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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 21-31) in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 32-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Species 2-3), there being no allowance generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/27/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12212576. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of patent application contain every element of claims above instant application or vice versa, and as such they anticipate or anticipated by Instant Application. As to Claims 1, 10, 19, of the Pat. *576 anticipates the claims of the instant application. By way of illustration, consider the respective claim 1 from each disclosure:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘576 Patent
21. A system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, perform operations comprising: identifying, by a first device, an application running on a second device; determining, by the first device, platform-agnostic constraint information for the application, the platform-agnostic constraint information specifying a constraint on an activity that a user is permitted to perform across plural versions of the application, wherein the plural versions of the application are each assigned identifiers that are correlated to the application in a lookup data store; and constraining, by first device, use of the application on the second device based on the platform-agnostic constraint information and usage information for the plural versions of the application across different second devices associated with the user, the usage information comprising a total number of communications the user has at least one of sent or received in a time period using the plural versions of the application across the different second devices.
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the first device is operated by a supervisor of the user.
24. The system of claim 23, wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is defined by the supervisor.
25. The system of claim 24, wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is defined by the supervisor via a user interface comprising: a list of applications used across different second devices associated with the user.
1. A method, comprising: identifying, by one or more computing devices, an application running on a first supervisee computing device; determining, by the one or more computing devices, platform-agnostic constraint information for the application, the platform-agnostic constraint information specifying a constraint on an activity that a supervisee is permitted to perform across plural versions of the application, wherein the plural versions of the application are each assigned identifiers that are correlated to the application in a lookup data store accessible to the first supervisee computing device; and constraining, by the one or more computing devices, use of the application on the first supervisee computing device based on the platform-agnostic constraint information and usage information for the plural versions of the application across different supervisee computing devices, the usage information comprising a total amount of time that the supervisee has spent interacting with the plural versions of the application across the different supervisee computing devices.
Independent claim 21 of the instant application are substantially similar to independent claims 1, 10, 19, of the Pat. *576 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra. Likewise, dependent claims 22-31 of the instant application are substantially similar to dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 (respectively) of the Pat. *576 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra.
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 21-24, 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al (Pub. No. US 2007/0289028) in view of Gathala et (Pub. No. US 2017/0286674) and in further view of Carriero et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0229438).
As per claim 21, Vaughan discloses a system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, perform operations comprising: identifying, by a first device, an application running on a second device (The user entitlement summary (first device) comprises: a products column 152, a version column 154, a quantity allocated column 156, a quantity consumed column 158, an allocation level column 160, a details link 162, and a download link 164. The download link 164 allows the user to download or install the product to the computer (second device) and may only appear if the product is not already installed on the computer. The user is able to access a user entitlement detail page, such as the user entitlement detail 200 shown in FIG. 4, par. 53-54); determining, by the first device, platform-agnostic constraint information for the application (The user entitlement summary 150 comprises: a products column 152, a version column 154, a quantity allocated column 156, a quantity consumed column 158, an allocation level column 160, a details link 162, and a download link 164, When the distribution limit is greater than 0, file access will be tracked for each user that has consumed the entitlement, par. 53-55), the platform-agnostic constraint information specifying a constraint on an activity that a user is permitted to perform across plural versions of the application (If a user is entitled to multiple versions of the same product, then the different versions are represented by different rows in the user entitlement summary, the quantity consumed by the specific user column lists the quantity of entitlements that the specific user (e.g. the person viewing the user entitlement detail) has consumed for the product, the version allocation column shows the version limits of the user's allocation, par. 53-55). Vaughan does not explicitly disclose wherein the plural versions of the application are each assigned identifiers that are correlated to the application in a lookup data store. However Gathala discloses wherein the plural versions of the application are each assigned identifiers that are correlated to the application in a lookup data store (Some embodiments may include assigning a system service version identifier to each of the first plurality of versions of the system service. The system service version identifier of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service may be different. Various embodiments may further include correlating the system service version identifier of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service to a system service identifier of the system service, and storing the correlations of the system service version identifier of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service and the system service identifier. Various embodiments may further include correlating the system service version identifier of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service with a corresponding one of the random virtual address space layout of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service. Various embodiments may further include storing the correlations of the system service version identifier of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service with a corresponding one of the random virtual address space layouts of each of the first plurality of versions of the system service, par. 5). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Gathala in Vaughan for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve techniques exploit format string vulnerabilities to gain certain information (e.g., return addresses and thereby some library function locations). Information leakage of a vulnerable process can compromise another process, particularly processes using dynamic shred libraries. Attacks can combine techniques to more effectively discover exploitable vulnerabilities of the address space used by one or more processes par. 1. The combination of Vaughan and Gathala does not explicitly disclose constraining, by first device, use of the application on the second device based on the platform-agnostic constraint information and usage information for the plural versions of the application across different second devices associated with the user, the usage information comprising a total number of communications the user has at least one of sent or received in a time period using the plural versions of the application across the different second devices. However Carriero discloses constraining, by first device, use of the application on the second device based on the platform-agnostic constraint information and usage information for the plural versions of the application across different second devices associated with the user (Content management system can be configured to support automatic synchronization of content from one or more client devices. The synchronization can be platform agnostic. That is, the content can be synchronized across multiple client devices of varying type, capabilities, operating systems, etc. For example, client device 102.sub.i can include client software, which synchronizes, via a synchronization module at content management system, content in client device 102.sub.i's file system with the content in an associated user account. In some cases, the client software can synchronize any changes to content in a designated folder and its sub-folders, such as new, deleted, modified, copied, or moved files or folders. The client software can be a separate software application, can integrate with an existing content management application in the operating system, or some combination thereof. Changes or updates to content in the content storage made through the web interface, such as uploading a new version of a file, can be propagated back to other client devices associated with the user's account. For example, multiple client devices, each with their own client software, can be associated with a single account and files in the account can be synchronized between each of the multiple client devices, par. 40-41), the usage information comprising a total number of communications the user has at least one of sent or received in a time period using the plural versions of the application across the different second devices (Content management system can include a communications interface for interfacing with various client devices, and can interact with other content and/or service providers 109.sub.1, 109.sub.2, . . . , 109.sub.n via an Application Programming Interface (API). Certain software applications can access content storage via an API on behalf of a user. For example, a software package, such as an app on a smartphone or tablet computing device, can programmatically make calls directly to content management system, when a user provides credentials, to read, write, create, delete, share, or otherwise manipulate content. Similarly, the API can allow users to access all or part of content storage through a web site. Content management system can also include authenticator module, which can verify user credentials, security tokens, API calls, specific client devices, and so forth, to ensure only authorized clients and users can access files. Further, content management system can include analytics module that can track and report on aggregate file operations, user actions, network usage, total storage space used, as well as other technology, usage, or business metrics. A privacy and/or security policy can prevent unauthorized access to user data stored with content management system, 42-43, app data can be generated periodically and then transmitted to Network Service. In some embodiments, app data can be generated and transmitted to Network Service at a specified time(s), par. 67-70). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Carriero in the combination of Vaughan and Gathala for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve the overall user experience associated with using apps on computing devices, par. 3.
As per claim 22, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein identifying the application running on the second device comprises: identifying a first version of the application, wherein the first version is included in the plural versions of the application; and identifying the user has access to the first version via the second device (Carriero: par. 69-70). The combination for claim 22 is the same combination as in claim 21 above.
As per claim 23, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the first device is operated by a supervisor of the user (Vaughan: par. 48, 51).
As per claim 24, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is defined by the supervisor (Vaughan: par. 48, 51).
As per claim 27, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the lookup data store specifies a group of version-specific identifiers associated with the plural versions of the application that run on different application execution platforms (Gathala: par. 11). The motivation for claim 21 is the same motivation as in claim 21 above.
As per claim 28, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is provided to the second device in response to at least one of: the user downloading the application to the second device; or the user initiating the application (Vaughan: par. 53-54).
As per claim 29, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the activity corresponds to transmitting communications to at least one other user (Carriero: par. 42-43). The motivation for claim 29 is the same motivation as in claim 21 above.
As per claim 30, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein the activity corresponds to any further use of the application (Carriero: par. 71-73). The motivation for claim 30 is the same motivation as in claim 21 above.
As per claim 31, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala and Carriero discloses wherein at least two of the different second devices are configured with different application execution platforms (Carriero: par. 55). The motivation for claim 31 is the same motivation as in claim 21 above.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al (Pub. No. US 2007/0289028) in views of Gathala et (Pub. No. US 2017/0286674) and Carriero et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0229438) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Ansari et al (Pub. No. US 2010/0217837).
As per claim 25, the combination of Vaughn, Gathala and Carriero does not explicitly disclose wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is defined by the supervisor via a user interface comprising: a list of applications used across different second devices associated with the user. However Ansari discloses wherein the platform-agnostic constraint information is defined by the supervisor via a user interface comprising: a list of applications used across different second devices associated with the user (The parental control functionality in one embodiment may allow parents to track what their children are doing on their PC's or what content children are watching, for example, on a media device such as the TV or PCs, and provide an easy way for parents to grant permissions for children to watch a show on a remote TV or watch pay per view content. Furthermore, the parental control functionality in one embodiment may allow parents to monitor and control access to media devices such as a telephone providing voice services associated with the gateway appliance, par. 265). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Ansari in the combination of Vaughn, Gathala and Carriero for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve managing home networks and interconnected digital devices, par. 2.
As per claim 26, the combination of Vaughan, Gathala, Carriero and Ansari discloses wherein the supervisor is a parent of the user (Ansari: par. 265). The motivation for claim 26 is the same motivation as in claim 25 above.
Conclusion
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to defining and applying constraints that regulate a supervisee’s use of applications.
Day, II (Pub. No. US 2017/0149795); “Management and Control of Mobile Computing device Using Local and Remote Software Agents”;
-Teaches the safety system can track location data received from the user system of the child over time and identify patterns…for example, the safety system can automatically send an alert when the location the child’s user system has deviated from the norm…location information can also be integrated with other functionality of the system…for example, certain applications may be allowed in some locations, and not in others…thus, a full curfew-based lock-down of the phone may not occur while Billy is attending his piano lesson at (Miss Jones' house at the corner of first and elm, for example), but certain restrictions may apply, disabling all installed gaming applications but not the phone, camera, and recording functions, for example…see par. 213, 215… parents can disable…some of the features of the safety system on their child’s user system and enable curfew mode in real time (interpreted as usage information)…see par. 167-168, 220-222
Samji et al (Pub. No. US 2007/0016630); “Account Synchronization for Common Identity in an Unmanaged Network”;
-Teaches a parent can create parental control restrictions that limit how a child can use the computers…see par. 119.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
