Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application with case number 18/999,870, filed on 12/23/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 12 are in independent form.
Specification
The examiner notes that the Specification does not include any URL links and Trademark terms requiring capitalization.
The examiner notes that the abstract is in narrative form and is limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The examiner also notes that Abstract includes no legal phraseology.
The examiner notes no claims invokes 35 USC § 112 6th paragraph.
IDS
References cited in the IDS filed on 12/23/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,210,639.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of each application or patent listed above and because both applications disclose method, and system for managing access to media assets based on a projected location of a user.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 of US Patent No. 12,210,639 are similar to the limitations of claims 1 of instant application as follows:
Instant Application Claim 1
US Patent 12,210,639 Claims 1, 8, 10
Claim 1. A method comprising: determining that criteria is met to set an access restriction associated with media content;
based at least in part on the determining, causing the access restriction to be set;
providing for display a notification in relation to the access restriction set for the media content;
providing for display an option to override the access restriction for a time period; and
based at least in part on receiving an indication of a user selection of the option, causing the access restriction to be overridden during the time period.
Claim 1. A method for modifying access to media content, the method comprising: identifying a particular access restriction associated with the media content; determining that a first time period has ended, wherein the first time period is associated with the particular access restriction for the media content; in response to determining that the first time period has ended: retrieving, from a database, a location where a user is expected to be present during a second time period; and determining, based on comparing a current location of the user to the location where the user is expected to be present during the second time period, whether the user is in the location where the user is expected to be present during the second time period; and
in response to determining that the user is not in the location where the user is expected to be present during the second time period, maintaining the particular access restriction for the media content.
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: providing the notification to a computing device of the parent user indicating that the particular access restriction for the media content will be maintained for at least the portion of the second time period.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing an option to the user to override the maintaining of the particular access restriction; and
in response to the user selecting the option, replacing the particular access restriction with a different access restriction.
Claim 12 is rejected similarly to claim 1 as claim limitations of claim 12 of instant application are similar to those of claim 1 above.
Limitations of claims 2 and 13 of instant application are similar to those of claim 9 of US Patent 12,210,639.
Limitations of claims 3 and 14 of instant application are included in the limitations of claim 1 of US Patent 12,210,639 (e.g., “the user is not in the location where the user is expected to be present during the second time period”).
Limitations of claims 4 and 15 of instant application are included in the limitations of claims 18 and 20 of US Patent 12,210,639.
Limitations of claims 5 and 16 of instant application are included in the limitations of claims 1 and 10 of US Patent 12,210,639 (e.g., second time period for which user overrides access restrictions).
Limitations of claims 6 and 17 of instant application are included in the limitations of claims 1 and 10 of US Patent 12,210,639 (e.g., second time period for which user overrides access restrictions to make the media content accessible.).
Limitations of claims 7 and 18 of instant application are included in the limitations of claim 9 of US Patent 12,210,639.
Limitations of claims 8 and 19 of instant application are included in the limitations of claim 1 of US Patent 12,210,639.
Limitations of claims 9-11 and 20 of instant application are included in the limitations of claims 4 and 5 of US Patent 12,210,639.
Relevant Prior Arts
Imanish (US 2008/0320558 A1) in general teaches obtaining location information of the user from location server and determining and applying content access rules based on the obtained location information.
Mountain (US 2016/0029085 A1) discloses determining location information from textual communication information.
Steiner et al. (US 9,262,596 B1) teaches determining whether first time is within a time frame that is based on second time, where the time frame is indicative of an electronic device being present at or around a geographic location at the second time at-which a media content is captured. The media content is provided to the electronic device based on the first time that is determined to be within the time frame and whether a user identifier that is associated with a request is a member of a user defined or generated social networking group through a network interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sprigg et al. (US 2013/0040629 A1) hereinafter Sprigg.
As to claim 1, a method comprising:
determining that criteria is met to set an access restriction associated with media content (see para. [0021] “These parents may also desire to extend such restrictions to other media access devices (e.g., televisions, gaming systems, audio and video players, etc) so that their children have consistent access and usage restrictions across all of their media access platforms.”; );
based at least in part on the determining, causing the access restriction to be set (see para. [0069]-[0070] upon parent set restriction conditions are met the restriction are activated, prohibiting access to the media);
providing for display a notification in relation to the access restriction set for the media content (see para. [0070] “If one or more of the context-conditions are present (i.e., determination step 910=”Yes”), in step 914 the processor may send a message (e.g., SMS, email, etc) notifying the parent … of the initiation of actions/uses requiring intermediate authorization.”);
providing for display an option to override the access restriction for a time period (see para. [0070] “In the message sent step 916, the processor (or the parental control settings server) may request authorization for the use/action. The authority may respond to such a message with an approval or disapproval reply message that is delivered.”; see also para. [0079], [0085] and [0090] for time-based access restriction to content by a child based on a parental control settings); and
based at least in part on receiving an indication of a user selection of the option, causing the access restriction to be overridden during the time period (see para. [0070] “If the processor receives a reply message indicating that the authority authorizes the action/use within the allocated time (i.e., determination step 918=”No”), the processor denies that action/use in step 920. If the processor receives a reply message indicating that the authority authorizes the action/use within the allocated time (i.e., determination step 918=”Yes”), the processor may allow the action/user in step 922.”).
As to claim 12, claim 12 includes similar limitations as claim 1 and thus claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claims 2 and 13, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein setting the access 15 restriction causes access to the media content to be blocked (see para. [0046] “ In this manner, blocked functions or content may not be presented to the user through the user interface 406 or used by one or more applications 408 on the device based on the parental control profiles.”).
As to claims 3 and 14, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the notification comprises an indication of the criteria that was met to cause the access restriction to be set (see para. [0070] “…the processor may send a message to the parental control settings server indicating that it should send such a message to informing the authority of the action”).
As to claims 4 and 15, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the media content for which the access restriction is set is accessible via a device when the access restriction is not set, wherein the notification is displayed on the device, and wherein the indication of the user selection of the option is received from the device (see para. [0070]).
As to claims 5 and 16, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the time comprises a duration indicated in the user selection from among a plurality of time periods (see Fig. 7, step 706 “Restricted Time?”).
As to claims 6 and 17, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the media content for which the access restriction is set is accessible via a first device when the access restriction is not set; wherein the notification is generated for display on a second device, and wherein the indication of the user selection of the option is received from the second device (see para. [0070]).
As to claims 7 and 18, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the access restriction blocks or otherwise restricts access to the media content based on a comparison of one or more characteristics of the media content to the access restriction, and wherein the one or more characteristics of the media content comprise at least one of: media content ratings for the media content, categories of the media content or age ratings associated with the media content (see para. [0075] “In various embodiments, the cell phone process implementing parental controls may limit content available on a controlled phone by: requiring parental authentication to grant access to web sites; enforce web site ratings; filtering content based on ratings (MPAA, etc.); and/or filtering advertisements based on categorization and rating.”).
As to claims 8 and 19, in view of claims 1 and 12, respectively, Sprigg teaches wherein the determining that the criteria has been met comprises determining that a first time period, during which access to the media content is permitted, has ended
(see para. [0064] “…the restricted condition has expired. In determination step 714, the processor may periodically check whether the restriction conditions no longer apply, such as the restricted time has expired or the phone has moved to an unrestricted location. In an embodiment, this is determined by the processor comparing the current time and location to the pre-established restriction criteria similar to determination steps 704 and 706. If the restriction conditions are no longer met (i.e., determination step 714="Yes"), in step 716 the parental control settings server may transfer the incoming message from the Deferred In-Box to the message system (e.g., SMS, MMS, email, etc.) inbox memory storage (step 708) and flush the "Deferred In-Box" by deleting the incoming message. In step 708, processor may add the extracted message to the In-Box and notify the user of the message's availability.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon – Fri, 7:30 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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.
/HEE K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights