The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/06/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are pending in this application. This action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 8-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cranfill et al. (US 2019/01347181, hereinafter Cranfill).
Re claims 1, 8, and 15, Cranfill teaches a method in a user device, comprising:
receiving a first request from a specified user of the user device to access an application of the user device ([0211], a user attention event is detected when a user input causes the electronic device to exit an idle state (e.g., a sleep mode, a locked state, a low power mode, etc. during which the user does not interact with the electronic device and/or the display of the electronic device is off));
based on receiving the first request, transmitting to a computing device a second request ([0213], a request to remove an overall usage limit enforced on John Jr.'s iPhone, an indication 666 of device usage, an indication 680 of an overall screen time usage limit for John Jr.'s iPhone, an indication 670 of the duration of the longest usage session of John Jr.'s iPhone, an indication 672 of the amount of use during device downtime on John Jr.'s iPhone, indications 674a-b of usage of applications for which usage limits are in place on John Jr.'s iPhone, and an indication 676 of usage of an application for which no usage limit is in place of John Jr.'s iPhone, similar to as described previously in FIGS. 6L-6N);
receiving a response to the second request from an access arbiter of the computing device, the response indicating a determined available time usage corresponding to a machine learning model generated category of the application for the specified user ([0366], while the usage limit associated with the first category of applications is in effect (904) (e.g., when the usage limit is in effect, the usage time of the category of applications (e.g., social media category usage time) associated with the usage limit is monitored by the electronic device), the electronic device receives (906) a request to launch a first application of the first category of applications (e.g., a request from a user of the electronic device to launch an application (e.g., A particular social media application), a request from an application on the electronic device for performing a specific function on the device, etc.), such FIG. 8MM (e.g., attempting to launch a Social Media application from the home screen when the Social Media category usage limit has been reached)) wherein a trained machine learning model generates the category of the application based on at least one feature of the application (fig. 6A and [0197], settings for usage limits for one or more applications or categories of applications (e.g., “App Limits” 604b), settings for which functions are always allowed regardless of any usage restrictions being presently enforced (e.g., “Always Allowed” 604c), settings for content and privacy settings of the electronic device 500); and
controlling access to the application by the specified user based on the determined available time usage ([0366], an internal timer is associated with usage time of each specific category of applications or each application. In some embodiments, an associated internal timer starts once an application is launched. In some embodiments, the timer stops when the application is no longer used).
Re claims 2, 9, and 16, Cranfill teaches further comprising: transmitting a time usage report from the user device to the computing device, the time usage report indicating an amount of time spent accessing the application by the specified user, a time access manager of the computing device accruing time usage associated with the category based at least on the time usage report (fig. 6A, 8A-9K, displaying usage limit for application).
Re claims 3, 10, and 17, Cranfill teaches wherein said controlling access comprises: performing an action based on the determined available time usage, the action including at least:
denying access to the application by the specified user ([0524], deny (e.g., via selection of “deny” in indication 1498-20) the child's access to the restriction settings at the child's electronic device)
Re claims 4 and 11, Cranfill teaches wherein said transmitting comprises:
transmitting in the second request an identifier of the application and an identifier of the specified user ([0366], a request from a user of the electronic device to launch an application).
Re claims 5, 12, and 18, Cranfill teaches wherein said transmitting comprises:
transmitting the second request in response to an attempt by the specified user sto launch the application ([0366], a request from a user of the electronic device to launch an application).
Re claims 6, 13, and 19, Cranfill teaches wherein said transmitting comprises:
transmitting the second request during usage of the application by the specified user ([0366], a request from a user of the electronic device to launch an application).
Re claim 21, Cranfill teaches wherein the at least one feature of the application includes at least application metadata ([0035], a photo management application); and
wherein the application metadata includes at least one of an application name, an application description, an application publisher, an application related image, or an application size ([0035], a photo management application, a digital camera application, a digital video camera application, a web browsing application, a digital music player application, and/or a digital video player application).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant said “Cranfill fails to teach or suggest "a machine learning model generated category of the application" and "the machine learning model generated category is generated based on at least one feature of the application" as recited in amended claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cranfill clearly said “settings for usage limits for one or more applications or categories of applications (e.g., “App Limits” 604b), settings for which functions are always allowed regardless of any usage restrictions being presently enforced (e.g., “Always Allowed” 604c), settings for content and privacy settings of the electronic device 500” as it can be seen in fig. 6A and paragraph [0197]. Note that “usage limit” or “functions” can be considered as “feature of the application”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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 set forth in this action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-274124. 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 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 Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights