DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 10/02/2025, has been entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/02/2025, pages 4-6, regarding rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 5, that Laurent discloses no method that allows a user to use the device for a predetermined period of time and allows the user to extend the usage time by performing a challenge task to obtain a time extension. However, Laurent does disclose allowing the user to use the internet resource for a predetermined period of time for accessing the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may read an allowed time duration for the access to the Internet resource in the storage 322 and initiate a timing function when granting the access. Upon detecting a time expiry for the connection of the client device 102 to the Internet resource” i.e., an expiration inherently requires a use time to exceed an allowable time because expiration requires the passage of time beyond a set limit). Also, Laurent does disclose allowing the user to extend the usage time by performing a challenge task to obtain a time extension (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “if the user account is empty when receiving the request to reconnect, the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102 so that the child may obtain new credits”; paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account” i.e., when a credit is added to an account, a corresponding predetermined time duration is added to the connection time for a user).
Applicant argues, on page 5, that Laurent in paragraph [0051] does not ‘deal’ with a request by the user to extend their allowable time period. However, Laurent does disclose a request by the user to extend their allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0053], “If operation 730 indicates that the user account does not include at least one credit, the sequence 700 ends, optionally after sending by the access node 300 of a signal causing the client device 102 to display a message inviting the child try a new challenge for increasing his/her credit.”; paragraph [0052], “A challenge response, an answer to each of the one or more quiz questions, is received at the access node 300, from the client device 102, at operation 630” i.e., the challenge response is a request from the child to extend their time through credits because the invitation to try a new challenge is ‘for increasing his/her credit’. The child knows that the invitation to the challenge and the challenge is ‘for increasing his/her credit’. By completing the challenge, and submitting a challenge response, the child is requesting an increase in the credits of the system). Control parameters specify a time duration per credit in the user’s account (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account”). Therefore, adding one credit does correspond with a particular duration increase because each credit has a corresponding duration per credit.
Applicant argues, on page 5-6, that Laurent clearly does not disclose a situation whereby the user is alerted of their time expiring and enabling the user to request an extension. However Laurent does disclose alerting the user that their use time for accessing the identified one or more software applications is to exceed the allowable use time (Laurent: paragraph [0053], “If operation 730 indicates that the user account does not include at least one credit, the sequence 700 ends, optionally after sending by the access node 300 of a signal causing the client device 102 to display a message inviting the child try a new challenge for increasing his/her credit.” i.e., the message inviting the child corresponds to the claimed alerting; paragraph [0052], “the presentation of the challenge to the client device 102 may use operating principles similar to those of captive portals” i.e. a captive portal is an alert for a user because interrupting their network access and indicating that access time as expired because a challenge is being presented). Also, Laurent does disclose enabling the user to request an extension of the access time period (Laurent: paragraph [0052], “A challenge response, an answer to each of the one or more quiz questions, is received at the access node 300, from the client device 102, at operation 630” i.e., the challenge response is a request from the child to extend their time through credits because the invitation to try a new challenge is ‘for increasing his/her credit’. The child knows that the invitation to the challenge and the challenge itself is for increasing his/her credit. By completing the challenge, and submitting a challenge response, the child is requesting an increase in the credits of the system). Control parameters specify a time duration per credit in the user’s account (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent (USP App. Pub. 2020/0204845) in view of Udipi et al. (USP App. Pub. 2021/0200657; hereinafter Udipi).
Regarding claim 1, A method for an administrator (Laurent: paragraph [0034], “The parents”) to control access by a user (Laurent: paragraph [0034], “their child”) to an electronic device (Laurent: paragraph [0034], “The parents may use their devices 114 to access an authentication and access system 132 of the SmartCookieWIFI server 130 to define parameters for their child, for example selecting a maximum on screen time” i.e., a parent corresponds to the claimed administrator; paragraph [0034], “The client device 102 may access the Internet under some limitations imposed by the access node 300” i.e., access node 300 corresponds to the claimed electronic device), comprising:
…accessible on the electronic device (Laurent: paragraph [0034], “The client device 102 may access the Internet under some limitations imposed by the access node 300”) to identify those software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “a list of authorized Internet sites, a list of unauthorized Internet sites”; paragraph [0022], “access may only be granted to specifically allowed Internet sites”) to which the user it to have limited access (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “a request to connect to…a web site. The processor 310…verifies the user account in the storage 322. If the user account contains at least one credit, the processor 310…establish[es] a connection between the client device 102 and the Internet resource.” i.e. a web site may be restricted due to insufficient credits);
the administrator setting (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account” i.e., when a credit is added to an account, a corresponding predetermined time duration is added to the connection time for a user) an allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “a duration”) for the user to access the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0037], “the child is authorized to access the Internet or to watch television for a predetermined period of time”);
facilitating use of the electronic device by the user (Laurent: paragraph [0034], “The client device 102 may access the Internet under some limitations imposed by the access node 300”; paragraph [0022], “access node receives an access from a client device of the child”);
monitoring (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “initiate a timing function”), on the electronic device (Laurent: Figure 5, processor 310 is a subcomponent of access node 300), a use time (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “allowed time duration”) for the user accessing the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may read an allowed time duration for the access to the Internet resource in the storage 322 and initiate a timing function when granting the access”);
determining when the use time of the user accessing the identified one or more software applications exceeds the allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “Upon detecting a time expiry” i.e., an expiration inherently requires a use time to exceed an allowable time because expiration requires the passage of time beyond a set limit) for accessing the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “Upon detecting a time expiry for the connection of the client device 102 to the Internet resource, the processor 310 records, in the storage 322, information about the Internet resource”);
alerting the user (Laurent: paragraph [0053], “If operation 730 indicates that the user account does not include at least one credit, the sequence 700 ends, optionally after sending by the access node 300 of a signal causing the client device 102 to display a message inviting the child try a new challenge for increasing his/her credit.” i.e., the message inviting the child corresponds to the claimed alerting; paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102” i.e., a challenge that is presented to a child; paragraph [0052], “the presentation of the challenge to the client device 102 may use operating principles similar to those of captive portals” i.e. a captive portal is an alert for a user because interrupting their network access and indicating that access time as expired because a challenge is being presented) that their use time for accessing the identified one or more software applications is to exceed the allowable use time for that user to access the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “Upon detecting a time expiry”) and suspending access by the user to the identified one or more software applications on the electronic device (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “terminates the connection of the client device 102 to the Internet resource”);
enabling the user (Laurent: paragraph [0041], “if the challenge response is a correct response, the processor 310 or the SmartCookieWIFI server 130 adds a credit for connection of the client device 102 to the medium to the user account” i.e., the challenge enables the user to earn a credit by provide a correct response) to request an extension to the allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0052], “A challenge response, an answer to each of the one or more quiz questions, is received at the access node 300, from the client device 102, at operation 630” i.e., the challenge response is a request from the child to extend their time through credits because the invitation to try a new challenge is “for increasing his/her credit”. The child knows that the invitation to the challenge and the challenge itself is for increasing his/her credit. By completing the challenge, and submitting a challenge response, the child is requesting an increase in the credits of the system; paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account”) to access the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102 so that the child may obtain new credits”);
providing the user with a task (Laurent: paragraph [0052], “the challenge may for example comprise one or more quiz questions selected according to an expected educational level of the child”) selected by the administrator (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “Many of these control parameters are provided by the parents”; paragraph [0049], “The child may be granted additional credits (for example cookies) in exchange for other behaviors required by their parents” i.e., a parent corresponds to the claimed administrator) in accordance with educational requirements of the user as determined by the administrator (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a difficulty level of the challenge…[and] a topic of the challenge” i.e., difficulty and topic are educational requirements), for the user to perform in response to the request for an extension to the allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102 so that the child may obtain new credits”; claim 17, “the connection of the client device to the medium is limited to a predetermined time duration for each credit in the user account”);
assessing the performance of the user in said task (Laurent: paragraph [0041], “if the challenge response is a correct response, the processor 310 or the SmartCookieWIFI server 130 adds a credit for connection of the client device 102 to the medium to the user account”; paragraph [0052], “If the response is incorrect, the sequence 600 may end…If the challenge response is correct, the sequence continues at operation 650”); and
upon successful completion of said task (Laurent: paragraph [0041], “if the challenge response is a correct response, the processor 310 or the SmartCookieWIFI server 130 adds a credit for connection of the client device 102 to the medium to the user account”), extending the allowable time period for the user to access the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0052], “If the challenge response is correct, the sequence continues at operation 650…adds a credit for connection of the client device to the medium user account”; paragraph [0051], “control parameters are provided by the parents…Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account” i.e., when a credit is added to an account, a corresponding predetermined time duration is added to the connection time for a user).
Laurent does not teach …the administrator interrogating an operating system of the electronic device to generate a list of all software applications accessible by the user on the electronic device, whereby the administrator selects one or more of the software applications from the list of all software applications…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Udipi does teach …the administrator interrogating an operating system (Udipi: paragraph [0147], “The computer-readable storage media 1806 retains any kind of information 1808, such as machine-readable instructions, settings, data, etc.”) of the electronic device to generate a list of all software applications accessible by the user on the electronic device (Udipi: paragraph [0087], “the UI component 136 can list all of the applications identified in the app-information data store 118”), whereby the administrator selects one or more of the software applications from the list of all software applications accessible on the electronic device (Udipi: paragraph [0085], “UI presentation 302 that allows a supervisor to view and modify rules provided in the rules data store 128”) to identify those software applications to which the user it to have limited access (Udipi: FIG. 3, MapHelp has a time limit of ‘None’ and the game Firefight has a time limit of 5 hours per week in the gaming category. The parent has the control to modify these default limit constraints, indicated by the asterisk; paragraph [0060], “the rules data store 128 may provide a rule that specifies that the supervisee is permitted to interact with the application for four hours over the course of a week”; paragraph [0098], “MathHelp…the supervisee is free to interact with this program for an unlimited amount of time, providing that the supervisee interacts with this program at school.” i.e., a current limit of None for MathHelp during school indicates an unlimited amount of access time, indicating parental control of time limits for certain applications)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the screen time control system of Laurent to incorporate the teachings of Udipi to create a parent-customizable (Udipi: paragraph [0084], “a supervisor (e.g., a parent)”) list of all applications accessible. The motivation for doing so is to be able to see which applications the user is accessing the most often in a list (Udipi: paragraph [0087], “The UI component 136 can rank these applications by the frequency with which the supervisee has accessed these applications on prior occasions”) and to give the parent more control and customizability of the constraints on the list (Udipi: paragraph [0089], “The UI component 135 can respond by displaying an edit control box (not shown in FIG. 3). The supervisee can enter new information within that edit control box, e.g.,…by selecting a new time limit in the third column 316”).
Regarding claim 4, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 1, wherein the allowable time period for a user to access the identified applications is set by an administrator supervising the user for each identified application (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account”).
Regarding claim 5, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 4, wherein
the allowable time period is set in discrete time intervals as pre-determined or set by the user or administrator (Laurent: paragraph [0051], “Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include… a time of day when access can be allowed to the user of the client device, a day of the week when access can be allowed to the user of the client device”).
Regarding claim 6, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 1, wherein
the use time of the user accessing the identified one or more software applications is monitored by a clock (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “timing function”) that records accumulative access time of the user to the identified one or more software applications (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may read an allowed time duration for the access to the Internet resource in the storage 322 and initiate a timing function when granting the access. Upon detecting a time expiry for the connection of the client device…”).
Regarding claim 7, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 6, wherein the recorded accumulative access time of the user is compared against the allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “time expiry”) for accessing the identified one or more software applications to determine when the use time of the user accessing the identified one or more software applications exceeds the allowable time period (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “Upon detecting a time expiry for the connection of the client device 102 to the Internet resource, the processor 310 records, in the storage 322, information about the Internet resource”).
Regarding claim 8, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 1, wherein
the extension to the allowable time period for the user to access the identified one or more software applications may be predetermined by the user or an administrator on behalf of the user (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102 so that the child may obtain new credits”; paragraph [0052], “If the challenge response is correct, the sequence continues at operation 650…adds a credit for connection of the client device to the medium user account”; paragraph [0051], “Example of control parameters that may be provided by the parents include…a duration for the connection of the user of the client device to the medium per credit in the user account”).
Regarding claim 9, Laurent and Udipi teach a method according to claim 8, wherein the task assigned to the user in response to the request for an extension to the allowable time period comprises a quiz or test to be performed by the user (Laurent: paragraph [0042], “the processor 310 may cause a new challenge to be presented to the child on the client device 102 so that the child may obtain new credits; paragraph [0052], “challenge may for example comprise one or more quiz questions selected”).
Regarding claim 11, Laurent and Udipi teach method according to claim 1, wherein the performance of the user in the task is assessed based on a level of success of the user in completing the task to a predetermined level of accuracy (Laurent: paragraph [0052], “If the response is incorrect, the sequence 600 may end, optionally after sending by the access node 300 of a signal causing the client device 102 to display a message inviting the child make another connection attempt. If the challenge response is correct, the sequence continues at operation 650” i.e. a success is achieved by correctly answering on the first or second attempt).
The motivation for combining references for the claims listed above is the same as the one stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent in view of Udipi in further view of Bannwolf et al. (USP App. Pub. 2008/0182232; hereinafter Bannwolf).
Regarding claim 12, Laurent and Udupi teach a method according to claim 11, wherein
Laurent and Udipi do not teach …the predetermined level of accuracy is set by an administrator or the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bannwolf teaches …the predetermined level of accuracy is set by an administrator or the user (Bannwolf: paragraph [0070], “The permissive access criteria can include one or more of the following: a parent client user selected minimum passing score for test-based educational task items…” i.e., a parent corresponds to the claimed administrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the screen time control system of Laurent and Udipi to incorporate the teachings of Bannwolf to have a parent set the minimum required passing score on the challenges. The motivation for doing so is to allow parents to customize their child’s screen time control system (Bannwolf: paragraph [0053], “receiving computer-based leisure activity time limit criteria data defining permissive access data from an associated parent client user for the child client user”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached Su-Sa: 9:00 AM - 11:59 AM PST and 1:00 PM - 8 PM PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491