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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 01/28/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending within the application.
The arguments filed 01/28/2026 are found persuasive, and thus the 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/20/2025 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0132208 A1), hereafter Garg, in view of Hadatsuki et al. (US 2013/0254194 A1), as disclosed in the prior art made record of but not relied upon in the office action mailed 10/20/2025, hereafter Hadatsuki.
Regarding claim 1, Garg discloses:
A system for implementing predictive configuration changes based on tracking application usage patterns, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (Garg, Fig. 1, Fig. 7, and ¶[0049-0059])
continuously monitor, using an intelligent prediction engine, application usage data associated with an application installed on an endpoint device associated with an intended user of the endpoint device (Garg, Fig 6, ¶[0045] teaches current and historic application usage data as monitored application usage data associated with an application installed on an endpoint device associated with an intended user of the device, using an intelligent prediction engine, i.e. recommendation engine 116),
train a machine learning model of the intelligent prediction engine using the application usage data of the intended user of the endpoint device (Garg, ¶[0043] teaches training a machine learning model i.e., neural network, of the intelligent prediction engine using the application usage data of the intended user),
based on training the machine learning model, identify one or more inefficiencies in a workflow of the intended user of the endpoint device within the application (Garg, Fig. 6, ¶[0024], ¶[0028-0029] teaches identifying inefficiencies in a workflow of the intended user within the application, such as inefficiencies in restriction of application usage of the child user, by identifying age appropriate modifications based on training the machine learning model),
based on identifying the one or more inefficiencies, generate one or more configuration changes for addressing the one or more inefficiencies (Garg, Fig. 6 and ¶[0045] teaches generating suggested permissions modification as one or more configuration changes for addressing the one or more inefficiencies),
transmit a notification comprising the one or more configuration changes to the endpoint device, wherein the notification further comprises an interactable element associated with the one or more configuration changes (Garg, Fig. 6 and ¶[0046-0047] teaches transmitting a notification on the child’s end device comprising an interactable element associated with the one or more configuration changes),
detect that the … user … has activated the interactable element, wherein the activation of the interactable element comprises the … user of the endpoint device accepting the one or more configuration changes (Garg, Fig. 6 element 610 and ¶[0047] teaches detecting that the user has activated the interactable element, where this activation results in the user accepting the configuration changes),
automatically implement the one or more configuration changes (Garg, Fig. 6 element 612 and ¶[0047] teaches automatically implementing the one or more configuration changes).
While Garg discloses detect that the … user … has activated the interactable element, wherein the activation of the interactable element comprises the … user of the endpoint device accepting the one or more configuration changes, they do not disclose the intended user of the endpoint devices activating the element and accepting the one or more configuration changes.
Hadatsuki discloses:
detect that the intended user of the endpoint device has activated … interactable element, wherein the activation of the interactable element comprises the intended user of the endpoint device accepting the one or more configuration changes (Hadatsuki, Fig. 3 element 310 and ¶[0029] teaches a communication interface to detect that the intended user of the endpoint device has activated an interactable element to accept the one or more configuration changes)
Garg and Hadatsuki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, application usage tracking and machine learning models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Garg to include detect that the intended user of the endpoint device has activated … interactable element, wherein the activation of the interactable element comprises the intended user of the endpoint device accepting the one or more configuration changes, based on the teachings of Hadatsuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to avoid the inconvenience of initiating manual changes to a setting for an application at a communication device by presenting recommendations based on a pattern of their own usage data, as suggested by Hadatsuki (¶[0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Garg further discloses:
wherein identifying the one or more inefficiencies in the workflow of the intended user comprises: feeding the application usage data into the intelligent prediction engine (Garg, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and ¶[0043] teaches feeding the child user’s application usage data into the intelligent prediction engine),
based on the application usage data, determining a most efficient process flow for accomplishing an intended action of the intended user within the application (Garg, Fig. 5, element 516 teaches determining suggested changes in parental control application as determining a most efficient process flow for accomplishing an intended action of the user within the application),
comparing the most efficient process flow with the workflow of the intended user (Garg, Fig. 4, ¶[0038-0039] teaches comparing the most efficient process flow, i.e. suggested changes in application permitted to be used, with the workflow of the user, current applications in permitted use).
Regarding claim 4, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Garg further discloses:
wherein the one or more inefficiencies in the workflow comprises a disabled application setting, wherein the one or more configuration changes comprises automatically enabling the application setting (Garg, ¶[0026] teaches providing recommended changes in permissions settings as automatically enabling the disabled application setting).
Regarding claim 7, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Hadatsuki further discloses:
wherein the notification further comprises a prompt for the intended user to accept the one or more configuration changes (Hadatsuki, Fig. 3 element 310 and ¶[0029] teaches a prompt for the intended user to accept the one or more configuration changes)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Garg to include the notification further comprises a prompt for the intended user to accept the one or more configuration changes, based on the teachings of Hadatsuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to avoid the inconvenience of initiating manual changes to a setting for an application at a communication device, as suggested by Hadatsuki (¶[0012]).
Claims 8-9, and 11 are substantially similar to claims 1-2, and 4 respectively, and thus are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-2, and 4 respectively.
Claims 14-15, 17, and 20 are substantially similar to claims 1-2, 4, and 7 respectively, and thus are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-2, 4, and 7 respectively.
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0132208 A1), hereafter Garg, in view of Hadatsuki et al. (US 2013/0254194 A1), as disclosed in the prior art made record of but not relied upon in the office action mailed 10/20/2025, hereafter Hadatsuki, in further view of Bhatia et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0114262 A1), as cited in the IDS dated 04/10/2023, hereafter Bhatia.
Regarding claim 3, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Garg further discloses:
wherein the application usage data comprises information on application functions accessed by the intended user, … what timeframes in which the user has accessed the application (Garg, ¶[0039] teaches application usage data to comprise information on application functions accessed by the user through data on applications being used, and what timeframes in which the user has accessed the application).
Garg discloses wherein the application usage data comprises information on application functions accessed by the intended user… and what timeframes in which the user has accessed the application, but does not disclose which interface elements the user has interacted with.
Bhatia discloses:
wherein the application usage data comprises information on… which interface elements the user has interacted with (Bhatia, ¶[0191-0192] teaches application usage data collected to comprise interfaces the user has interacted with, through recording actions of the user as they login, logout, request credentials, and etc.).
Garg, Hadatsuki, and Bhatia are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, application usage tracking and machine learning models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, to include wherein the application usage data comprises information on… which interface elements the user has interacted with, based on the teachings of Bhatia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify activities that may be a threat to an organization or individual, as suggested by Bhatia (¶[0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Garg further discloses:
resource management (Garg, ¶[0004] teaches resource management in online banking),
While Garg teaches resource management, an application, and the intelligent prediction engine, they do not teach:
wherein the application is a resource management application,
wherein the intelligent prediction engine is further configured to monitor resource account data associated with the intended user.
Bhatia discloses:
wherein the application is a resource management application (Bhatia, Fig. 5 and ¶[0204] teaches the application to be a banking application, i.e. a resource management application),
wherein the intelligent prediction engine is further configured to monitor resource account data associated with the intended user (Bhatia, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶[0202] and ¶[0205-0206] teaches configuring an intelligent prediction engine, i.e. a model, to monitor resource account data associated with the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, to include wherein the application is a resource management application, and wherein the intelligent prediction engine is further configured to monitor resource account data associated with the user, based on the teachings of Bhatia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify activities that may be a threat to an organization or individual, as suggested by Bhatia (¶[0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, discloses the system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated). Bhatia further discloses:
wherein the resource account data comprises resource transfer data, the resource transfer data comprising resource transfer amounts, recipient data, and resource transfer timeframes (Bhatia, Fig. 5 and ¶[0206]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Garg, in view of Hadatsuki, to include wherein the resource account data comprises resource transfer data, the resource transfer data comprising resource transfer amounts, recipient data, and resource transfer timeframes, based on the teachings of Bhatia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify activities that may be a threat to an organization or individual, as suggested by Bhatia (¶[0062]).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are substantially similar to claims 3 and 5-6 respectively, and thus are rejected on the same basis as claims 3 and 5 6 respectively.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are substantially similar to claims 3 and 5-6 respectively, and thus are rejected on the same basis as claims 3 and 5-6 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, and they are found persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made record on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 9658882 B1: Fullmer et al. discloses setting recommendation and app tracking usage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAIRA ZAHIN MAUNI whose telephone number is (703)756-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, MATT ELL can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/H.Z.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights