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
Claims 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting Rejections have been withdrawn in view of the approved Terminal Disclaimer.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to claims that while Jenzeh may show a system that provides notifications to an account holder, Jenzeh does not show or describe "restricting...at least one device...from accessing the communication network," (as conceded by the Office Action on pgs. 8 and 9), much less sending a notification in response to restricting the at least one device. The applicant further contends, Jenzeh is silent with regard to "receiving an instruction from [an] administrator device" to allow continued access to the network and Taraki does not cure these deficiencies of Jenzeh.
The examiner disagrees and does acknowledge the examiner indicated these amendments appeared to overcome the previously applied rejections in the Interview dated 6/25/2026. However, after further review of the claim language and arguments the amended claims are still unpatentable over Jenzeh in view of Taraki. The examiner apologizes for this overcite but does stress the examiner did only indicate those amendments “appear to overcome” the previous rejection.
Specifically, the applicant has misrepresented the examiner’s rejection in stating, “Jenzeh does not show or describe ‘restricting...at least one device...from accessing the communication network,’ (as conceded by the Office Action on pgs. 8 and 9).” Jenzeh does clearly discloses restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network in [0073] among other paragraphs and perhaps more concisely in [0021] (emphasis added), “For example, the list of limitations, actions or restrictions may include TV viewing locks, On-Demand viewing locks, time of day/week content or device restrictions, content filtering by age, group and/or category, data/Internet connectivity restrictions or locks, text restrictions or locks, and call restrictions or locks. Other types of limitations, actions or restrictions, not described here, may be selected by account holder 100 for application to children 110-1 through 110-n and/or devices 120-1 through 120-n.” Rather, Jenzeh does not disclose (emphasis added by examiner) restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network based on the consolidated time usage reaching the total time limit.
Taraki fills in that gap by disclosing restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network based on the consolidated time usage reaching the total time limit (Fig. 7 and column 14, lines 14-44; particularly, “At 710, the content access control server 120 determines a total content access time 208, cost 210, or other metric associated with the user 102(3), based at least in part on the first content access data 110(1) and the second content access data 110(2). For example, the content access control server 120 may determine the time used 306 for the user 102(3) as 45 minutes. In another example, the content access control server 120 may determine the cost 308 is $3.50. At 712, based on reaching or exceeding one or more of the content access limits 128 associated with the user 102(3), the content access control server 120 sets the content access status 130 associated with the user 102(3) to “disallowed.” Once disallowed, access to the content 106 may be disallowed, discontinued, degraded, and so forth, as described above.”).
Further still, Jenzeh discloses in response to restricting the at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network, sending, to an administrator device, a notification that the at least one device is restricted from accessing the communication network ([0073], particularly, “Upon selection of the specific child, account holder 100 may select “settings” 1905 from a menu, and may further select “notifications” from a sub-menu. Upon selection of “notifications,” various different types of notification conditions 1915, 1920 and 1925, including corresponding details of the notification conditions, may be displayed in UI 1900. For example, UI 1900 may display location conditions 1915 related to a current location of the child's device, parental control conditions 1920 that include conditions associated with restrictions on the child's usage of a device(s), and usage control conditions 1925 that include conditions related to the amount of the child's usage of a device(s).”) That is, Jenzeh discloses notifications can be sent in response to “parental control conditions 1920 that include conditions associated with restrictions on the child's usage of a device(s).”) Clearly “restrictions” read on “restricting the at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network” in the context of Jenzeh’s disclosure, see at least [0021]-[0022], particularly, “The limitations, actions and restrictions may include specific limitations, actions or restrictions to apply to specified children or devices based on monitored network activity of those children or devices. For example, the list of limitations, actions or restrictions may include TV viewing locks, On-Demand viewing locks, time of day/week content or device restrictions, content filtering by age, group and/or category, data/Internet connectivity restrictions or locks, text restrictions or locks, and call restrictions or locks…The notification conditions that trigger notifications may include activity during certain hours, new network devices being added or detected, and/or attempts to access blocked or flagged content. The notification conditions may additionally include specified thresholds associated with network activity selected for monitoring, such as exceeding a certain time limit during child phone usage, exceeding a time limit web browsing or playing computer games, etc.”
Lastly, the only remaining point with respect to the amended claims is the limitation, “receiving an instruction from the administrator device to allow the at least one device to continue accessing the communication network.” The examiner stresses the breadth of this limitation. The claim only requires at some point an instruction from the administrator device to allow the at least one device to continue accessing the communication network. That instruction has no direct dependency in any other steps, only that it is “to continue accessing the communication network.” Therefore, Jenzeh discloses receiving an instruction from the administrator device to allow the at least one device to continue accessing the communication network ([0073] with [0068]-[0069] further elaborating on specific restrictions that would require instructions in a pattern of allowing/disallowing/continue allowing and so on).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenzeh et al. (US 2016/0344873 A1; cited on IDS) in view of Taraki et al. (US 9,213,845; cited on IDS).
As to claim 1, Jenzeh discloses a method comprising:
monitoring, by an access device, data usage, time usage, and at least one category of content for two or more user devices of a user profile, wherein the access device provides access to a communication network for the two or more user devices ([0020]-[0024], particularly, “The customized selection of parameters may include a customized selection of activities to monitor 135 by child 110 of family 105 and/or by child's device 120. A comprehensive list of activities may be provided to account holder 100 for selection, per network, per child and/or per device. Account holder 100 may select the specific ones from the list of activities that account holder 100 desires to have monitored and analyzed. The activities that account holder 100 chooses from may include time/date usage by device and/or associated child per day, where the usage may include data or time usage totals or summaries per day. The activities may further include billable data usage (e.g., in a cellular network), billable time usage (e.g., in a cellular network), sites visited, applications accessed, content or television programming accessed, and/or attempts to access blocked or flagged sites/content…CFIA platform 150 may, based on the stored customized parameters, monitor and analyze network activity 155 of members of family 105, where the monitoring is performed per child 110 (i.e., over all devices used by that child) or per specific device of each child 110.”);
determining, by the access device, that at least one of the two or more user devices accessed the at least one category of content ([0066], particularly, “FIGS. 14A and 14B depict an exemplary mobile UI 1400 that permits account holder 100 to select a specific child 1405, one or more selected devices 1410 used by the child, one or more of multiple content filtering categories 1415 to be applied to content/sites/TV programs viewed, accessed or visited by the specific child 1405 via selected devices 1410, one or more app purchasing/downloading restrictions 1420 to be applied to the specific child 1405 while using devices 1410, and one or more time period restrictions 1425 to be applied to the specific child 1405 while using devices 1410.”),
restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network ([0073] and further, [0021] (emphasis added), “For example, the list of limitations, actions or restrictions may include TV viewing locks, On-Demand viewing locks, time of day/week content or device restrictions, content filtering by age, group and/or category, data/Internet connectivity restrictions or locks, text restrictions or locks, and call restrictions or locks. Other types of limitations, actions or restrictions, not described here, may be selected by account holder 100 for application to children 110-1 through 110-n and/or devices 120-1 through 120-n.”);
in response to restricting the at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network, sending, to an administrator device, a notification that the at least one device is restricted from accessing the communication network ([0073] and [0021]-[0022], particularly, “The limitations, actions and restrictions may include specific limitations, actions or restrictions to apply to specified children or devices based on monitored network activity of those children or devices. For example, the list of limitations, actions or restrictions may include TV viewing locks, On-Demand viewing locks, time of day/week content or device restrictions, content filtering by age, group and/or category, data/Internet connectivity restrictions or locks, text restrictions or locks, and call restrictions or locks…The notification conditions that trigger notifications may include activity during certain hours, new network devices being added or detected, and/or attempts to access blocked or flagged content. The notification conditions may additionally include specified thresholds associated with network activity selected for monitoring, such as exceeding a certain time limit during child phone usage, exceeding a time limit web browsing or playing computer games, etc.”); and
receiving an instruction from the administrator device to allow the at least one device to continue accessing the communication network ([0073] with [0068]-[0069] further elaborating on specific restrictions that would require instructions in a pattern of allowing/disallowing/ continue allowing and so on).
However, Jenzeh does not explicitly disclose determining, by the access device, a consolidated time usage for the two or more user devices reached a total time limit, wherein the consolidated time usage is a combination of time of the two or more user devices for the at least one category of content; and
restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network based on the consolidated time usage reaching the total time limit;
and receiving an instruction from the administrator device to allow the at least one device to continue accessing the communication network.
But, Taraki discloses determining, by the access device, a consolidated time usage for the two or more user devices reached a total time limit, wherein the consolidated time usage is a combination of time of the two or more user devices for at least one category of content (Fig. 7 and column 14, lines 14-44; particularly, “At 710, the content access control server 120 determines a total content access time 208, cost 210, or other metric associated with the user 102(3), based at least in part on the first content access data 110(1) and the second content access data 110(2). For example, the content access control server 120 may determine the time used 306 for the user 102(3) as 45 minutes. In another example, the content access control server 120 may determine the cost 308 is $3.50. At 712, based on reaching or exceeding one or more of the content access limits 128 associated with the user 102(3), the content access control server 120 sets the content access status 130 associated with the user 102(3) to “disallowed.” Once disallowed, access to the content 106 may be disallowed, discontinued, degraded, and so forth, as described above.”); and
restricting, by the access device, at least one device of the two or more user devices from accessing the communication network based on the consolidated time usage reaching the total time limit (Fig. 7 and column 14, lines 14-44; particularly, “At 710, the content access control server 120 determines a total content access time 208, cost 210, or other metric associated with the user 102(3), based at least in part on the first content access data 110(1) and the second content access data 110(2). For example, the content access control server 120 may determine the time used 306 for the user 102(3) as 45 minutes. In another example, the content access control server 120 may determine the cost 308 is $3.50. At 712, based on reaching or exceeding one or more of the content access limits 128 associated with the user 102(3), the content access control server 120 sets the content access status 130 associated with the user 102(3) to “disallowed.” Once disallowed, access to the content 106 may be disallowed, discontinued, degraded, and so forth, as described above.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki so that that it could monitor the total time a child spent on accessing certain content category across a plurality of devices and preventing the network usage of the child device when the total time limit is exceeded. One would be motivated to do so to implement access controls associated with a specific user, regardless of what media device the user accesses the content with (Taraki, column 2, lines 6-16).
As to claims 8 and 15, they are rejected by a similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claim 2, 9, and 16, the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose assigning the two or more user devices to the user profile, wherein the user profile is representative of a user; selecting a first category of content to which a first user device of the two or more user devices has permission to access, wherein the first category of content is assigned to a first content usage parameter; and designating a plurality of access parameters for the user profile, wherein the plurality of access parameters includes the data usage, the time usage, and the at least one category of content (Jenzeh, [0066]-[0068] and Taraki, column 14, lines 14-44).
As to claim 4, 11, and 18, the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose designating two or more access parameters for the user profile; and determining that two or more of the data usage, the time usage, or content usage violate the two or more access parameters (Jenzeh, [0020]-[0024] and Taraki, column 14, lines 14-44).
As to claim 5, 12, and 19, the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose consolidating the data usage and the time usage of the two or more user devices, wherein consolidating the data usage comprises summing a total data used by the two or more user devices (Jenzeh, [0020]-[0024] and Taraki, column 14, lines 14-44).
As to claim 6, 13, and 20, the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose receiving a selection in a user interface of a designation of a first access parameter to a first user device of the two or more user devices and a second access parameter to a second user device of the two or more user devices, wherein the second access parameter is different from the first access parameter (Jenzeh, [0020]-[0024] and Taraki, column 14, lines 14-44).
As to claim 7 and 14, the teachings of Jenzeh and Taraki as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose monitoring a content usage of the two or more user devices to identify whether content being accessed falls within the at least one category of content to which the two or more user devices have permission to access (Jenzeh, [0020]-[0024] and Taraki, column 14, lines 14-44).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights