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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed January 15, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims on 1/15/26. Claims remain 1-20 pending.
Response to Arguments
Previous Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of Terminal Disclaimer filed on 1/15/26.
Previous 101 rejections are withdrawn in light of the filed amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/15/26, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant argues that Malachani is directed to a single user single device context whereas the claims are drawn to cross device and cross user monitoring.
In reply, this is not persuasive because the primary reference Smith was and is relied upon to teach the main limitations including the framework of cross user and cross device monitoring (see the below rejection). Malachani was only relied upon to teach tracking applications and computing time differences.
Secondly, Regarding the amended limitations, new citations are presented for the Smith reference. Furthermore, upon further consideration of the amended limitations, a new grounds of rejection is made based on Smith in view of Machalani in view of Davidson.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1,7-11,17,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in view of Davidson et al (US Publication 20070198474).
In reference to claim 1, Smith teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a messaging server from a first device executing a messaging client application, a request to access a group portal associated with a group of users; (see at least Figure 1B & ¶s 62,63, which teaches a login request from a user device #10, to login and access a parent portal for monitoring a group of users)
accessing, by a user activity monitoring system of the messaging server system, activity information associated with a first user of the group of users from an entity table stored in a database, the activity information being descriptive of messaging activities performed via a second client device of the first user executing the messaging client application (see at least ¶s 71,83,85,87, which teaches collecting activity information for a group of users, the activity related to chat messages performed by chat applications at the user devices)
displaying, in the group portal, the set of friends that has been added by the second device of the first user (see at least ¶s 67,71,89, which teaches collecting and displaying friend/contact data from the devices of the child users which were added by the child users).
Smith fails to explicitly teach computing, for presentation in the group portal on the first device, a difference between a current time and a point in time at which a set of friends has been added, to a list of friends of the first user, by the second device of the first user; determining that the difference is less than a threshold period of time; and displaying, in the group portal, the set of friends that has been added by the second device of the first user in response to determining that the difference between the current time and the point in time at which a set of friends is less than the threshold period of time.
However, Machalani teaches visually tracking recently added applications (see Machalani, at least Abstract), and specifically discloses computing a difference between a current time and a point in time which an application was added, to a list of applications (see Machalani, at least ¶s 63,126), determining that the difference is less than/within a threshold recent time (see Machalani, at least ¶ 67), and displaying the set of applications which were most recently added in response to determining that the difference is within the threshold (see Machalani, at least ¶s 65-66). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display interface of Smith based on the teachings of Machalani for the purpose of easily enabling a user to view some of the most recent information related to the information they are viewing.
Smith fails to explicitly teach displaying the set of friends in the group portal representing only recipients of outgoing messages sent by the second device of the first user. However, Davidson teaches a customized contact list display for a user and discloses displaying a set of contacts/friends representing only recipients of outgoing messages sent by the user (see Davidson, at least Abstract and ¶ 78). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display interface of Smith based on the teachings of Davidson for the purpose of avoiding displaying data that may be unrelated or irrelevant to a user.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Smith, see at least Fig 8 and ¶ 87, which teaches identifying message activity information of the child user with a set of recipients within a time frame, and displaying the set of recipients.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Smith, see at least ¶s 62,71, which teaches simultaneously setting up and monitoring multiple users/children, where each user/child has an identifier.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Smith, see at least ¶s 61,63,71,80 which teaches setting up and monitoring multiple users/children, and multiple devices, as outlined in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Smith, see at least ¶ 89, which teaches monitoring list of friends/contacts.
In reference to claim 11, this is taught by Smith, see at least ¶ 87, which teaches displaying a list of users the child sent messages to in a time period, and at least ¶ 84, which teaches reporting improper activity to a third user.
In reference to claim 17, this is taught by Smith, see at least ¶ 61, which teaches parental monitoring of children.
Claims 19,20 correspond to claim 1 and are slight variations thereof. Therefore claims 19-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as given above.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in view of Verizon (“Verizon Smart Family FAQs”, archived 6/16/2020, https://www.verizon.com/support/verizon-smart-family-faqs/) in further view of Fernandez et al (US Publication 20040228531).
In reference to claim 2, Smith teaches in response to receiving the request, generating, for display in a first section of the group portal, a first identifier of a first user of the group of users; (see at least ¶ 80 lines 1-7, which teaches generating a dashboard display and identifying a first user to be monitored); accessing activity information associated with the first user being descriptive of one or more messages sent by a second client device of the first user to a set of recipients; (see at least ¶ 61 lines 1-13 and ¶ 71 lines 4-9, which teaches accessing and analyzing activity information of a child device, furthermore see at least ¶s 22,23,27 specifically for monitoring message activity); determining a last time that the respective message has been previously sent by the second client device to each recipient of the set of recipients (see at least ¶ 87 and Figure 8, which teaches determining the time that a message was sent from the child user device to a set of recipients); and generating, for display in a second section of the group portal, the activity information associated with the first user, (see at least ¶ 71 lines 10-17 and ¶ 87, which teaches generating and displaying insight/activity information associated with the monitored child user), the activity information displayed in the second section including the determined amount of time since a respective message has been previously sent by the second client device to each recipient of the set of recipients, and the last time that the respective message has been previously sent (see at least Figure 8 column #826 and the bottom right box showing the current time, which displays the elapsed time in the form of displaying the past time a message was sent and also displaying the current time).
Smith teaches listing alerts (see at least Fig 18 and ¶ 104), but Smith fails to explicitly teach excluding contents of the one or more messages sent by the second client device. However, Verizon teaches a platform for parental monitoring and managing of child devices/users (see Verizon, Subsection “General Information”, Question #1). Verizon discloses the monitoring platform excluding the content of the messages sent by the monitored user device (see Verizon, Subsection “Activity and Limits”, Question #1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Smith based on the teachings of Verizon for the purpose of providing a way for parents to monitor and summarize general activity information of their children while still maintaining some privacy.
Smith teaches an elapsed amount of time that is shown where the last time a message is sent is displayed alongside a current time, and where a user can clearly see the amount of time that has elapsed (see Smith, at least ¶ 87 and Figure 8). Smith fails to explicitly teach determining an amount of time that has elapsed since a respective message has been previously sent by the second client device to each recipient of the set of recipients, and the generated activity information including the determined amount of time as an elapsed time, the elapsed time being separately displayed from the last time the respective message has been previously sent. However, Fernandez teaches an interface for displaying message information (see Fernandez, at least ¶ 2). Fernandez discloses an interface for displaying information regarding a message that was sent, and where the information can be a time the message was sent or an elapsed time since the message was sent (see Fernandez, at least ¶ 55). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display interface of Smith based on the teachings of Fernandez for the purpose of showing various pieces of information regarding a sent message, where the varied information gives a user a comprehensive picture about the context and history of the message.
Claims 3,12,13,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in view of Verizon (“Verizon Smart Family FAQs”, archived 6/16/2020, https://www.verizon.com/support/verizon-smart-family-faqs/) in further view of Fernandez et al (US Publication 20040228531) in further view of Patel et al (US Publication 20170180287).
In reference to claim 3, Smith fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3 related to an invitation. However, Patel teaches a family hub for grouping family users and facilitating common activities and interests of the users (see Patel, at least paragraph 1). Patel discloses a parent device making a first selection of a child user via a family hub, and transmitting an invitation to the child user to join the family network (see Patel at least paragraph 15), and further discloses the child device displaying the invitation (see Patel, at least paragraph 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Patel for the purpose of enabling parents to manage and facilitate common activities and interests of a family users, and specifically to monitor the activities and interests..
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by Patel, see at least paragraph 15, which teaches sending a private invitation message to a child user. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Patel in accordance to the rationale given for claim 2.
In reference to claim 13, this is taught by Patel, see at least paragraph 23, which teaches the child user joining the family group hub with an enrolled status. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Patel in accordance to the rationale given for claim 2.
In reference to claim 16, this is taught by Patel, see at least paragraphs 23,24, which teaches the child user joining and accessing the family group hub, and where family activity is then accessible and displayed to the other family users. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Patel in accordance to the rationale given for claim 2. Furthermore, Verizon discloses the monitoring platform excluding the content of the messages sent by the monitored user device (see Verizon, Subsection “Activity and Limits”, Question #1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Verizon in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in view of Verizon (“Verizon Smart Family FAQs”, archived 6/16/2020, https://www.verizon.com/support/verizon-smart-family-faqs/) in further view of Fernandez et al (US Publication 20040228531) in further view of Patel et al (US Publication 20170180287) in further view of Shanmugam et al (US Patent 9832314).
In reference to claim 4, Smith fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4 related to the invitation message. However, Shanmugam teaches an invitation message with identification of a primary user and a plurality of options mote monitoring of a device comprising an accept option for the first user to join a monitoring session (see Shanmugam , at least Abstract), and discloses (see Shanmugam, at least Fig 10 and column 9 lines 60-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Shanmugam for the purpose of informing a child user of details related to joining a parental monitoring session.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Shanmugam, see at least Fig 10 #s 1020 & 1030 and column 9 line 64 – column 10 line 3, which teaches a prompt identifying various activities made available to the primary user responsive to the selection. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Shanmugam in accordance to the rationale given for claim 4.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Smith, see at least paragraphs 20-32 which teaches the various activities to include a list of contact/friends added by the child user, and messages sent by the child user within a time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in view of Verizon (“Verizon Smart Family FAQs”, archived 6/16/2020, https://www.verizon.com/support/verizon-smart-family-faqs/) in further view of Fernandez et al (US Publication 20040228531) in further view of Patel et al (US Publication 20170180287) in further view of Stetson et al (US Publication 20020169669).
In reference to claim 14, Smith fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14 related to the invitation message. However, Stetson teaches sending a message based on a targeting criteria (see Stetson , at least paragraph 38), and discloses determining if an age of a user satisfies a targeting criteria and sending the message based on the age of the user satisfying the criteria (see Stetson, at least paragraph 80). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Stetson for the purpose of ensuring that only the intended recipient of the message invitation will be able to receive and see the message.
Claims 15,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Publication 20180165936) in view of Machalani et al (US Publication 20160188308) in further view of Jarrett (US Patent 9015253).
In reference to claim 15, Smith fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15 related to removing the user from the group. However, Jarrett teaches parental monitoring of child device activity (see Jarrett, at least Abstract) and a monitor list of children to monitor (see at least column 6 lines 21-29), and discloses determining an age of a child user and removing the child user from the monitor list when the age of the child user no longer satisfies the age criteria (see Jarrett, at least column 7 lines 59-65). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith based on the teachings of Jarrett for the purpose of ensuring that the users which are above a certain age (such as being considered a legal adult) are no longer being monitored by their parents .
In reference to claim 18, this is taught by Smith, see at least paragraphs 71-71, which teaches a grid identifying each of the user nodes that are part of the family group. Furthermore, Jarret teaches parental monitoring of child device activity and a monitor list of children to monitor, and discloses determining an age of a child user and removing the child user from the monitor list when the age of the child user no longer satisfies the age criteria (see Jarrett, at least column 6 lines 21-29 and column 7 lines 59-65). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Smith in view of Jarret for the purpose as outlined in claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
March 9, 2026