Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 11/03/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025, 12/30/2024, and 11/29/2023 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/03/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The use of the terms “Apple iPhone”, “iOS”, “Roblox”, “Duolingo”, “Khan Academy” among others which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For instance:
Claim 1, line 26, recites “an event message”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different/separate from recited “an event message” as recited in line 20.
Claim 1, line 15-16, recites “a user”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different from recited “a user” as recited in line 4.
Claim 1, line 10, recites “a respective one of the plurality of applications”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different from recited “a respective one of the plurality of applications” as recited in line 12-13.
Claim 1, appears to use two different phrases “plurality of applications of a first type” (line 4) vs. “the applications of the first type” (line 17) to describe the same element.
Claim 1, appears to use two different phrases “plurality of applications of a second type” (line 5) vs. “the applications of the second type” (line 28) to describe the same element.
At least due dependency, claims 2-11 are rejected under the same rational as set forth above.
Additionally
Claim 2, line 8, recites “a respective one of the plurality of applications”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different from recited “a respective one of the plurality of applications” as recited in line 6.
Claim 5, line 8, recites “a monitoring function” and “an execution”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different from recited “a monitoring function” and “an execution” as recited in the parent claim.
Claim 8-11 recites “a user”; however, it is not clear if this element the same or different from recited “a user” as recited in the parent claims.
Accordingly, appropriate amendments/remarks are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to A method of scheduling a blocking of data processing application execution on a data processing device,
comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving from an operating system a first plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a first type that have been selected by a user;
(b) storing the first plurality of tokens;
(c) receiving at least one application first type time period in which at least one of the plurality of applications of the first type is to be used for, such application first type time period having been selected by the user;
(d) assigning the at least one received application first type time period to at least one respective token each representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the first type, by storing the at least one received application first type time period in association with each of the at least one respective tokens representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the first type;
(e) receiving from the operating system a second plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a second type that have been selected by a user, the applications of the second type being applications which are to be blocked by the operating system while the applications of the first type are being used on the data processing device;
(f) storing the second plurality of tokens;
(g) sending to the operating system, an event message which includes the stored first plurality of tokens and the stored at least one application first type time period, in response to which the operating system creates a plurality of device activity events which trigger a monitoring function whereby the operating system monitors an execution on the data processing device of each application of the first type for the at least one first application type time period; and
(h) sending to the operating system an event message which includes the stored second plurality of tokens, in response to which the operating system creates a device activity event which sets up a blocking shield which prevents the applications of the second type from being executed by the data processing device during the at least one application first type time period when the plurality of applications of the first type are being used.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform various method of organizing human activities including a method of scheduling a blocking of data processing application execution on a data processing device including mentally and/or via pen/paper assigning the at least one received application first type time period to at least one respective token each representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the first type, by storing/recording mentally/pen paper the at least one received application first type time period in association with each of the at least one respective tokens representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the first type, and monitor an execution on the data processing device of each application of the first type for the at least one first application type time period.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). For instance,
(a) receiving from an operating system a first plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a first type that have been selected by a user – is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(b) storing the first plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(c) receiving at least one application first type time period in which at least one of the plurality of applications of the first type is to be used for, such application first type time period having been selected by the user - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(e) receiving from the operating system a second plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a second type that have been selected by a user, the applications of the second type being applications which are to be blocked by the operating system while the applications of the first type are being used on the data processing device - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(f) storing the second plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(g) sending to the operating system, an event message which includes the stored first plurality of tokens and the stored at least one application first type time period - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
in response to which the operating system creates a plurality of device activity events which trigger a monitoring function whereby the operating system - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
and (h) sending to the operating system an event message which includes the stored second plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
in response to which the operating system creates a device activity event which sets up a blocking shield which prevents the applications of the second type from being executed by the data processing device during the at least one application first type time period when the plurality of applications of the first type are being used - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
(a) receiving from an operating system a first plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a first type that have been selected by a user – is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(b) storing the first plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(c) receiving at least one application first type time period in which at least one of the plurality of applications of the first type is to be used for, such application first type time period having been selected by the user - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(e) receiving from the operating system a second plurality of tokens each token representing a respective one of a plurality of applications of a second type that have been selected by a user, the applications of the second type being applications which are to be blocked by the operating system while the applications of the first type are being used on the data processing device - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(f) storing the second plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
(g) sending to the operating system, an event message which includes the stored first plurality of tokens and the stored at least one application first type time period - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
in response to which the operating system creates a plurality of device activity events which trigger a monitoring function whereby the operating system - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
and (h) sending to the operating system an event message which includes the stored second plurality of tokens - is mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
in response to which the operating system creates a device activity event which sets up a blocking shield which prevents the applications of the second type from being executed by the data processing device during the at least one application first type time period when the plurality of applications of the first type are being used - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results, and above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 12-13 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 12-13 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11, when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above, are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claim 1.
In particular:
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising the steps of:
(i) receiving at least one application second type time period in which at least one of the plurality of applications of the second type is to be used for, such application second type time period being selected by the user; and
(j) assigning the at least one received application second type time period to at least one respective token representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the second type, by storing the at least one received application second type time period in association with each of the at least one respective tokens representing a respective one of the plurality of applications of the second type.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein in response to the operating system providing a notification that each of the plurality of applications of the first type have been used for the at least one first application time period, sending to the operating system an event message which includes the at least one application second type time period.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites wherein the event message which includes the at least one application second type time period causes the operating system to deactivate the blocking shield thus allowing the plurality of applications of the second type to be executed on the data processing device.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein the event message which includes the at least one application second type time period causes the operating system to trigger a monitoring function whereby the operating system monitors an execution on the data processing device of each application of the second type for the at least one application second type time period.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein step (c) receives an application first type time period for each of the plurality of applications of the first type, where the application first type time period for a first of the plurality of applications of the first type is different from the application first type time period for a second of the plurality of applications of the first type.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein step (j) receives one application second type time period for the plurality of applications of the second type.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a graphical user interface screen is provided, requesting a user to enter an identifier for each of the plurality of applications of the first type and thereby designating such applications as being of the first type.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a graphical user interface screen is provided, requesting a user to enter the at least one application first type time period.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a graphical user interface screen is provided, requesting a user to enter an identifier for each of the plurality of applications of the second type and thereby designating such applications as being of the second type.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein a graphical user interface screen is provided, requesting a user to enter the at least one application second type time period.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if amended to overcome above noted rejections. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
CONTEXT-AWARE MOBILE DEVICE MANAGEMENT
DOCUMENT ID
US 20230156570 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2023-05-18
Abstract
Technologies disclosed herein are directed to context-based mobile device management. According to one embodiment, an application executing in a mobile device detects an event to trigger context-based management of the mobile device. A usage context associated with the mobile device is determined. One or more policies to enforce on the mobile device are identified as a function of the usage context. The application enforces the one or more policies on the mobile device.
…
[0159] One example method includes invoking a FamilyActivityPicker UI from the IOS SCREEN TIME API from the control application 104 to allow users to select which user applications to allow for use. The control application 104 may prompt and instruct the user to allow all user applications (e.g., by selecting “All Apps & Categories” on the FamilyActivityPicker UI). In turn, the FamilyActivityPicker UI returns opaque tokens and categories to the control application 104, in which each of the opaque tokens corresponds to a respective user application on the mobile device 102. The control application 104 may confirm the selection based on an amount of tokens and categories that are returned by the FamilyActivityPicker UI. In an embodiment, the control application 104 may continue to prompt the user for additional selections until a specified amount is reached.
[0160] Once the control application 104 has received the opaque tokens, the control application 104 may display a UI to the user showing the user applications allowed by an underlying policy and context. Further, the control application 104 may then prompt the user to confirm the applications they would like to access while the control application 104 is managing usage of the mobile device 102, e.g., by prompting the user to select each such application. As the user selects an application, the control application 104 writes, to a shared application group (or other shared resource), a value that indicates that the application is being “validated,” such as the bundle ID of the selected application. Further, the control application 104 causes the selected application to launch (e.g., using an openURL function). The control application 104 may also shield all of the opaque tokens returned thereto via an API function call. Because each opaque token (and thus each user application) is shielded, the Shield Configuration Extension may receive a callback indicating each application that was just shielded. The Shield Configuration Extension may then compare each application's bundle ID to applications authorized by the policy. If the bundle ID in the policy matches the bundle ID that written to the shared resource, the Shield Configuration Extension will then write the opaque token of the shielded application to a named ManagedStore (which is a mechanism used to shield applications and a capability that the Shield Configuration Extension can access). Doing so triggers the control application 104, which can observe the writing of the token to the ManagedStore, to associate that token with the bundle ID of the application launched. The application can then allow the correct tokens based on the based on the policy when the control application 104 begins managing the mobile device 102.
[0161] Another example method includes launching the FamilyActivityPicker UI and prompting and instructing the user, via the control application 104, to select only the applications that they are authorized to access based on a policy and context. For example, the control application 104 may do so by displaying a UI with allowed applications. Once the control application 104 receives the opaque tokens in response to the user selection, the control application 104 may invoke the IOS SCREEN TIME API function for creating a DeviceActivitySchedule for each token which triggers after a specified time of usage (e.g., 1 second). When a given DeviceActivitySchedule triggers, the control application 104 invokes an API function to immediately shield that application. Because the token is shielded, the Shield Configuration Extension receives a callback for the shielded application. This extension then schedules a new DeviceActivitySchedule instance to trigger and embeds information about the selected application as part of the name for the DeviceActivitySchedule. The new instance triggers, and the control application 104 may then extract information, such as the name, associated opaque token, and bundle ID….
KID MODE USER INTERFACE WITH APPLICATION-SPECIFIC CONFIGURABILITY
DOCUMENT ID
US 20140344951 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2014-11-20 US 20140344951 A1
Abstract
A user interface is disclosed that is configured to provide a multi-user, multi-application experience for users of a given computing device, where each user account of the device is configurable with applications suitable for that user and each application has a usage timer associated therewith. Thus, each user may have access to applications that are different from another user of that device, and each user can be allocated application usage time independent from other users. The usage timers can be configured to reset once a usage period has lapsed. In some cases, the size of icons displayed for a given user account are automatically sized based on the age range of that user. A reward program may automatically increase the time allotted for given applications/content upon successful usage/consumption of educational applications/content. In a classroom/group setting, multiple computing devices may be simultaneously set into Kid Mode by a master computing device.
Limiting Applications Execution Time
DOCUMENT ID
US 10019599 B1
DATE PUBLISHED
2018-07-10
Abstract
A method of limiting execution of a software application according to a pre-defined time-based rule comprises: whenever the software application is attempted to be launched, enforcing a pre-defined time-based rule (e.g. that is user-immutable) such that: i. whenever the software application is attempted to be launched during a first time interval, the execution of the software application is enabled; ii. whenever the software application is attempted to be launched during a second time interval immediately following the first time interval, the execution of the software application is limited; and iii. whenever the software application is attempted to be launched during a third time interval immediately following the second time interval, the execution of the software application is enabled.
TIME AND TASK BASED VALIDATION TO ENABLE OR DISABLE PARENTAL CONTROLS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20160330078 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2016-11-10
Abstract
Approaches are provided for to enabling or disabling parental controls based on time or task validation using a centralized computing environment. An approach includes receiving parental control rules for one or more computing devices. The approach further includes publishing the parental control rules to each of the one or more computing devices to enable the parental control rules on each of the one or more computing devices. The approach further includes determining whether at least one of completion of a task is validated, and the current time is outside of a specified time. The approach further includes at least one of when the completion of the task is validated, and the current time is outside of the specified time period, publishing a parental control disable command to each of the one or more computing devices to disable at least one of the parental control rules.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194