Invalidity dossier
US 8364183
“I am driving/busy” automatic response system for mobile phones
Current assignee: Individual
Added 9/23/2026, 6:47:50 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US8364183B2
Title: "I am driving/busy" automatic response system for mobile phones
Patent number: US8364183B2
Application number: US13/373,325
Inventors: Julia Olincy; Ronald C. Fish
Original/current assignee: Individual (listed assignees "may be inaccurate"; Google performs no analysis or warranty as to accuracy)
Priority date: 2009-12-21 (stated as an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
Filing date: 2011-11-10
Publication date: 2013-01-29 (grant)
Pre-grant publication: US20120058750A1
Legal status: Active; anticipated expiration 2029-12-21
Purpose and plain-language scope. The patent addresses automatic responses from mobile phones when the user is driving or busy. The supplied background describes prior systems that use a phone's GPS to detect driving and then disable the phone, or route incoming calls to voicemail with a message that the user is driving, permitting exceptions only for pre-selected numbers. The background criticizes this as too restrictive: the driver cannot see caller IDs of all incoming calls or decide whether to pull over and answer. It also discusses "Quick Text," a menu of canned text replies requiring several keystrokes to send. The title and background indicate the invention concerns automatically sending a "driving/busy" style reply from a mobile phone, in contrast to outright disabling the phone or routing calls to voicemail.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8364183](/patent/US8364183)/en (fetched 2026-09-23).
What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text contains no claims, no detailed description of the invention's embodiments, no abstract, and no figures or reference numerals. It therefore does not establish the specific claimed elements, the exact trigger mechanism (e.g., GPS, vehicle data, or manual activation), the message content, or the scope of any dependent claims. Related filings (US13/691,780, US14/708,034) and their resulting patents are noted in the source but their content is not provided. The assignee listing, priority date, legal status, and expiration date are expressly characterized in the source as assumptions or non-legal conclusions.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:35 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8364183. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.