DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 09/06/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the legal phraseology “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (See Specification; page 7).
Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1; the limitation “the use by a user”, and “the beginning of a first time period” lack proper antecedent basis. Further, there appears to be a missing -- and -- at the end of line 10.
Claims 2 – 12 are dependent claims and thus also objected.
Regarding claim 5; the limitation “the relevance of content” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6; the dependency of the claim is not clear.
Regarding claim 8; the limitation “the validation” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13; the limitation “the use by a user”, “the arrangement of a set of software modules”, “the beginning of a first time period” and “the granting” lack proper antecedent basis. Further, the -- and -- at the end of line 10 should be deleted.
Claim 14 is a dependent claim and thus also objected.
Claim 13 is objected to as being in improper method format. The claim is drafted as a “method” but does not recite any acts or steps. A method claim must include at least one step defining an act performed in the process (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim 14 is a dependent claim and thus also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 14 are 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.
The terms “degree of digital lifestyle” in claims 1 – 3, and 13 - 14 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “degree of digital lifestyle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or specify a single algorithm, scale, or numeric range. There is no defined scale like 0 - 100, or discrete levels with boundaries, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “substantially shorter” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially shorter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree i.e., the specification does not provide quantitative boundaries, threshold vales, ranges, statistical criteria or objective measurement techniques to determine when one period becomes “substantially” shorter than another and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of the following rejection, these limitations are being treated on merit.
Appropriate correction is 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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 - 12 are directed to a “system”. The claim do not positively recite any statutory machine or apparatus. Although, the claims refer to apparatuses, servers, electrical plugs, these components are only recited as elements of a set of apparatuses whose use is being controlled, and not as elements comprising the claimed system itself. Further, in light of the specification, the claimed system could be merely software per se which is non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggesting to amend the claim to recite -- a system, comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the hardware processor performs the operations, comprising:…controlling use by a user…-- to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 - 14 are rejected under 25 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea because the above claims are directed to a human activity. More specifically, the claim is directed to collecting behavioral information, analyzing the information to determine degree of digital lifestyle (score) and granting or restricting access to functions based on the score which fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Each of these steps is a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claimed limitations fall within the mental processes grouping, and the claims recite an abstract idea found by the courts to be an abstract idea (Bilski and Alice).
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than the judicial exception because the additional elements i.e., “apparatuses with having screen, a software module, and electric plug” are simply a generic recitation of a computer. The claim amounts to no more than performing a human activity by using a computer. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components in the claims perform purely generic computer functions. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the above claims are ineligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is the system claim of the abstract method claim 13.
Claims 2 – 8, and 11 - 12 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because all of the elements in those claims merely adds pre/post extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
Claims 9 – 10 include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the prior art of record, Mark (EP 2574090 A1) (hereinafter “Mark”).
Mark discloses;
Regarding claim 1, a system for controlling the use by a user of apparatuses of a set of apparatuses having a screen, the set comprising information processing apparatuses embedding a software module and apparatuses not apt to embed software modules and power-supplied by an electrical plug embedding a software module, and a server connected to said apparatuses by a telecommunication network, wherein [i.e., in reference to a wireless network system configured to control the operation of mobile device applications installed on a mobile device (mobile device 102 and/or wireless terminal 200, which by definition includes a screen as disclosed by the element 210 in figure 2); para [0008] – [0009]. The disclosed applications are connected to a server described by Mark as application manger 107, said application manger 107 being configured to assess, test, control and approve or disapprove the applications installed on the mobile device; para [0025] – [0027]]:
- said apparatuses are initially restricted, at the beginning of a first time period, to a first set of functions, by means of said software modules and include means for determining behavioral information of said user and for transmitting said behavioral information to said server [i.e., the term “restricted” is interpreted, by reading the description, in particular para [0057], as meaning that some mobile device functions are authorized, while others are not. Mark discloses that some applications may be considered approved by the server, while others are considered disapproved – for safety reasons or for additional or different reasons (see for example para [0034]). Moreover, some applications may be initially disapproved for an initial period of time, while others may be approved; para [0124]],
- said server is adapted for granting an additional function among a second set of functions of said apparatuses based on said behavioral information, and for transmitting, to the software module of a selected apparatus of said set of apparatuses, a message to enable said user to access said additional function [i.e., Mark discloses that the wireless mobile device can be instructed to allow activation of specific mobile device applications that were previously prohibited; see for example para [0087], [0095] and [0124]], said additional function being determined according to a degree of digital lifestyle of said user, the degree of digital lifestyle of said user representing an overall quantification of the user's use of the apparatuses with a screen of the set of apparatuses [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 2, the system according to claim 1, including pre-defining activities for said user according to said degree of digital lifestyle of said user, and wherein said behavioral information is dependent on said activities [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 3, the system according to claim 2, wherein said degree of digital lifestyle is established by aggregating measurements from said software modules, said measurements comprising first measurements about the behavior of the applications installed on said apparatuses, and second measurements about the behavior of said apparatuses [i.e., para [0057], as meaning that some mobile device functions are authorized, while others are not. Mark discloses that some applications may be considered approved by the server, while others are considered disapproved – for safety reasons or for additional or different reasons (see for example para [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, the system according to one of wherein said software modules are adapted for detecting a bypassing of the restriction by said user [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 5, the system according to claim 4, adapted for checking the relevance of content of said behavioral information [i.e., the term “restricted” is interpreted, by reading the description, in particular para [0057].
Regarding claim 6, the system according to claim, wherein said software modules are adapted for checking that same are continuously in operation [i.e., the disclosed applications are connected to a server described by Mark as application manger 107, said application manger 107 being configured to assess, test, control and approve or disapprove the applications installed on the mobile device; para [0025] – [0027]].
Regarding claim 7, the system according to one of wherein said additional function is limited to a second time period, substantially shorter than said first time period [i.e., Mark discloses that the wireless mobile device can be instructed to allow activation of specific mobile device applications that were previously prohibited; see for example para [0087], [0095] and [0124]].
Regarding claim 8, the system according to claim 1, wherein said behavioral information comprises one element among a spatial movement of said user measured by an apparatus, a physical activity measured by an apparatus, the use of communication tools measured by an apparatus, the visualization of educational content measured by an apparatus, the taking of a photo measured by an apparatus, the reproduction of educational information, the validation by a third party, the validation by an external apparatus [i.e., the term “restricted” is interpreted, by reading the description, in particular para [0057], as meaning that some mobile device functions are authorized, while others are not. Mark discloses that some applications may be considered approved by the server, while others are considered disapproved – for safety reasons or for additional or different reasons (see for example para [0034]). Moreover, some applications may be initially disapproved for an initial period of time, while others may be approved; para [0124]].
Regarding claim 9 the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one software module among said set is embedded in an electrical plug supplying power to an apparatus of said set of apparatuses [i.e., in reference to a wireless network system configured to control the operation of mobile device applications installed on a mobile device (mobile device 102 and/or wireless terminal 200, which by definition includes a screen as disclosed by the element 210 in figure 2); para [0008] – [0009]. The disclosed applications are connected to a server described by Mark as application manger 107, said application manger 107 being configured to assess, test, control and approve or disapprove the applications installed on the mobile device; para [0025] – [0027]].
Regarding claim 10, the system according to claim 9, wherein said software module embedded in said electrical plug is adapted for detecting a connection or a disconnection of said plug [i.e., the disclosed applications are connected to a server described by Mark as application manger 107, said application manger 107 being configured to assess, test, control and approve or disapprove the applications installed on the mobile device; para [0025] – [0027]].
Regarding claim 11, the system according to claim 1, wherein said selected apparatus or said additional function is determined by said user through a human-machine interface [i.e., para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 12, the system according to claim 1, wherein said additional function is determined based on a characterization of a type of behavior disorder of said user [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 13, a method for controlling the use by a user of a set of apparatuses having a screen, the set comprising information processing apparatuses embedding a software module and apparatuses not apt to embed software modules and power-supplied by an electrical plug embedding a software module, including:
- the arrangement of a set of software modules, each embedded in an apparatus of a set of apparatuses having a screen of said user, and of a server connected to said apparatuses by a telecommunication network [i.e., in reference to a wireless network system configured to control the operation of mobile device applications installed on a mobile device (mobile device 102 and/or wireless terminal 200, which by definition includes a screen as disclosed by the element 210 in figure 2); para [0008] – [0009]. The disclosed applications are connected to a server described by Mark as application manger 107, said application manger 107 being configured to assess, test, control and approve or disapprove the applications installed on the mobile device; para [0025] – [0027]],
- an initial restriction of said apparatuses, at the beginning of a first time period, to a first set of functions, by means of said software modules [i.e., the term “restricted” is interpreted, by reading the description, in particular para [0057], as meaning that some mobile device functions are authorized, while others are not. Mark discloses that some applications may be considered approved by the server, while others are considered disapproved – for safety reasons or for additional or different reasons (see for example para [0034]). Moreover, some applications may be initially disapproved for an initial period of time, while others may be approved; para [0124]], and
- said software modules determine behavioral information of said user and transmit said behavioral information to said server [i.e., para [0074], [0075] and [0122]];
- and the granting, by said server, of an additional function among a second set of functions of said apparatuses based on said behavioral information, and the transmission, to the software module of a selected apparatus of said set of apparatuses, of a message to enable said user to access said additional function [i.e., Mark discloses that the wireless mobile device can be instructed to allow activation of specific mobile device applications that were previously prohibited; see for example para [0087], [0095] and [0124]], said additional function being determined according to a degree of digital lifestyle of said user, the degree of digital lifestyle of said user representing an overall quantification of the user's use of the apparatuses with a screen of the set of apparatuses [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Regarding claim 14, the method according to claim 13, wherein the set of software modules communicate via the telecommunication network with a smart contract in which the initial restriction of said apparatuses and the degree of digital lifestyle of said user are defined, allowing each additional function to be unlocked, each software module unlocking an additional function automatically when the corresponding degree of digital lifestyle defined in the smart contract is reached by the user [i.e., the controlling of the operation of the applications installed on the mobile device on the basis of which a decision is taken to grant or not these applications para [0074], [0075] and [0122]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Severson (US 2010/0076274 A1) discloses a database storing information regarding a user's activity history for a plurality of different cognitive tasks; a computing device adapted to receive user behavior information indicating usage by a user of an interactive software program, the interactive software program associated with an at least one of the cognitive tasks, the computing device further adapted, in response to the receipt of user behavior information indicating usage by the user of the interactive software program, to update the database information regarding the user's activity history for the at least one of the cognitive tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432