. Upon detection of a connected peripheral (Prior Art 2), the software would determine its ID and retrieve the automatically assigned, peripheral-linked response from memory. This directly addresses the problem of determining "under which situations different automatic response answers should be used."
5. Responding to incoming messages: The retrieved, context-specific reply would then be used by the established auto-response mechanism (Prior Art 1) to respond to incoming messages.
6. Peripheral different from message transmitter: This element is inherent in the system, as the incoming message originates from a cellular network, not directly from the user's connected peripheral device.

Therefore, the combination of known automatic response systems (Prior Art 1) with known smartphone peripheral connectivity and identification capabilities (Prior Art 2), driven by the recognized need for more intelligent and context-aware responses leveraging the predictable contexts indicated by peripherals (Prior Art 3), would have rendered Claim 1 obvious to a PHOSITA before May 18, 2013. The inventors' own "Text Deflector" product, described as "patent pending technology" performing these functions, reinforces this conclusion.

Obviousness Analysis of Dependent Claims 2, 7, and 9:

• Claim 2 (Dataset/Contact Specific Replies and Priorities): This claim builds on Claim 1 by incorporating a list of datasets (e.g., contacts) and assigning replies and priorities to them, as well as establishing a priority scheme between peripheral-linked and contact-assigned replies. Given that general auto-responders (Prior Art 1) often included features like blacklisting contacts or providing different responses for known vs. unknown callers, it would be an obvious extension for a PHOSITA to integrate contact-specific customization into a peripheral-aware auto-response system. Users commonly desire to prioritize communications from certain individuals (e.g., boss, family). Implementing prioritization logic is a standard software engineering task for managing multiple rules or triggers. The patent itself mentions that "a premium (paid for) version of Text Deflector also allows users to ... assign a custom message to each of the user's contacts," indicating this feature was considered alongside peripheral-specific responses.

• Claim 7 (Distracted Driving/Equipment Operation and Customized Responses for Originator): This claim applies the method of Claim 1 to prevent distracted driving or operation of other equipment, where the peripheral is "equipment associated" and the response is "customized for an originator." The problem of distracted driving was well-known (as highlighted in the patent's background, citing 2012 statistics on accidents due to distractions), and generic "driving" auto-replies existed. Connecting a "driving" context (Prior Art 3, specifically car-associated Bluetooth peripherals as in Prior Art 2) to an auto-response system (Prior Art 1) to address distracted driving is an explicit motivation provided by the patent. Customizing responses based on the originator (e.g., a more formal message for a boss, a casual one for a friend) is a natural evolution of making the system "more intelligent" and "flexible," particularly when combined with the contact-specific features of Claim 2.

• Claim 9 (Reduce Risk of Distracted Operation): This claim describes using peripheral connection status to manage auto-response replies to reduce the risk of distracted operation of any equipment while the user is utilizing that equipment. This is a direct application of the peripheral-specific auto-response system of Claim 1 to the problem of distraction. The motivation to reduce distraction, especially in critical activities like operating machinery or driving, is a long-felt need and an obvious application for a context-aware communication management system.

In summary, the claims of US10841248 appear to be obvious combinations of well-known technologies and problems, driven by explicit motivations to enhance the intelligence and flexibility of existing automatic response systems by incorporating contextual information derived from connected peripheral devices.