DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. This is in response to the communications filed on 07 November 2024.
2. Claims 51-70 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 51-57 and 61-67 have been rejected.
4. Claims 58-60 and 68-70 have been objected to.
5. Claims 1-50 have been cancelled in a preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07 November 2024.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 51, 56, 57, 61, 66 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al U.S. Patent No. 9,912,664 B1 (hereinafter Lam) in view of Fujioka US 2014/0331314 A1.
As to claim 51, Lam discloses a method comprising:
retrieving a user profile associated with a first user (i.e. the application server obtains customer profile data from the services provider data services) [column 9, lines 6-25];
determining criteria for applications based at least in part on the user profile, wherein the criteria comprise a first application type and a second application type (i.e. once the profile has been determined the media content are filtered according to the filtering criteria predefined for the user, filtering the media content based on certain channels, websites, games) [column 6, lines 1-12];
detecting an application associated with the user profile (i.e. television app associated with a child) [column 6, lines 13-44];
comparing the application to the criteria to determine that the application matches the first application type or the second application type (i.e. based on viewing restrictions of the content type) [column 6, lines 13-44].
Lam does not teach tracking an amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active on a user device. Lam does not teach generating a statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time. Lam does not teach generating for display the statistical analysis.
Fujioka teaches tracking an amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active on a user device (i.e. time monitoring interface that tracks and reports the amount of active time that a user has spent accessing an application) [0067]. Fujioka teaches generating a statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time (i.e. dashboard shows apps used as well as time used for each app) [figure 28 and 0117]. Fujioka teaches generating for display the statistical analysis (i.e. display the supervisory user interface) [0117].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Lam so that an amount of time the first application type or the second application type was active on a user device would have been tracked. A statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time would have been generated. The statistical analysis would have been generated for display.
It 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 to have modified Lam by the teaching of Fujioka because it helps to monitoring control mechanism to provide or restrict access to the system or an application [0067].
As to claim 56, Lam teaches the method of claim 51, wherein the first application type or the second application type comprise at least one of: social media, applications, games (i.e. video games) [abstract], or multimedia (i.e. movies, television shows or music) [abstract].
As to claim 57, Lam does not teach generating a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active. Lam does not teach causing the dashboard to be displayed on the user device.
Fujioka teaches generating a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active (i.e. dashboard shows apps used as well as time used for each app) [figure 28 and 0117]. Fujioka teaches causing the dashboard to be displayed on the user device (i.e. display the supervisory user interface) [0117].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Lam so that a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type was active would have been generated. It would have caused the dashboard to be displayed on the user device.
It 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 to have modified Lam by the teaching of Fujioka because it helps to monitoring control mechanism to provide or restrict access to the system or an application [0067].
As to claim 61, Lam discloses a system comprising:
a memory [column 7, lines 8-27]; and
control circuitry configured to execute instructions to [column 7, lines 8-27]:
retrieve a user profile associated with a first user (i.e. the application server obtains customer profile data from the services provider data services) [column 9, lines 6-25];
determine criteria for applications based at least in part on the user profile, wherein the criteria comprise a first application type and a second application type (i.e. once the profile has been determined the media content are filtered according to the filtering criteria predefined for the user, filtering the media content based on certain channels, websites, games) [column 6, lines 1-12];
detect an application associated with the user profile (i.e. television app associated with a child) [column 6, lines 13-44];
compare the application to the criteria to determine that the application matches the first application type or the second application type (i.e. based on viewing restrictions of the content type) [column 6, lines 13-44].
Lam does not teach tracking an amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active on a user device. Lam does not teach generating a statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time. Lam does not teach generating for display the statistical analysis.
Fujioka teaches tracking an amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active on a user device (i.e. time monitoring interface that tracks and reports the amount of active time that a user has spent accessing an application) [0067]. Fujioka teaches generating a statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time (i.e. dashboard shows apps used as well as time used for each app) [figure 28 and 0117]. Fujioka teaches generating for display the statistical analysis (i.e. display the supervisory user interface) [0117].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Lam so that an amount of time the first application type or the second application type was active on a user device would have been tracked. A statistical analysis of active applications based at least in part on the tracked amount of time would have been generated. The statistical analysis would have been generated for display.
It 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 to have modified Lam by the teaching of Fujioka because it helps to monitoring control mechanism to provide or restrict access to the system or an application [0067].
As to claim 66, Lam teaches the system of claim 61, wherein the first application type or the second application type comprise at least one of: social media, applications, games (i.e. video games) [abstract], or multimedia (i.e. movies, television shows or music) [abstract].
As to claim 67, Lam does not teach generate a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active. Lam does not teach cause the dashboard to be displayed on the user device.
Fujioka teaches generating a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active (i.e. dashboard shows apps used as well as time used for each app) [figure 28 and 0117]. Fujioka teaches causing the dashboard to be displayed on the user device (i.e. display the supervisory user interface) [0117].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Lam so that a dashboard displaying statistics of the amount of time the first application type or the second application type was active would have been generated. It would have caused the dashboard to be displayed on the user device.
It 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 to have modified Lam by the teaching of Fujioka because it helps to monitoring control mechanism to provide or restrict access to the system or an application [0067].
8. Claim(s) 52, 53, 55, 62, 63 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al U.S. Patent No. 9,912,664 B1 (hereinafter Lam) and Fujioka US 2014/0331314 A1 as applied to claims 51 and 61 above, and further in view of Flemming et al US 2013/0054897 A1 (hereinafter Flemming).
As to claim 52, the Lam-Fujioka combination teaches determining an application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type (i.e. Fujioka teaches that time limits are set for app or category name) [figure 18 and 0107].
The Lam-Fujioka combination does not teach determining the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis.
Flemming teaches determining the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis (i.e. application usage exceeds the activity threshold value) [0023].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination so that it would have been determined the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type had been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination by the teaching of Flemming because it helps to control cache behavior and improve cache efficiency [0004].
As to claim 53, the Lam-Fujioka combination does not teach based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold has been exceeded, preventing execution of the application.
Flemming teaches based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold has been exceeded, preventing execution of the application (i.e. access is blocked, locked or aborted) [0023].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination so that based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold had been exceeded, preventing execution of the application.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination by the teaching of Flemming because it helps to control cache behavior and improve cache efficiency [0004].
As to claim 55, Fujioka teaches the method of claim 52, wherein the statistical analysis is determined based at least in part on factors such as the time of year or day of the week (i.e. total usage configured by a day, a week or a month) [0117 and figure 28].
As to claim 62, the Lam-Fujioka combination teaches determine an application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type (i.e. Fujioka teaches that time limits are set for app or category name) [figure 18 and 0107].
The Lam-Fujioka combination does not teach determine the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis.
Flemming teaches determining the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis (i.e. application usage exceeds the activity threshold value) [0023].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination so that it would have been determined the application type threshold for the first application type or the second application type had been exceeded based at least in part on the statistical analysis.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination by the teaching of Flemming because it helps to control cache behavior and improve cache efficiency [0004].
As to claim 63, the Lam-Fujioka combination does not teach based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold has been exceeded, prevent execution of the application.
Flemming teaches based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold has been exceeded, preventing execution of the application (i.e. access is blocked, locked or aborted) [0023].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination so that based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold had been exceeded, preventing execution of the application.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka combination by the teaching of Flemming because it helps to control cache behavior and improve cache efficiency [0004].
As to claim 65, Fujioka teaches the system of claim 62, wherein the statistical analysis is determined based at least in part on factors such as the time of year or day of the week (i.e. total usage configured by a day, a week or a month) [0117 and figure 28].
9. Claim(s) 54 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al U.S. Patent No. 9,912,664 B1 (hereinafter Lam), Fujioka US 2014/0331314 A1 and Flemming et al US 2013/0054897 A1 (hereinafter Flemming) as applied to claims 52 and 62 above, and further in view of Clark et al US 2014/0282573 A1 (hereinafter Clark).
As to claim 54, the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination does not teach based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold of the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded, alerting a second user.
Clark teaches based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold of the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded, alerting a second user (i.e. an alert to inform the administrative user based on maximum execution time for the application beyond a predetermined threshold) [0088].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination so that based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold of the first application type or the second application type had been exceeded, alerting a second user.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination by the teaching of Clark because it helps resolve deployment conflicts in heterogenous environments [0002].
As to claim 64, the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination does not teach the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded, alert a second user.
Clark teaches based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold of the first application type or the second application type has been exceeded, alerting a second user (i.e. an alert to inform the administrative user based on maximum execution time for the application beyond a predetermined threshold) [0088].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination so that based at least in part on determining that the application type threshold of the first application type or the second application type had been exceeded, alerting a second user.
It 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 to have modified the Lam-Fujioka-Flemming combination by the teaching of Clark because it helps resolve deployment conflicts in heterogenous environments [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 58-60 and 68-70 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.
As to claim 58, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 51, wherein tracking the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active is performed based at least in part on data received from multiple user devices.
As to claim 68, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the system of claim 61, wherein tracking the amount of time the first application type or the second application type is active is performed based at least in part on data received from multiple user devices.
Any claims not directly addressed are objected to on the virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Prior Art
11. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Tubi et al US 2016/0261472 A1 directed to techniques to identify application foreground/background state based on network traffic [abstract].
B. Hassan et al US 2025/0190564 A1 directed to detecting anomalous software behavior by monitoring frequency spectrums emanating from an electronic device [abstract].
C. Johnson et al US 2022/0058215 A1 directed to personalizing censorship of digital content [abstract].
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407