DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,193. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose receive a time-based restriction for device usage by a first user; obtain data indicating a usage by the first user on the device; and in response to a determination that the usage by the first user on the device violates the time-based restriction, provide an overlay over a user interface of at least a first application corresponding to the time-based restriction, the overlay indicating that the time-based restriction has been violated by the first user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raleigh (US 20170201850).
Regarding Claim 1, 13, 15, Raleigh discloses memory; and at least one processor (Paragraph 0331) configured to: receive a time-based restriction for device usage by a first user; obtain data indicating a usage by the first user on the device; and in response to a determination that the usage by the first user on the device violates the time-based restriction, provide an overlay over a user interface of at least a first application corresponding to the time-based restriction, the overlay indicating that the time-based restriction has been violated by the first user (Paragraphs 0650, 0684). Both Paragraphs disclose “usage violates time-based restriction” when Paragraph 0650 discloses how the usage threshold may be a number of minutes, seconds, etc, which is displayed as an overlay pop-up, and how Paragraph 0684 discloses the pop-up overlay to purchase additional minutes. Notification message is presented in the foreground as a “pop-up” message. In some embodiments, the notification message provides one or more options to purchase additional service during the service activity, e.g., purchase additional minutes or MB. All of these examples clearly indicate time-based restriction for device usage by a first user and providing an overlay over a user interface corresponding to the violated time-based restriction.
Regarding Claim 2, Raleigh discloses wherein the time-based restriction is with respect to a category of applications, websites or device-level functions (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 3, Raleigh discloses wherein the category is based on a particular topic, and wherein the category comprises a predefined set of one or more applications, websites or device-level functions corresponding to the particular topic (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 4, Raleigh discloses wherein the first application comprises at least one of the applications in the category or the first application displays one of the websites in the category (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 5, Raleigh discloses wherein the overlay comprises [[a]]the user interface for requesting an increase of the time-based restriction (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 6, Raleigh discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive data indicating the time-based restriction, access of which is limited to the device and a second device associated with the device (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 7, Raleigh discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: provide data indicating the usage to the second device, such that access to the usage is limited to the device and the second device (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 9, Raleigh discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, on the device, an authorization to adjust the time-based restriction for the usage by the first user (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 10, Raleigh discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: display, at an application launch interface, an icon that indicates that access is restricted (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 14, Raleigh discloses wherein the code further comprises: code to receive, on the first device, an authorization to adjust the time-based restriction for the usage by the first user (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 16, Raleigh discloses wherein the time-based restriction is with respect to a category of applications, websites or device-level functions (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 17, Raleigh discloses wherein the category is based on a particular topic, and wherein the category comprises a predefined set of one or more applications, websites or device-level functions corresponding to the particular topic (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 18, Raleigh discloses displaying, at an application launch interface, an icon that indicates that access is restricted (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 19, Raleigh discloses wherein the overlay comprises a user interface for requesting an increase of the time-based restriction (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Regarding Claim 20, Raleigh discloses receiving, on the first device, an authorization to adjust the time-based restriction for the usage by the first user (Paragraphs 0650, 0684, 0627, 0999, 1022, 1215, 1240, Figures 91, 212, 228, 242, 264).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claims 8, 11-12, the applied art does not teach or suggest:
“wherein the second device is configured to obtain, from a public data source, a graphical icon representative of an application which is associated with the usage and which is not installed on the second device.”
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect deletion of an application on the device; and in response to detecting the deletion, remove data on the device that identifies the application, and maintain a record of usage with respect to a category corresponding to the application.”
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect deletion of browser history corresponding to a website; and in response to detecting the deletion, remove data on the device that identifies the browser history corresponding to the website, and maintain a record of usage with respect to a category corresponding to the browser history corresponding to the website.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKUR JAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9747. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
/ANKUR JAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights