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 amendment filed on 26 May 2026.
2. Claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 71 and 72 have been rejected.
4. Claims 51-57, 59-67, 69 and 70 have been allowed.
5. Claims 1-50, 58 and 68 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 71 and 72 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
7. The examiner approves of the amendment made to the title of the application. The examiner approves of the replacement abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 71 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant has added new claims 71 and 72 which include the limitations of “retrieving, from a data source associated with a user group corresponding to the first user, aggregate usage data indicating respective amounts of time associated with applications of the first application type and the second application type for the user group”, “determining a peer ratio based at least in part on the aggregate usage data”, “comparing the statistical analysis to the peer ratio” and “modifying the statistical analysis or a threshold associated with the criteria based at least in part on the comparison”. However, after a review of the applicant’s specification the examiner has not found support for the newly added claims. The specification at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The state of the art existing at the filing date of the application is used to determine whether a particular disclosure is enabling as of the filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The applicant has incorporated allowable subject matter of “…based at least in part on data received from multiple user devices” into independent claims 51 and 61. Since independent claims 51 and 61 contain allowable subject matter the claims have been allowed over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
10. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. McWilliams et al US 2016/0147550 A1 directed to monitoring of resource usage in a virtualized environment, including usage of a physical processor that executes a virtual machine or an application of the virtualized environment [abstract].
B. Vichare et al US 2012/0054333 A1 directed to usage data monitored at information handling systems that is collected and analyzed to provide a basis for component selection for information handling systems by associating components with end user usage profiles [abstract].
C. Grimes et al US 2014/0278895 A1 directed to a network-based security system and method for blocking and/or limiting access to a user’s electronic computing device (e.g. tablet) until the user answers one or more test questions correctly [abstract].
Conclusion
11. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights