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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2024, 05/09/2024 and 03/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a setting unit configured to”, “a calculation unit configured to” and “a display control unit configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2021/0109836 (“Cranfill et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Cranfill et al. discloses a user terminal configured to be able to execute a plurality of applications set in advance as targets for a use limit, the user terminal comprising:
a setting unit configured to set a weight according to an application for each of the plurality of applications ([0196], FIG. 6A, the restrictions settings user interface displays an indication 602 of device usage and a number of settings related to device usage, such as settings for a restricted usage mode (e.g., “Device Downtime” 604a), 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);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a degree of a user's use of the user terminal on the basis of a use amount and a weight of the application used by a user in a predetermined period ([0232] limit access to certain applications during certain periods of time, determines usage for that period of time); and
a display control unit configured to hinder the user's use of the user terminal by executing control of screen display of the user terminal in a case in which the degree of use exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0199], FIG. 6G, the indication of a usage limit that has been exceeded (e.g., the News App usage limit 622a) includes an indication of how much that application (e.g., the News application) has been used in excess of the usage limit).
Regarding claim 4, Cranfill et al. discloses the user terminal according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit is configured to change a color or number of pixels of the screen of the user terminal as the control of screen display ([0201], FIG. 6L, when a usage limit has been exceeded (e.g., the News App usage limit 622a), the respective affordance 640a has a different color or pattern indicating that the usage limit has been exceeded).
Regarding claim 5, Cranfill et al. discloses the user terminal according to claim 4, wherein, in a case in which the user continues to use the user terminal even after the degree of use exceeds the threshold, the display control unit gradually reduces visibility of the screen of the user terminal by gradually changing the color or the number of pixels of the screen of the user terminal ([0367], representations for restricted applications not in the application whitelist in the above multitasking user interface are modified by the electronic device -e.g., faded or shaded out, or otherwise modified to be displayed with a different visual characteristic than representations corresponding to applications that are included in the application whitelist).
Regarding claim 6, Cranfill et al. discloses the user terminal according to claim 4, wherein, in a case in which the user continues to use the user terminal even after the degree of use exceeds the threshold, the display control unit alternately repeats decrease and increase of the number of pixels of the screen of the user terminal ([0316] device 500 is displaying a graphical user interface other than home screen 1050 (e.g., an application graphical user interface, notification history graphical user interface, etc.) at the start of the restricted usage mode, and device 500 visually obscures that graphical user interface (e.g., blurring, greying out, or visually altering that graphical user interface) at the start of the restricted usage mode).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 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:
Regarding claims 2-3, the prior art does not teach or suggest a case in which a face image representing a face of a user is displayed on the screen display as the control of screen display.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, the prior art does not teach or suggest calculate a first average use amount, a second average user amount or a third average use amount to set the weight of each application as defined by in the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest extend the application period in accordance with a time in which the user terminal has been used in a case in which the user terminal has been used until the application of the control of screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIRAPON TULOP whose telephone number is (571)270-7491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/JIRAPON TULOP/Examiner, Art Unit 2693