DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto [ US Patent Application No 2023/0297635 ], in view of Erb [ U.S. Patent Application No 2015/0143453 ], and further in view of McKeithan, II et al. [ U.S. Patent Application No 2016/0306514 ].
4. As per claim 1, Yamamoto discloses the invention as claimed including a filtering system that restricts access to the Internet by a first user and a second user supervised by the first user, the filtering system comprising:
a first terminal to be used by the first user [ i.e. administrator terminal ] [ 20, Figure 2; Abstract; and paragraph 0065, and 0069 ]; and
a second terminal to be used by a second user [ i.e. non-administrator terminal ] [ 30, 31, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0060, 0067, and 0069 ],
wherein access to the Internet by the second terminal is restricted by a second filter [ i.e. filter rule tables for non-administrator terminals ] [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0070, and 0071 ], and
wherein the first terminal acquires restriction information indicating access restriction by the second filter [ i.e. generate the viewing determination notification packet from the URL of the Web site A for each of the non-administrator terminals and transmit a viewing determination notification to the administrator terminal ] [ S808, Figure 9; and paragraphs 0109-0111 ], and
displays information indicating whether or not the second user can access a predetermined website, based on the acquired restriction information [ i.e. notifying information indicating whether the Web site A can be viewed by the non-administrator terminal ] [ Figure 14; and paragraph 0117 ].
Yamamoto does not specifically disclose
the second user supervised by the first user;
wherein access to the Internet by the first terminal is restricted by a first filter.
Erb discloses
the second user supervised by the first user [ i.e. teacher can control to access the host of the remote resource that was denied to the student ] [ paragraphs 0073, and 0105 ];
wherein access to the Internet by the first terminal is restricted by a first filter [ i.e. teachers, staffs and students policies ] [ Figures 9, and 10; and paragraphs 0127, and 0128 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamamoto and Erb because the teaching of Erb would enable to improve security since any user credentials used by the authorization portal are kept within the authorization portal and can remain unexposed to the policy service [ Erb, paragraph 0053 ].
Yamamoto in view of Erb does not specifically disclose
when the information indicates the second user cannot access the predetermined website, display a permission request button that, when selected by the first user, transmits a request to an administrator to allow the second user to view the predetermined website; and
wherein, the administrator confirms the permission request, the second user can access the predetermined website.
McKeithan discloses
when the information indicates the second user cannot access the predetermined website, display a permission request button that, when selected by the first user [ i.e. the administrator issuing a request in a user interface provided by the administrator application 141 ] [ 207, Figure 2A; and paragraphs 0042, 0048 and 0058 ], transmits a request to an administrator to allow the second user to view the predetermined website [ i.e. the administrator application 141 was previously delegated authorized to enable or disable a restricted mode of the client device 106, the management service can obtain a request for authorization to remove a client device 106 from the restricted mode from an administrator application 141 ] [ Figures 5 and 6; and paragraph 0057, and 0073 ]; and
wherein, the administrator confirms the permission request, the second user can access the predetermined website [ i.e. administrator may also remove the client device from a restricted mode, which enables the ability of the client device to execute other applications or access information through a browser, instruction to launch a browser application and open a particular website ] [ paragraphs 0019, 0028, 0057 and 0060 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamamoto, Erb and McKeithan because the teaching of McKeithan would enable to provide a management console that provides a user interface in which client devices can be remotely administered by an administrator [ McKeithan, paragraph 0020 ].
5. As per claim 2, Yamamoto discloses wherein in response to access to a website by the first user, the first terminal displays whether or not the second user can access the website accessed by the first user [ Fig. 14; and paragraph 0117 ].
6. As per claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Erb and McKeithan discloses the filtering system according to claim 1, furthermore, Yamaoto discloses the first terminal displays an indication that an anomaly occurs to the first filter or the second filter [ i.e. teacher, student ] [ paragraph 0021 ], and Erb discloses wherein when a website that is access-restricted by the first filter is not access-restricted by the second filter [ Figures 7, 9, and 10; and paragraphs 0126, and 0127 ].
7. As per claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Erb and McKeithan discloses the filtering system according to claim 1, furthermore, Yamaoto discloses a first server, wherein the first server restricts, using the second filter, access to the Internet by the second terminal [ i.e. restrict access to a Web site ] [ Figures 4, and 5; and paragraphs 0018-0022 ], and Erb discloses restricts, using the first filter, access to the Internet by the first terminal [ i.e. teachers map to policy deny ] [ Figure 9; and paragraph 0127 ].
8. As per claim 5, Yamamoto discloses wherein when the restriction information is updated, the first server transmits, to the first terminal, information indicating that the restriction information is updated [ i.e. update the evaluated category list ] [ paragraphs 0120, 0144, and 0145 ].
9. As per claim 6, Yamamoto discloses wherein the first terminal displays an indication that the second user cannot access the predetermined website [ i.e. prohibit viewing ] [ Figure 14; and paragraph 0117 ], and transmits information indicating a change request to the first server, when the first terminal accepts the change request that is a request for change of the restriction information about the second filter so as to allow the second user to access the predetermined website [ i.e. allow to view the Web site on the non-administrator terminals ] [ Figure 18; and paragraph 0140 ].
10. As per claim 7, Yamamoto discloses wherein the first user supervises a third user in addition to the second user, the filtering system further comprises a third terminal to be used by the third user, and the first server restricts, using the second filter, access to the Internet by the third terminal [ i.e. terminals A2 and A3 ] [ 30, 31, Figure 2; Figure 4; and paragraphs 0060, and 0070 ].
11. As per claim 8, Yamamoto discloses wherein the first server stores attribute information about the second user and the third user [ i.e. category ] [ paragraphs 0024-0026 ], and changes the restriction information about the second filter, depending on the attribute information [ i.e. change category to education ] [ Figure 18; and paragraph 0140 ].
12. As per claim 14, Yamamoto discloses the invention as claimed including a computer-executed method for filtering that restricts access to the Internet by a first user and a second user supervised by the first user, the method comprising:
restricting access to the Internet by the second user by using a second filter [ i.e. filter rule tables for non-administrator terminals ] [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0070, and 0071 ];
acquiring restriction information indicating access restriction by the second filter [ i.e. generate the viewing determination notification packet from the URL of the Web site A for each of the non-administrator terminals and transmit a viewing determination notification to the administrator terminal ] [ S808, Figure 9; and paragraphs 0109-0111 ]; and
displaying, to the first user, whether or not the second user can access a predetermined website, based on the restriction information [ i.e. notifying information indicating whether the Web site A can be viewed by the non-administrator terminal ] [ Figure 14; and paragraph 0117 ].
Yamamoto does not specifically disclose
restricting access to the Internet by the first user by using a first filter, the second user supervised by the first user.
Erb discloses
restricting access to the Internet by the first user by using a first filter [ i.e. teachers, staffs and students policies ] [ Figures 9, and 10; and paragraphs 0127, and 0128 ], the second user supervised by the first user [ i.e. teacher can control to access the host of the remote resource that was denied to the student ] [ paragraphs 0073, and 0105 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamamoto and Erb because the teaching of Erb would enable to improve security since any user credentials used by the authorization portal are kept within the authorization portal and can remain unexposed to the policy service [ Erb, paragraph 0053 ].
Yamamoto in view of Erb does not specifically disclose
when the information indicates the second user cannot access the predetermined website, display a permission request button to the first user that, when selected by the first user, transmits a request to an administrator to allow the second user to view the predetermined website; and
wherein, the administrator confirms the permission request, granting access for the second user to view the predetermined website.
McKeithan discloses
when the information indicates the second user cannot access the predetermined website, display a permission request button to the first user that, when selected by the first user [ i.e. the administrator issuing a request in a user interface provided by the administrator application 141 ] [ Figure 2A; and paragraphs 0042, 0048 and 0058 ], transmits a request to an administrator to allow the second user to view the predetermined website [ i.e. the administrator application 141 was previously delegated authorized to enable or disable a restricted mode of the client device 106, the management service can obtain a request for authorization to remove a client device 106 from the restricted mode from an administrator application 141 ] [ Figures 5 and 6; and paragraph 0057, and 0073 ]; and
wherein, the administrator confirms the permission request, granting access for the second user to view the predetermined website [ i.e. administrator may also remove the client device from a restricted mode, which enables the ability of the client device to execute other applications or access information through a browser, instruction to launch a browser application and open a particular website ] [ paragraphs 0019, 0028, 0057 and 0060 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamamoto, Erb and McKeithan because the teaching of McKeithan would enable to provide a management console that provides a user interface in which client devices can be remotely administered by an administrator [ McKeithan, paragraph 0020 ].
13. As per claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 14.
Claim(s) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto [ US Patent Application No 2023/0297635 ], in view of Erb [ U.S. Patent Application No 2015/0143453 ], and further in view of McKeithan, II et al. [ U.S. Patent Application No 2016/0306514 ], and Sprigg et al. [ US Patent Application No 2013/0017806 ].
15. As per claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a first server, wherein the first server restricts, using the first filter, access to the Internet by the first terminal [ i.e. filtering server ] [ 40, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0066, and 0081-0083 ]. Yamamoto in view of Erb, and McKeithan does not specifically disclose a second server different from the first server, and the second server restricts, using the second filter, access to the Internet by the second terminal. Sprigg discloses a second server different from the first server, and the second server restricts, using the second filter, access to the Internet by the second terminal [ i.e. local parental control setting server and enterprise server ] [ 18, Figures 1A, and 1B; and paragraphs 0034-0036 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Yamamoto, Erb, McKeithan and Sprigg because the teaching of Sprigg would enable to allow parents to set and control parental control restrictions on their children’s cell phones and other mobile computing devices [ Sprigg, paragraph 0003 ].
16. As per claim 10, Sprigg discloses wherein when the restriction information is updated, the second server transmits, to the first terminal, information indicating that the restriction information is updated [ i.e. the parental control web-interface allows parents to set, update and/or maintain parental control settings ] [ paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, and 0054 ].
17. As per claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Erb, McKeithan and Sprigg discloses the filtering system according to claim 9, furthermore, Yamamoto discloses wherein the first terminal displays an indication that the second user cannot access the predetermined website [ i.e. notifying information indicating whether the Web site A can be viewed by the non-administrator terminal ] [ Figure 14; and paragraphs 0117 ], and Sprigg discloses transmits information indicating a change request to the second server, when the first terminal accepts the change request that is a request for change of the restriction information about the second filter so as to allow the second user to access the predetermined website [ i.e. override setting ] [ paragraphs 0056-0058 ].
18. As per claim 12, Yamamoto in view of Erb, McKeithan and Sprigg discloses the filtering system according to claim 9, furthermore, Erb discloses wherein the first user supervises a third user in addition to the second user, the filtering system further comprises a third terminal to be used by the third user [ i.e. groups ] [ Figure 1; and paragraph 0073 ], and Sprigg discloses the second server restricts, using the second filter, access to the Internet by the third terminal [ i.e. parents to set and control parental control restrictions on their children’s cell phones and other mobile devices] [ Figure 1A; and paragraphs 0033, 0033, and 0045 ].
19. As per claim 13, Sprigg discloses wherein the second server stores attribute information about the second user and the third user, and changes the restriction information about the second filter, depending on the attribute information [ i.e. update and/or maintain parental control settings on the control servers ] [ paragraphs 0034, and 0050 ].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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 of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oikonomidis [ US Patent Application No 2014/0109186 ] discloses primary and secondary administrators with different authorization rights and different approved website lists can be designated to mange the same or different registered protected users
Wu et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0365379 ] discloses method for managing, controlling and configuring an intelligent parental control filter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights