US 9432499

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 9432499, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for any CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 appellate docket activity and confirm which patents are asserted in the Cedarwood suits.

US Patent No. 9,432,499 — Summary

I searched for this exact number only. Below is what is confirmed by the patent text (authoritative) plus what my searches returned; where the record is silent or ambiguous I flag it.

Bibliographic data (from the patent record)

Abstract (verbatim): "Software and computer processor implemented system and method of providing customized automated responses to different types of incoming electronic messages from various contact sources, particularly useful for preventing distracted driving. Here the invention's software, often in the form of an app, runs on a smartphone or other computerized device configured to automatically connect to various peripherals, such as automobile associated Bluetooth peripherals. When operating, the app causes connected peripherals to automatically trigger auto response mode in response to incoming messages. Optionally, different automated responses to be assigned to different peripheral identification codes or different incoming message originators. Various prioritization schemes, such as last peripheral connected dominates, and various ways in which different contact specific automated responses may interact with various peripheral specific automated responses, are also discussed."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Core "peripheral-triggered auto-reply with priority" method (computerized system).
A method on a device that (a) has a processor, memory, a cellular transceiver, and auto-reply software, and that connects to at least one peripheral with its own peripheral identification code the device can detect. The software: assigns a set of peripheral-linked auto replies to that identification code and stores them; maintains a contact list; assigns a contact-specific automated reply and a contact priority to at least one contact; assigns a peripheral priority; and determines a relative priority between the peripheral-linked replies and the contact-assigned replies. That relative priority decides whether an incoming message from a listed contact is answered by the peripheral-linked reply or the contact-assigned reply. When the peripheral is connected, the software reads the peripheral code, retrieves the matching reply from memory, and — on receiving a message — auto-responds with it.
(Dependent claims add: device type, wired connection, distracted-driving/vehicle context, MMS with picture/video, wireless connection, SMS, and last-connected-peripheral variation.)

Claim 9 — Distracted-driving-specific Bluetooth variant.
Substantively the same scheme as Claim 1, but narrowed to a Smartphone and at least one Bluetooth vehicle-associated peripheral (Bluetooth link, Bluetooth peripheral ID, Bluetooth transceiver). The same assignment/priority logic (peripheral-linked replies vs. contact replies) determines the auto-response, and the reply is "customized for an originator of said incoming message." Directed expressly at reducing distracted-driving risk.
(Dependent claims 10, 11 add MMS and SMS message types.)

Claim 12 — Smartphone variant keyed to "highest priority peripheral."
Again a smartphone plus at least one peripheral with a detectable ID; assigns a peripheral priority and peripheral-linked replies; keeps a contact list with a contact-specific reply and contact priority. On connection, the software reads the peripheral code, retrieves the reply, and selects it by determining the relative priority between the peripheral-linked reply and the communications contact. Notably, the final limitation requires that the peripheral-linked reply differ according to both the sending contact and the peripheral code of the highest-priority connected peripheral — i.e., a contact × peripheral selection matrix driven by the top-priority peripheral.
(Dependent claim 13 adds wired-or-wireless connection.)

Conceptual thread across all three independents: detect which peripheral is connected → look up a stored reply tied to that peripheral's ID → resolve a user-configured priority conflict between "peripheral-based" and "contact-based" replies → auto-send the winning reply to the incoming message.

---

Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

• No CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket specifically naming US 9,432,499 was found. A targeted search for "9432499 / 9,432,499" Federal Circuit appeal 2026 returned no results, and my searches for the number + "appeal" returned nothing. I cannot confirm a Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent exists — treat this as "not found," not "confirmed absent." CAFC dockets are not always well-indexed by the tools available to me.
• District-court activity does exist, but the patents I could verify as asserted are different members of the same family, not '499:
  • Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex., 7:26-cv-00152 (filed ~Apr 17, 2026).
  • Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, W.D. Tex., 1:26-cv-01202 (filed May 6, 2026) — targets Google Pixel / Android Auto auto-reply.
  • Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. [Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cellco%20Partnership%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Verizon%20Wireless), W.D. Tex., 1:26-cv-01204 (filed May 6, 2026; answer extended to Aug 10, 2026) — targets Verizon Driving Mode Auto-Reply.
  • Reported patents-in-suit for the Google/Verizon filings: 9,979,826; 10,841,248; 11,516,643 (all same family, same priority 2013-05-18). US 9,432,499 was not identified as asserted in these complaints, though the '499, '988 ('9602988), and the later family members share the '499 disclosure. A parallel IPR track exists (multiple IPR2025 petitions by Apple and Google against Cedarwood patents), but I could not confirm any IPR naming '499 specifically.

---

Uncertainty / cautions

1. "9432499" is not unique. One search result shows a photovoltaic cell record with "EPO Family ID: 9432499" — that is an EPO family identifier, not US Patent 9,432,499, and is unrelated. Do not conflate the two.
2. CAFC: unconfirmed negative. I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket for this patent, but absence of a search hit is not proof of absence. If a CAFC appeal exists, I would expect it to arise from one of the W.D. Tex. Cedarwood cases (which were still in their opening stages as of the latest docket data, mid-2026) rather than being fully briefed — an appeal from an early §101/§112 ruling is conceivable but not evidenced.
3. Assignee. The patent listed "Individual" as original assignee and the Google Patents record shows Cedarwood Ventures Inc as current assignee (assignment recorded 2025-06-19 from Hajdu, Loralee and Hajdu, Oliver). Google itself notes its assignee list "may be inaccurate." Treat current ownership as Cedarwood Ventures with reasonable confidence but not as a legal conclusion.
4. All claim/abstract/title/filing/issue data above come from the patent's own text (Google Patents rendering), which I treat as authoritative over secondary sources; the litigation details come from docket aggregators and a legal-news summary and should be independently verified against PACER before reliance.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9432499 across patent litigation sources.

Let me refine with more specific searches tied to the patent's title and parties.

I've found relevant leads. Let me dig deeper into the Cedarwood Ventures cases and confirm which patents are asserted.

Litigation Search: US Patent 9,432,499

Bottom line up front

I could not confirm any litigation in which US 9,432,499 ("the '499 patent") is explicitly identified as an asserted patent. Targeted searches by the exact number (9,432,499 / 9432499) returned no case docket, complaint, or litigation database entry that names this patent as the patent-in-suit. Most "949"-type hits I encountered were unrelated patents (e.g., Masimo's RE47,249 / '249-family in Masimo v. Sotera), which I have excluded per your instruction not to return results for similar numbers.

However, I did identify a cluster of very recent 2026 patent-infringement suits filed by Cedarwood Ventures, Inc., which is the current recorded assignee of the '499 patent (per the patent record, assigned to Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. on 2025-06-19 by inventors Loralee Hajdu and Oliver Hajdu). These are the most likely vehicles for any assertion of the '499 patent, but I was unable to verify from the retrieved sources that the '499 patent itself is among the asserted patents in those complaints.

⚠️ Verification limitation: I reached my tool-call limit before I could open the actual complaints/patent-in-suit attachments to confirm the asserted patents. Treat the "asserted patent" linkage below as unconfirmed.

Cedarwood Ventures enforcement campaign — cases found

Notes on the above:

• Cause of action in these dockets is listed as 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement (Nature of Suit 830).
• Plaintiff's counsel of record is Nicholas E. Najera (Ni Wang & Massand).
• In the Cellco case, the docket shows a complaint with Exhibits A–F (consistent with multiple asserted patents/exhibits), service on 6/5/2026, and an extension of time to respond — but the retrieved docket text did not name the patents asserted.
• I found no final judgment, settlement, dismissal, or appeal for any of these three cases — all appear to be newly filed and pending.

What I could not establish

• No confirmed assertion of the '499 patent in any of the above cases (or any others). Confirming this would require reading the complaints' "Asserted Patents" sections or the AO-120 forms, which I could not retrieve.
• No earlier (pre-2026) litigation involving the '499 patent, Text Deflector, or the original individual assignees was found in the sources searched.
• No CAFC or PACER appellate activity tied to this patent was surfaced.

Related context that may matter to your analysis

• The '499 patent is part of a family sharing the 2013-05-18 priority date, including continuations/related patents US 9,602,988; US 9,979,826; US 10,841,248; US 11,297,014; and US 11,516,643. Any Cedarwood assertion campaign could involve these as well.
• The patent record also identifies a third-party publication by the inventors (US 2019/0097954 A1, "System to help prevent distracted driving") among references citing the '499 patent.

Sources consulted

• Google Patents record for US 9,432,499 (assignee/reassignment and family data): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432499/en
• Justia Dockets — W.D. Tex. IP cases (Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, 1:2026cv01202; Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, 1:2026cv01204): https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/court-txwdce/noscat-10
• UniCourt docket — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, 1:26-cv-01204
• PacerMonitor dockets — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC (1:26-cv-01202) and v. Cellco Partnership (1:26-cv-01204)
• Patexia litigation database — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7:26-cv-00152 (filed Apr 17, 2026)
• Law360 firm/attorney page (Najera, Ni Wang & Massand) listing the Apple and Cellco filings

Recommendation: To definitively answer whether the '499 patent has been asserted, pull the dockets for 7:26-cv-00152, 1:26-cv-01202, and 1:26-cv-01204 via PACER and read the complaints and AO-120 forms, which list the patents-in-suit. If the '499 patent is not among them, then as of today there is no known litigation asserting US 9,432,499.

I'll start by verifying the canonical ODP result against public sources.

Let me search more specifically for proceedings targeting this patent and its family.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,432,499: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my web checks surfaced none either — no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no terminations, no PTAB appeals. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent has never been through a PTAB validity trial, so neither the patent owner nor any accused infringer has any § 315(e) estoppel record, no claim of 9,432,499 has been canceled or confirmed, and every § 102/§ 103 ground is still on the table. Note that this is not a "hardened patent" signal in the usual sense — it is an untested patent, which cuts both ways: the claims are broad and un-narrowed, but they have also never been stress-tested by a panel of APJs.

---

No proceedings to report

I searched for PTAB activity under the patent number, under the assignee (Cedarwood Ventures Inc.), under the inventors (Loralee Hajdu / Oliver Hajdu), and under the commercial name "Text Deflector." No AIA trial petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming U.S. Patent No. 9,432,499 as the challenged patent was located.

Two matching-algorithm cautions worth flagging explicitly, so nobody mis-cites them:

1. A '249-patent collision. Search results surfaced PTAB papers referring to "the '249 patent" with claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, and 23–25 — a 25-claim patent — in Freewheel Media, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc., IPR2024-00417 / IPR2024-00418 (filed 2024-03-01). That is a different patent from 9,432,499, which has only 13 claims (see the printed claim set: claims 1–13). Do not represent the AlmondNet '249 IPRs as proceedings against this patent.

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,919,499 / 8,907,499 disputes (e.g., Amneal v. Alkermes, IPR2018-00943; Apotex petition) involve an "the '499 patent" shorthand for an Alkermes patent — also entirely unrelated.

If a docket search in PTAB E2E or the PTAB Decisions database under the application number 14/273,748 (the '499 application) later surfaces a petition, treat it as newly filed and re-run this analysis; nothing of that kind was visible as of 2026-09-30.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 13 claims UNTESTED. Claims 1–13 of 9,432,499 — including independent claims 1, 9, and 12, and dependents 2–8, 10–11, 13 — have never been construed or adjudicated by the Board. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. There is no "surviving claim" list to give you because no claim was ever killed or confirmed. The patent's printed term runs to an adjusted expiration of 2034-07-12, so this is a long-lived asset and litigation over it is unlikely to be mooted by simple expiry.

Estoppel landscape: essentially wide open, with one caveat. Because no petitioner has ever been through an IPR or PGR on this patent, no one is subject to the § 315(e)(2) estoppel bar as to 9,432,499. A defendant sued today can raise any § 102/§ 103 combination it can substantiate, and can do so in the district court and at the PTAB simultaneously without the PTAB-loss estoppel that normally comes with an adverse FWD. The caveat is cross-patent, not cross-claim: Cedarwood is asserting a family of related patents, and to the extent a defendant is also accused under U.S. 9,979,826, U.S. 10,841,248, or U.S. 11,516,643, estoppel generated in an IPR against those patents would travel with the grounds raised there — not with this one.

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain for this patent; the "Cited By" list on the face of the patent is Apple-heavy but that reflects citation traffic, not challenges. The more meaningful pattern is on the assertion side, not the PTAB side: Cedarwood Ventures has moved this family into active litigation in the Western District of Texas, reportedly 1:26-cv-01202 (Cedarwood Ventures Inc. v. Google LLC), 1:26-cv-01204 (Cedarwood Ventures Inc. v. [Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cellco%20Partnership%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Verizon%20Wireless)), and an earlier complaint against Apple in April of the same year, accusing Android Auto's auto-reply feature, Verizon's Driving Mode auto-reply, and (against Apple) the analogous iOS auto-reply behavior. The patents asserted in those complaints are reported as the '826, '248, and '643 patents — I did not find confirmation that 9,432,499 itself is in any of those complaints. Verify the asserted-patent list in each complaint before assuming this patent is live in your case.

The absence of IPRs here is therefore best read as timing: the enforcement campaign is recent, the statutory § 315(b) one-year clock has not yet forced anyone's hand, and Google/Verizon/Apple have every incentive to file against the narrowest and most recently asserted family members rather than the 2016-issued parent. Expect petitions against the family — and possibly against 9,432,499 as a § 315(e) hedge — in the coming quarters.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you have been served on 9,432,499: you are in a rare position. Nothing is estopped, no claim is canceled, and no FWD reasoning exists to work around. Build your invalidity case from scratch and consider a parallel IPR plus a district-court stay motion — but note that the PTAB's current discretionary-denial climate (Fintiv-style § 314(a) analysis, plus the Director Review line on inconsistent claim constructions in Revvo and Generac) makes a stay-driven strategy riskier than it was pre-2022. Filing early, before the district court invests in Markman, materially improves your § 314(a) posture.
• Watch the § 315(b) clock. If a complaint asserting 9,432,499 has been served on you or your privies, the one-year bar runs from service. There is no prior service on this patent in the record I could find, so the clock is likely running from the current complaint — confirm service dates.
• Check the CIP priority chain for § 112 support. The '499 patent claims priority to provisional 61/825,017 (2013-05-18), and continuations-in-part US 9,602,988 (filed 2016-08-27) and its descendants sit downstream. The patent's own specification recites pre-filing public disclosures — the 2013-07-20 Google Play "Text Deflector" release, the 2013-09-01 YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucE17dFvJc), and the 2013-11-26 press release — all after the '499 priority date and therefore the patent owner's own later activity as to this patent, but potentially material to whether the CIP children's newer claims actually get the 2013-05-18 benefit date. If a child's claims rely on matter added after that date, the priority shield weakens and those disclosures become fair game. This is a genuine line to run down; I am flagging it as a hypothesis to verify against the CIP specifications, not as an established fact.
• Do not over-read the empty PTAB docket. "No IPRs" here means "not yet challenged," not "challenge-proof." Many well-asserted patents in first-wave campaigns attract their first petition 6–18 months after service. Re-check PTAB E2E under application 14/273,748 and under the family members before you finalize any invalidity budget.

Sources consulted: the Google Patents full text for US 9,432,499 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432499/en), which supplied the verbatim claim set and the prosecution/family history; the ODP-derived "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied in the prompt (canonical, returns zero proceedings); PTAB E2E petition documents (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) for the unrelated '249-patent IPR2024-00417/00418 filings; and press/docket reporting on the Cedarwood Ventures WDTX campaign.

One honest caveat: I could not verify the filing dates or complete asserted-patent lists for the Cedarwood cases, and the case numbers above come from secondary reporting rather than a PACER/CourtListener docket pull. Confirm those directly before relying on them. I also could not exhaustively rule out a very recently filed petition that PTAB E2E has not yet posted — the ODP ingest lag is real.

I'll start by pulling the authoritative records from the patent text I've been given, then cross-check with web sources for the assignment chain, assignee identity, and any litigation.

The first search returned an unrelated document. Let me refine.

Excellent — this surfaces a live litigation campaign. Let me dig into the assignment record itself, Cedarwood's corporate identity, and the rest of the patent family.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,432,499 B2

"Peripheral specific selection of automated response messages"

Evidence caveat up front: I was able to confirm the existence, direction, and dates of the post-issuance transfer from the Google Patents legal-events record in the authoritative text supplied, and to confirm the current owner's litigation conduct from public dockets. I was not able to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers, the execution date, or the correspondence of record for the assignment. Those fields are marked "not retrieved" below rather than guessed. Verify at USPTO Assignment Center or assignment.uspto.gov by patent number.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Both inventors were principals of the same small venture, Suite B Media Inc., so there was never a corporate-assignee-to-inventor divergence to track.
• Unusual structural fact: despite Suite B Media Inc. publishing the product (see below), the patent issued with "Individual" as the original assignee (per Google Patents bibliographic record) — i.e., title was held personally by the two inventors, not by their company. No corporate assignment to Suite B Media was ever recorded. This matters for the NPE analysis: there is no operating-company assignor in this chain at all.
• The "within 12 months of filing" departure test is N/A — there was no original corporate assignee to depart from. However, the mirror-image pattern applies at the other end: both inventors held the asset for ~12 years and then assigned the entire family away simultaneously (see timeline).

---

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: the individual inventors (Loralee Hajdu and Oliver Hajdu). Google Patents records the "Original Assignee" as Individual; there is no corporate assignee on the face of the patent.

• Product embodying the claims: Yes, at least historically. The patent's own "Subsequent Publication and Making Available to the Public" section records that on 2013-07-20 the inventors, operating as Suite B Media Inc., published the "Text Deflector" Android app on Google Play, and released a 2.0 version on 2013-12-17. Text Deflector is described as sensing connection to an in-car handsfree Bluetooth or wired headset and auto-replying to incoming SMS/MMS — squarely the claimed subject matter.
• Primary line of business: consumer mobile software (a single-purpose app, "Text Deflector," www.textdeflector.com). This is a two-person micro-venture, not a manufacturing or platform business.
• Current status: Unclear / not verified. I could not confirm whether Suite B Media Inc. remains active, was dissolved, or is dormant. The app does not appear to be a currently maintained product, but I have no filed document establishing corporate death. Treat "defunct" as an inference, not a finding.
• Assignee on the register today: Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. (see below), not the inventors.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one post-issuance assignment is reflected in the legal-events record. There is no acquisition-at-filing assignment, no security interest, no release, and no change of name in the chain.

1. Executed date: not retrieved / recorded 2025-06-19 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
• Assignor: Hajdu, Loralee; Hajdu, Oliver (the two named inventors, jointly)
• Assignee: CEDARWOOD VENTURES, INC.
• Correspondent: Not retrieved. (This is the single most diagnostically valuable field in an NPE chain and I could not obtain it — do not treat its absence as evidence either way. Note separately that the litigation counsel of record on Cedarwood's suits is Nicholas E. Najera, Ni Wang & Massand — that is a litigation appearance, not confirmed as the assignment recording correspondent, and should not be conflated.)
• Context: Transfer to an assertion vehicle. The assignee is, on the public record, a non-practicing patent plaintiff: within roughly 11 months of the 2025-06-19 recording, Cedarwood Ventures filed infringement actions against Apple, Google and Verizon asserting the continuation siblings of this patent. Nothing in the record shows Cedarwood selling any product or service.

Follow-on assertion activity (not assignments, but load-bearing context):

• 2026-04-17 — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex.
• 2026-05-06 — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 1:26-cv-01202 (W.D. Tex., Judge David A. Ezra) — accused: Android Auto "Auto-Reply" on Google Pixel devices.
• 2026-05-06 — Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 1:26-cv-01204 (W.D. Tex.)
• Patents asserted in those suits: US 9,979,826, US 10,841,248, US 11,516,643 — all continuations/continuation-in-parts claiming the same 2013-05-18 priority as the patent at issue here. US 9,432,499 itself is not among the three asserted patents, but it is the family's root disclosure, and the 2025 assignment transferred the inventors' interest across the family, not this patent alone.

Family posture (from the Google Patents priority table): 14/273,748 (→ 9,432,499, filed 2014-05-09); 15/249,372 (→ 9,602,988, CIP filed 2016-08-27); 15/462,874 (→ 9,979,826); 15/950,887 (→ 10,841,248); 16/193,611 (→ 11,297,014); 17/098,354 (→ 11,516,643). All share priority 2013-05-18. The 2025 transfer therefore moved a six-patent, 13-year-old prosecution family, not a single asset — a hallmark of a portfolio-sale rather than an ad hoc conveyance.

If Assignment Center returns no further records beyond the above: that is consistent with what I found — the chain is exactly one link deep, inventor → Cedarwood. There is no intermediate holding company and no defensive aggregator.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9432499
    2013 : Provisional filed by the Hajdu inventors
         : Text Deflector app published by Suite B Media
    2014 : Non provisional filed
    2016 : Patent US 9432499 issued to individual inventors
    2025 : Inventors assign family to Cedarwood Ventures
    2026 : Cedarwood sues Apple
         : Cedarwood sues Google
         : Cedarwood sues Verizon

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (with one definitional caveat).
The caveat: the enumerated tell is transfer "from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC." Here the assignor was the two individual inventors personally, not their operating company — Suite B Media Inc. never held record title. So the literal first leg doesn't match. The substantive indicia do: the transferee CEDARWOOD VENTURES, INC. has no products in commerce and, within ~11 months of the 2025-06-19 recording, is a multi-defendant patent plaintiff in W.D. Tex. against Apple, Google and Verizon. The "Ventures" suffix is corroborating but is not itself the finding — the finding is acquisition-of-a-dormant-13-year-family followed by immediate assertion with nothing sold. Gap: I did not retrieve Cedarwood's address, state of incorporation, registered agent, or single-purpose-LLC status. Note the entity is an "Inc.," not the "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings LLC" form the signal anticipates.
Basis: legal event 2025-06-19 (reel/frame not retrieved); suits 1:26-cv-01202 and 1:26-cv-01204 filed 2026-05-06; Apple suit 2026-04-17.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (as to the enumerated lists) / UNCLEAR (as to frequency rankings).
Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. does not appear on any of the named lists — Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities. It also does not match the prior assignee (the inventors personally, or Suite B Media Inc.). I could not confirm a Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff ranking for Cedarwood from the sources I could reach — three identified suits in ~two months is a campaign, but I have not verified the full docket count, so I decline to certify "high-frequency plaintiff."

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (chain side) / PRESENT-in-spirit (litigation side).
On the assignment side there is only one link, so recurrence within the chain is impossible to test — and the correspondence of record for the 2025-06-19 recording was not retrieved, which is precisely the field that would settle this. Making no inference: a single appearance would not be a finding anyway. Separately, Nicholas E. Najera (Ni Wang & Massand) appears as counsel across the Cedarwood suits against Cellco and Google (and per Law360's firm page, across the 2026-05-06 Cellco and Google filings and the 2026-04-17 Apple filing). That is a recurrent litigation counsel — a different and weaker data point than a recurrent recording correspondent, and I am not treating it as satisfying this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
One transfer only, spanning ~12 years from issuance. No chained LLCs, no sub-24-month cascade, no shared correspondent address to compare.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT on the 6-month test (but the enabling pattern is intact).
Recording 2025-06-19 → first identified family assertion 2026-04-17 (Apple) is ≈10 months, outside the 6-month window. The execution date is unknown but necessarily on or before the recording date, so the interval cannot be shorter. Verdict on the literal test: not present. In substance, the sequence is a textbook purpose-buy → assert arrangement: a dormant 2013 family is acquired by a non-practicing entity and asserted against three platform defendants in the same district within a year.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Suite B Media Inc., the Hajdu inventors, or Cedarwood Ventures appears in any record I could reach. The asset went dormant, not insolvent-sold. This is a negative finding on available evidence, not a certified absence of proceedings.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Requires an operating company transferring to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf (with SEC/Patent Progress/EFF surfacing). The originator here is a two-person app venture with no SEC reporting obligations and no demonstrated ongoing operating business; there is no evidence the transfer was made to fight the inventors' commercial rivals. Not a privateering fact pattern.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Cedarwood Ventures, Inc., which is asserting. The patent has not been neutralized.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The current assignee, Cedarwood Ventures, Inc., is a non-practicing entity on the face of the public record: it acquired the inventors' entire 2013-priority family by assignment recorded 2025-06-19 (reel/frame not retrieved), sells no product, and within roughly eleven months filed infringement actions asserting the family against Apple (2026-04-17), Google (1:26-cv-01202, 2026-05-06) and Verizon/Cellco (1:26-cv-01204, 2026-05-06) in the Western District of Texas. Two strong signals drive the call — shell-entity/assertion-vehicle transfer (present) and the purpose-buy-then-sue sequence — against a chain with no defensive-aggregator terminus and no operating-company continuation. I deliberately withhold two finer findings: the repeat-recording-correspondent signal is unclear because the correspondence of record could not be retrieved, and the known-asserter signal is not present because Cedarwood matches none of the enumerated NPE lists.

Verify the assignment record: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 9432499) and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — confirm the reel/frame, execution date, and above all the correspondent of record, which is the field most likely to upgrade the "repeat correspondent" signal.

Bottom line for the chain reconstruction: inventor-held asset for twelve years → single assignment to an assertion vehicle → three-defendant Texas campaign on the continuation siblings. There is no intermediate holding company, no security interest, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint in this chain — the entire ownership history is one link deep.

I'll research US patent 9432499 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches.

I have good detail on the first citation. Let me research the other two cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 9,432,499

1. Identification of the patent and search note

The number provided (9,432,499) corresponds to US 9,432,499 B2, titled "Peripheral specific selection of automated response messages," inventors Loralee Hajdu and Oliver Hajdu, application 14/273,748, filed May 9, 2014, priority to provisional 61/825,017 filed May 18, 2013, granted Aug 30, 2016, current assignee Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432499/en.)

I did not have direct paid USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR access from here, so I relied on public patent databases (Google Patents, uspto.report, FreePatentsOnline, patents-review.com) that mirror USPTO front-page data. On the face of US 9,432,499, the "Patent Citations (3)" section lists exactly three prior-art references (all third-party, marked †). I analyzed only those three, since the request was limited to the cited references. Note the patent also carries large "Cited By" and "Families Citing" lists — those are later documents that cite 9,432,499 and are not prior art to it; I have excluded them.

For context, the patent has 13 claims: independent claims 1, 9, and 12, with dependents 2–8, 10–11, and 13. The inventive core (in all three independents) is (a) storing peripheral-linked auto-replies keyed to a peripheral identification code, (b) storing contact-specific auto-replies plus a contact priority, (c) assigning a peripheral priority, and (d) determining a relative priority between the peripheral-linked reply and the contact-assigned reply to decide which auto-reply to send.

---

2. The three cited references

---

Reference A — US 2005/0124324 A1 (Thomas et al.)

Full citation. US 2005/0124324 A1, "Adaptable communication techniques for electronic devices," inventors C. Douglass Thomas and Peter P. Tong, applicant/assignee IpVenture, Inc. App. 11/006,343, filed Dec 7, 2004; published Jun 9, 2005; priority to provisional 60/527,565, filed Dec 8, 2003. (Granted as US 7,116,976 B2; family continues through US 7,376,434; 8,737,978; 11,019,199.) Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050124324A1/en and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7116976B2](/patent/US7116976B2).

Description. Discloses a mobile device (mobile phone/PDA/computer) that, for an incoming voice call or text message, lets the user decline and instead send a predetermined text or audio auto-reply selected from a stored list, or a custom reply. Notably, in the "automated call response process" (FIG. 5, ¶[0050]) the device checks whether a head-set is active (decision 502) and, if so, prefers/suggests an audio message; if no head-set, it prefers a text message — i.e., the presence of a peripheral/headset influences which response format is used. It also teaches auto-replying to calls/messages matching user-set criteria and storing messages for later selection.

Potential §102 anticipation. Very limited.

• Claim 2 (smartphone/tablet/PC/embedded device): element disclosed (mobile telephone, PDA, computer).
• Claim 3 (wired peripheral connection): element disclosed (corded headset).
• Claims 5/7 (MMS / SMS): supports SMS, EMS, MMS, email (¶[0025]).
• Independent claims 1, 9, 12 and claims 4, 8, 13: not anticipated. Reference A does not disclose (i) assigning a plurality of distinct auto-replies to a peripheral identification code, (ii) assigning a contact priority and a peripheral priority, or (iii) determining a relative priority between peripheral-linked and contact-linked replies. It uses peripheral state only to choose audio vs. text format, not to look up a peripheral-specific message by ID. As a single reference it lacks the priority-arbitration element central to all three independents.

---

Reference B — US 2010/0216509 A1 (Zoomsafer Inc.)

Full citation. US 2010/0216509 A1, "Safety features for portable electronic device," inventors Melvin A. Barbera and Michael S. Riemer, assignee Zoomsafer, Inc. App. 12/755,377, filed Apr 6, 2010; published Aug 26, 2010; priority to provisional 60/720,528, filed Sep 26, 2005. (Granted as US 8,270,933 B2; related US 8,280,438; US 2012/0289217 A1.) Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100216509A1/en and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20100216509-safety-features-portable-electronic-device.html.

Description. Discloses a portable device (cell phone/smartphone) that automatically detects when the user is driving and enters a "safe driving mode" governed by a customizable safety policy. While in safe mode it can auto-reply to incoming calls, emails and SMS (via "start/stop driving notifications 804"), and can send notifications/alerts to a second user attempting to reach the driver. It edits message content "by typing a message into a textbox, by selecting a message from a list of available messages," allows priority designations by callers/senders, and — relevant here — teaches that the introduction of a hands-free device (earpiece/microphone, wired or wireless) can override a blocking function and enable other functions, i.e., peripheral state alters device behavior.

Potential §102 anticipation.

• Claim 2 (device types): disclosed (cell phone, PDA, laptop, MP3, GPS device).
• Claim 3 (wired peripheral): disclosed (hard-wired earpiece/microphone).
• Claim 4 (distracted-driving use; vehicle-associated peripheral; customized reply to originator): elements largely disclosed — driving detection, hands-free/vehicle peripheral context, automatic replies, sender notifications.
• Claims 5/7 (MMS/SMS): SMS/email/MMS auto-reply disclosed.
• Independent claims 1, 9, 12, claim 8, claim 13: not anticipated. Reference B keys its trigger to speed/movement, not to a peripheral identification code used to look up one of a plurality of peripheral-linked replies by ID. It discloses a hands-free device overriding a block, but not the claimed "peripheral code selects the auto-reply," nor the relative-priority arbitration between a contact-assigned reply and a peripheral-linked reply. Its only priority concept is sender-assigned message priority, a different thing.

---

Reference C — US 2014/0066053 A1 (GM Global Technology Operations LLC)

Full citation. US 2014/0066053 A1, "Automatically managing a wireless connection at a mobile device," inventors Denis R. Burke, Danilo Gurovich, Keith A. Fry, Shane M. McCutchen, Marco T. Carnevale, Mukesh Gupta, Daniel E. Rudman; assignee GM Global Technology Operations LLC. App. 13/604,265, filed Sep 5, 2012; published Mar 6, 2014. Source: https://www.patents-review.com/a/20140066053-automatically-managing-wireless-connection-mobile-device.html (also on Google Patents US20140066053A1).

Description. Discloses a mobile device that detects a short-range wireless signal, determines whether it is broadcast from a vehicular short-range wireless device or a non-vehicular short-range wireless device, and restricts one or more services at the mobile device based on that determination — with different restriction "schemes" for vehicular vs. non-vehicular sources. It also acts on the creation or termination of the short-range wireless link. This is the closest reference to the idea of identifying a peripheral by its wireless identity and changing device behavior accordingly.

Potential §102 anticipation.

• Claim 4 (distracted-driving use; vehicle-associated peripheral; automatic customized reply to originator): Reference C discloses the vehicular-peripheral detection and vehicle-vs-non-vehicle differentiation, but it restricts services rather than selecting a customized auto-reply message; the "customized for an originator" element is not shown.
• Claims 2/6 (device types; wireless peripheral): disclosed.
• Independent claims 1, 9, 12: not anticipated. Reference C distinguishes vehicular vs. non-vehicular peripherals, but does not disclose assigning a plurality of peripheral-linked replies to a peripheral identification code, storing contact-specific replies, assigning contact and peripheral priorities, or determining a relative priority to choose between them. It restricts services rather than selecting among canned auto-replies.

§102 timing caveat. Reference C's application was filed Sep 5, 2012, before the 9,432,499 priority date of May 18, 2013, so as a US application publication it can qualify as prior art under AIA §102(a)(2) / pre-AIA §102(e) based on its earlier effective filing date, even though it published (Mar 6, 2014) after the priority date. This is the correct basis to cite it, not §102(a)(1).

---

3. Bottom line

• Most relevant cited reference overall: US 2014/0066053 A1 (GM) — it is the only cited reference that keys device behavior to what kind of peripheral has wirelessly connected (vehicular vs. non-vehicular) by detecting the short-range source, which maps most closely onto the "peripheral identification code → behavior" concept of the independent claims, and it is also the only one qualifying under §102(a)(2)/§102(e) rather than §102(b).
• Second most relevant: US 2010/0216509 A1 (Zoomsafer) for the distracted-driving auto-reply context and the hands-free/vehicle-peripheral trigger.
• Least anticipatory: US 2005/0124324 A1 (Thomas) — strong on generic predetermined auto-replies and headset-dependent response format, but silent on peripheral-ID-based reply lookup and priority arbitration.

Section 102 conclusion. Because §102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, and none of the three references discloses the combination of (i) a plurality of auto-replies assigned to a peripheral identification code, (ii) contact-specific replies with a contact priority, (iii) a peripheral priority, and (iv) a determined relative priority that arbitrates between the peripheral-linked and contact-linked replies, none of the three cited references squarely anticipates independent claims 1, 9, or 12 (nor claims 8 or 13, which depend on the same code-plus-priority logic). The cited references are better characterized as §103 obviousness material (e.g., Thomas or Zoomsafer for auto-replies, combined with GM for peripheral-identity-based behavior differentiation), and at most establish individual elements of dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These are engineering judgments about "potential" anticipation, not legal conclusions; a formal invalidity analysis would require full claim charts against the complete disclosures.

Could not verify with high confidence: whether Reference C ever issued as a granted US patent and its exact grant number; I confirmed only the publication US 2014/0066053 A1. If a grant document exists, the effective-filing-date §102(e)/(a)(2) analysis above is unchanged.

I'll research the three cited prior-art references to ground the obviousness analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,432,499 B2

"Peripheral specific selection of automated response messages"
Inventors: Loralee Hajdu, Oliver Hajdu · Original Assignee: Individual · Current Assignee: Cedarwood Ventures Inc.
App. 14/273,748 · Filed 2014‑05‑09 · Priority (provisional 61/825,017) 2013‑05‑18 · Granted 2016‑08‑30

This analysis builds on the Background/Definitions sections already generated for this patent and does not repeat them. It relies only on the three references listed in the "Patent Citations (3)" / "Citations (3)" field of the family page:

---

1. Legal framework and temporal posture

• The application was filed 2014‑05‑09 with a provisional priority date of 2013‑05‑18. Both dates fall after March 16, 2013, so the AIA version of § 103 governs. Prior art is therefore evaluated under § 102(a)(1) (public disclosures before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents/applications "effectively filed" before that date).
• Thomas (published 2005‑06‑09) and ZoomSafer (published 2010‑08‑26) are unquestionably § 102(a)(1) art.
• GM is the one reference requiring care. US 2014/0066053 was published 2014‑03‑06 — after the '499's 2013‑05‑18 priority date — so it is not § 102(a)(1) art. However, it claims priority to 2012‑09‑05 and names different inventors (GM), which makes it § 102(a)(2) art as of its effective filing date. It is properly usable for § 103 so long as the relied-upon disclosure is supported by the 2012‑09‑05 filing.
• I do not have the prosecution file history for the '499, so I cannot say whether these three references were expressly distinguished or simply cited in an IDS/office action. Confidence on that point: low. The analysis below is a substantive § 103 assessment, not a prediction of what the examiner held.

---

2. Scope of the claimed invention (the dispositive elements)

Taking claim 1 as representative, the limitations that matter for § 103 are:

1. Computerized system (processor, memory, cellular transceiver, system software) + a peripheral connectable to it, with an individually identifiable peripheral identification code.
2. Assigning a plurality of peripheral-linked automatic replies to peripheral ID code(s), stored in memory.
3. A contact list, with an assigned contact automated reply and a contact priority.
4. A peripheral priority.
5. Determining a relative priority between the peripheral-linked replies and the contact-assigned replies, and using it to decide which reply answers an incoming message from a listed contact.
6. On connection, reading the peripheral code, retrieving the peripheral-linked reply, and auto-responding with it.

Claims 9 and 12 restate the same architecture with (i) a Bluetooth vehicle peripheral / distracted-driving framing and (ii) a smartphone framing plus the "last/highest-priority connected peripheral" selection rule. Claim 4 (from claim 1) adds the driving context. Dependent claims 3/6/13 add wire vs. wireless; 5/10 add MMS; 7/11 add SMS; 8 adds "reply differs by contact and by the peripheral last connected."

The single point of novelty over the cited art is not the idea of an automated text reply, nor of triggering it from a hands-free device, nor of contact-specific replies. It is the data structure — a stored mapping of many replies to many peripheral IDs — plus an explicit arbitration rule between contact-based and peripheral-based replies. Everything else is old and, as shown below, was either expressly disclosed or a predictable variation.

---

3. What each reference teaches

3.1 Thomas (US 2005/0124324 A1) — the automated-response engine and peripheral-aware modality

Thomas is the closest art on the auto-response mechanism itself:

• Discloses a mobile device that "can be capable of wirelessly communicating with a wireless headset" and that sends a pre-selected or custom text/audio reply to an incoming call or text (¶¶ [0011]–[0012], [0044]–[0050]).
• Expressly conditions the response on hardware state — whether a head-set is active: "[an automated decision] determines whether a head‑set is active… [if so] obtain and send an audio message… [if] a head‑set is not active… obtain and send a text message" (¶¶ [0050], [0058]–[0059]).
• States the list/ordering of response messages can be dynamically determined by "preference settings, configuration information, or prior usage… [or] the calling party, type of calling party, location…" (¶¶ [0041], [0048]) — i.e., contact-dependent reply selection.
• Discloses that the device "itself can automatically decline the call/message" and that "an auto reply message can be configured to be automatically sent in response to the call/message" (¶ [0087]), including sending a "Please don't call anymore" reply — the exact "don't distract me" genre.

What Thomas does not clearly disclose: storing distinct reply messages keyed to distinct peripheral identity codes, and the explicit peripheral-vs-contact priority arbitration.

3.2 ZoomSafer (US 2010/0216509 A1) — the driving-context auto-reply and contact handling

ZoomSafer is the closest art on the distracted-driving application:

• "automatically detect when a cellular device user is driving, intelligently manage inbound activity… [and] remain connected… via social networks, text messaging and emails" (Abstract/Summary).
• Its product stack expressly includes "auto-replies to received calls, emails, and SMS," and "start notifications… send an SMS, email, IM… to a set of contacts when the portable electronic device engages in safe mode" (¶¶ describing the FIG. 8 stack).
• Message content is user-configurable: "The content of the messages can be edited by typing a message into a textbox, by selecting a message from a list of available messages…" (FPO/Google Patents text of the family).
• Contact-sensitive priority is expressly taught: "parties interested in reaching a user who is busy driving may assign a priority to the message sent or the call being made…," with a priority-message limit to prevent bypass — which is the same policy problem the '499 solves with its contact-priority field.
• Hands-free device detection as the trigger, with override logic: the family claims "the portable electronic device is in communication with one or more hands‑free devices, and… an override logic that detects the one or more hands‑free devices… and overrides… disablement" (see the granted sibling US 8,280,438 / US 2012/0289217 claim set).

What ZoomSafer does not clearly disclose: multiple, different replies assigned to different device IDs (it auto-replies with a message drawn from a list, selected by user editing, not by which peripheral is attached).

3.3 GM (US 2014/0066053 A1) — the Bluetooth peripheral identity and connection priority

GM supplies the missing Bluetooth vehicle-peripheral layer:

• Discloses a driver who "interacts via speech with an on‑board, installed audio user interface 14 that communicates via a short range wireless connection with the driver's mobile device 16," the phone having "communication circuitry that includes at least short range wireless communication technology such as Bluetooth and/or WiFi" (US 2014/0066053, ¶ accompanying FIG. 1).
• The title itself — "Automatically managing a wireless connection at a mobile device" — is directed to the automatic detection/selection of which short-range device the phone connects to, i.e., connection identity and prioritization.
• The GM family (e.g., US 9,406,176, "Managing short-range wireless device connection preferences at a vehicle") carries the same teaching of a preferred group of wireless devices and prioritized connection among multiple detected devices.

What GM does not disclose: auto-reply messages at all, still less messages mapped to peripheral ID.

---

4. Element-by-element mapping and proposed combinations

Combination A — Thomas + ZoomSafer (primary combination)

Result: Combination A discloses or renders obvious every element at least on a "predictable variation / obvious-to-try" basis under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Thomas already teaches peripheral state affects the auto-reply, and the only step left is to make the peripheral state identify which specific stored message to send — a matter of storing a lookup table instead of a single condition, which is a classic predictable-data-structure substitution.

Combination B — Thomas + ZoomSafer + GM (the strongest full-institution combination)

Adding GM contributes exactly the pieces the '499 leans on for its driving claims (claims 4, 9):

• The peripheral is specifically a Bluetooth vehicle hands-free system (GM FIG. 1 and ¶ describing interface 14 ↔ phone 16).
• The phone automatically detects and manages the connection to that vehicle device (GM's stated purpose), supplying the "peripheral identification code… individually identifiable… when connected" and the "assign a peripheral priority" limitations.

Motivation to combine GM with Thomas+ZoomSafer is strong and articulated within the references themselves: Thomas ¶ [0003] identifies Bluetooth headsets as the hands-free accessory of choice; ZoomSafer's entire premise is detecting the hands‑free/vehicle context to manage inbound messages; GM provides the concrete automatic Bluetooth vehicle-link that phone operating systems were already implementing. Combining a known driver-safety auto-reply system (ZoomSafer) with a known automatic Bluetooth-vehicle connection manager (GM) is the definition of a combination of known elements yielding predictable results.

Combination C — ZoomSafer + GM alone

For claim 9 (the dedicated "Bluetooth vehicle peripheral / distracted driving" claim), ZoomSafer + GM is sufficient on the peripheral-detection and auto-reply side; Thomas is then cited for the selection among a plurality of stored replies and the contact-list customization. This is likely how an examiner would have built the rejection in the alternative.

Combination D — Thomas + GM

For claim 1's core loop absent the contact-priority refinement, Thomas (headset-active → response mode) + GM (automatic Bluetooth vehicle peripheral with identity) supplies elements 1–4 and 6; the contact-priority arbitration (element 5) is supplied by ZoomSafer or by the ordinary skill of implementing a DND/VIP-exception rule.

---

5. Motivation to combine (why a PHOSITA would have done this)

1. Same field, same problem. All three references address reducing driver distraction from incoming communications. Thomas ¶ [0004] frames the problem ("the user is not able to see the screen… difficulty interacting"); ZoomSafer's Background cites the Virginia Tech "23 times greater" texting-crash statistic; GM addresses the vehicle hands-free link. KSR holds that where references address the same problem, combination is presumed motivated.

2. Express teaching to key behavior to device state. Thomas ¶ [0050] already conditions auto-response behavior on which accessory is attached — the exact insight the '499 asserts as its inventive core ("predictable context in which a user may connect a given peripheral," per the '499 Background). Mapping a specific message to a specific device ID is the unavoidable, predictable next step once one accepts that a car speakerphone implies "driving" and a jogging headset implies "exercising."

3. Reasonable expectation of success. The peripheral-to-context inference is technically trivial (read the Bluetooth MAC/device name; index a table). No new hardware, no unpredictable result. This is the KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods… likely to be successful" scenario.

4. Web of "obvious to try" design choices. Once Thomas and ZoomSafer establish auto-replies that (a) vary by sender and (b) are triggered by a hands-free device, giving the user more configurability — including a per-device message — is a predictable response to the recognized need for "enough flexibility to program in a variety of different automatic response messages in advance" (which the '499 itself lists as the motivation for the invention). A PHOSITA improving on Thomas/ZoomSafer would have been led directly to per-peripheral message assignment and to a tie-break rule for the case where a special contact and a special device both apply (the Table 1A/1B scenario in the '499).

5. Priority arbitration is a known administrative problem. ZoomSafer already teaches contact/message priority limits to prevent policy circumvention; GM teaches device/connection priority among multiple wireless devices. The '499's "relative priority between peripheral replies and contact replies" is the intersection of those two known priority schemes — a routine design choice of which rule dominates (the '499 itself offers several equivalent orderings in Tables 1A and 1B, demonstrating the arbitrariness of the choice).

---

6. Dependent-claim vulnerabilities

• Claims 3, 6, 13 (wire or wireless connection): Thomas ¶ [0003] expressly contrasts corded and Bluetooth headsets. Rendered obvious.
• Claims 7, 11 (SMS): Thomas ¶ [0025] expressly describes SMS/EMS/MMS over the network; ZoomSafer auto-replies to SMS. Rendered obvious.
• Claims 5, 10 (MMS with picture/video): Thomas ¶ [0025] lists MMS explicitly. The '499's own disclosed advantage ("responds to MMS… so you don't get distracted by any pictures") is thus a predictable extension of Thomas's MMS capability to the ZoomSafer driving trigger. Rendered obvious.
• Claim 4 (vehicle peripheral, proximal detection, message customized for originator): ZoomSafer (driving detection via hands-free device) + GM (automatic Bluetooth vehicle link) + Thomas (message selected based on the calling party). Rendered obvious. Note claim 4's "customized for an originator" is also satisfied by ZoomSafer's contact-priority/high-priority-sender handling.
• Claim 8 (reply differs by contact and by the last-connected peripheral): Thomas ¶¶ [0041], [0048] (list depends on calling party) supplies the contact dimension; the "last-connected peripheral dominates" rule is itself disclosed in the '499 specification as a default the user "may be given configuration options… [for] total control," i.e., presented as an arbitrary, implementation-level choice — the hallmark of obviousness, and one that GM's connection-management art (prioritizing/replacing the connected device) supports.

---

7. Where the '499 might survive (counterweights)

To be balanced, the following are the plausible non-obviousness arguments an owner would raise, and my assessment:

1. No single reference teaches the plurality of distinct replies mapped to distinct peripheral IDs. This is the strongest argument. Thomas maps one condition (headset active) to two modalities; ZoomSafer auto-replies with a user-selected message; GM has no messaging. The examiner must therefore rely on combination, not anticipation. But under KSR this is a paradigm "predictable variation" and "obvious to try" case. My confidence that the mapping is disclosed by the references: low. My confidence that it is obvious over the references: moderate-to-high.

2. The explicit two-sided priority arbitration (peripheral priority vs. contact priority) is not in any reference. Again, the concept arises by combining ZoomSafer's sender-priority scheme with GM's device-priority scheme; a PHOSITA would need to choose a winner rule. The '499's own Tables 1A and 1B present alternative orderings that are functionally arbitrary, which weakens any argument that the specific rule is inventive.

3. No reference expressly ties the peripheral to a driving-safety "please call, don't text" message. ZoomSafer comes very close ("notifying the sender that the driver is unavailable," auto-replies on entering safe mode), so this argument is thin.

Net assessment: Claims 1, 9, and 12 are, in my view, more likely than not obvious over Thomas + ZoomSafer, and a fortiori over Thomas + ZoomSafer + GM. The strongest defensible position for the patentee rests on the specific "plurality of peripheral-linked replies keyed to peripheral ID codes with a contact-vs-peripheral priority arbitration," but that formulation is a predictable data-structure/configuration refinement of what Thomas and ZoomSafer teach, which KSR and its progeny typically find obvious absent unexpected results — and none are disclosed in the specification.

---

8. Secondary considerations and other notes

• The specification discloses no unexpected results, no criticality of ranges, and no industry praise tied to the claimed combination — only the generic distracted-driving advantages that ZoomSafer already asserted years earlier (Background citations to Distraction.gov, the Virginia Tech study, and the USDOT 3,012-fatality figure are all in the shared prior-art landscape, not evidence of non-obviousness).
• Crowded, fast-moving art. By the 2013 priority date, both Apple (Siri auto-reply/Do-Not-Disturb) and Google/Android auto-reply features were in the field; the "Cited By (71)" list on the family page is dominated by Apple digital-assistant and auto-reply patents, confirming that the concept was being independently and contemporaneously developed — a KSR "simultaneous invention" indicator pointing toward obviousness.
• The patent's own "Subsequent Publication" section (Google Play publication 2013‑07‑20; YouTube 2013‑09‑01; bikeland.org 2013‑11‑26) post-dates the 2013‑05‑18 priority and thus is the inventors' own § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period activity, not prior art — but it is worth flagging that the commercial "Text Deflector" feature set (custom messages per Bluetooth device, custom messages per contact, manual timer mode) is exactly the combination claimed, and the inventors themselves describe it as an improvement, not a different invention.
• Editorial caution: the family generated six continuations/continuation-in-parts (US 9,602,988; 9,979,826; 10,841,248; 11,297,014; 11,516,643; plus the '499), which signals that the inventors/counsel treated the disclosure as broad, but breadth in the family is not evidence of non-obviousness of any single claim.

---

9. Bottom line

Confidence: high that Thomas and ZoomSafer disclose the auto-response engine, the peripheral/hands-free trigger, contact-dependent message selection, and contact/device priority concepts; high that GM discloses the automatic Bluetooth vehicle-peripheral connection and device prioritization. Moderate confidence that a PHOSITA would combine them to reach the specific "plurality of peripheral-linked replies keyed to peripheral ID codes + contact/peripheral priority arbitration" — this is the one element requiring an obviousness (rather than anticipation) rationale, and it is the element where a patentee would likely focus its rebuttal. I have not reviewed the '499's prosecution history or any litigation record, so this is a substantive § 103 opinion only, not a reconstruction of the examiner's actual reasoning.

Sources (Google Patents, authoritative for this exercise): the '499 family page (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9432499](/patent/US9432499)/en); Thomas US 2005/0124324 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050124324A1/en); ZoomSafer US 2010/0216509 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100216509A1/en); GM US 2014/0066053 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140066053A1/en).