DETAILED ACTION
Office Action Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 .
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 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.
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)(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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Horton.
As per claims 1, 14 and 18, Horton teaches … comprising: requesting permissions to extend the operating system's application blocking capabilities; (e.g., a business application is locked when not in proximity to the proximity security token while the notepad application remains unlocked (Para. 49); wherein the security application restricts and allows access to applications (Para. 37))
creating a policy that determines which applications will be blocked and a schedule during which the applications will be blocked; (e.g., If the proximity security token is not required, then the application is available for use by the user and, if the proximity security token is required for the application, then the application remains inaccessible until the device logic determines whether the proximity security token is present (Fig. 6, el. S652, S654; Para. 48); the business application is locked when not in proximity to the proximity security token while the notepad application remains unlocked (Para. 49))
registering an extension that the operating system calls when a blocked application is launched by the user; (e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Para. 35))
when the operating system detects that a blocked application is being opened, receiving a call to the registered extension to block the application from running; (e.g., unlocking the device when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 3; Para. 42); unlocking an application when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 6; Para. 48))
detecting the presence of a key device that allows unblocking blocked applications; (e.g., unlocking the device when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 3; Para. 42); unlocking an application when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 6; Para. 48))
unblocking the previously blocked applications so that the user can run the blocked applications, (e.g., unlocking the device when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 3; Para. 42); unlocking an application when the token is within the proximity of the device (Fig. 6; Para. 48))
wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor. (e.g., CPU 111 (Fig. 1B, el. 111))
As per claim 5, Horton teaches … wherein creating the policy comprises defining an NFC key device must be present to unblock applications. (e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Horton-Para. 35); the proximity security token communicates via Bluetooth or NFC with the device (Horton-Para. 40))
As per claims 12, 17 and 20, Horton teaches … wherein detecting the presence of the key device comprises detecting that the user brought an NFC key device near to the digital device so that the digital device's NFC hardware can detect the NFC key device, and in response to detecting that the user brought the NFC key device near to the digital device, the blocking application unblocks one or more relevant schedules by accessing the ManagedSettingsStore through a relevant store name to find a relevant store, and once the relevant store is accessed, the blocking application calls clearAllSettings on the relevant store to empty the relevant store to stop the operating system from blocking the applications and websites in the relevant store. (e.g., exchanging signals between the security application and the token, wherein the signals include the unique identifier of the token, wherein the unique identifier is present to ensure that only the authorized token registers with the device (Horton-Para. 35); the proximity security token communicates via Bluetooth or NFC with the device (Horton-Para. 40))
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Horton in view Buchanan et al. (US 2009/0089565 A1) hereinafter referred to as Buchanan.
As per claim 2, Horton does not teach wherein requesting permissions comprises calling a requestAuthorization method through an AuthorizationCenter object, wherein a shared AuthorizationCenter instance allows a blocking application to provide parental controls or blocking applications/websites for individuals, which allow blocking which other applications, websites, and content can be accessed.
However, Buchanan discloses proximity rules, wherein a child device rule has a requirement that the child device is within range of the parent cell phone in order to not operate with limited functionality (Para. 19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Buchanan as it increases children safety.
As per claim 3, Horton does not teach … wherein creating the policy comprises accessing a FamilyActivityPicker object that allows selecting tokens for applications, websites, and categories that a blocking application wants to block.
However, Buchanan discloses proximity rules, wherein a child device rule has a requirement that the child device is within range of the parent cell phone in order to not operate with limited functionality (Para. 19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Buchanan as it increases children safety.
Claims 4, 8, 10, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Horton in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0056974 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kim.
As per claims 4 and 15, Horton does not teach … wherein creating the policy comprises storing a name for the policy, time schedule during which the policy blocks, and what barrier is used with the policy.
Kim discloses activating multitasking restriction mode when the application is requested for execution (Fig. 21, el. 2145; Para. 206) and deactivating multitasking restriction mode when the predefined time has expired or the application has been terminated (Fig. 21, el. 2155; Para. 207), wherein the multitasking restriction mode may be provided as a sub-function of the concentration improvement mode or a separate function (Para. 181)
Kim further discloses deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired and releasing the restriction of the applications (Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170);
Examiner note: The concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions, as disclosed by Kim, and the concentration improvement mode may have a longer expiration time than the multitasking restriction mode. Therefore, the concentration improvement mode would still be in effect once the multitasking restriction mode is deactivated.
Combining the cited prior art brings about a system that includes defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters. Therefore, the aforementioned limitation is taught by the combination of the cited prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton to include defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters, using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, using the same motivation as in claim 1.
As per claim 8, Horton does not teach … wherein registering the extension comprises the operating system handles the background process of detecting whether applications or websites should be blocked based on the defined policy.
However Kim teaches (e.g., activating multitasking restriction mode when the application is requested for execution (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2145; Para. 206); the predefined time has expired or the application has been terminated and deactivating multitasking restriction mode (Kim-Fig. 21, el. 2155; Para. 207), wherein the concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions instead of the multitasking restriction mode being a sub-function of the concentration improvement mode (Kim-Para. 181); deactivating the concentration improvement mode when the restriction time has expired and releasing the restriction of the applications (Kim-Fig. 14B, el. 1475; Para. 170))
Examiner note: The concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions, as disclosed by Kim, and the concentration improvement mode may have a longer expiration time than the multitasking restriction mode. Therefore, the concentration improvement mode would still be in effect once the multitasking restriction mode is deactivated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton to include defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters, using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, using the same motivation as in claim 1.
As per claim 10, Horton does not teach … wherein registering the extension comprises, managing a local storage that has ShieldSettings that declare the schedule's application tokens, website tokens, and category tokens that are blocked by the operating system.
However Kim teaches e.g., memory 113 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 113); a storage unit (Kim-Fig. 1, el. 175), storing a launcher, e.g., device logic 114 includes a security application for wireless communication device 100 (Horton-Fig. 1B, el. 114; Para. 37); the storage unit stores a control program and applications for controlling the apparatus or the controller (Kim-Para. 81, 83), wherein a concentration improvement application is installed in the portable device (Kim-Para. 121),
Examiner note: The concentration improvement mode and the multitasking restriction mode may be separate functions, as disclosed by Kim, and the concentration improvement mode may have a longer expiration time than the multitasking restriction mode. Therefore, the concentration improvement mode would still be in effect once the multitasking restriction mode is deactivated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton to include defining operation mode parameters, including location information, time information, date information, or network information, in association with the third operation mode; and switching between the first operation mode and the third operation mode based on the defined operation mode parameters, using the known methods of restricting distracting apps in a first mode and not restricting distracting apps in a second mode, as taught by Kim, in combination with the application restriction system of Horton, using the same motivation as in claim 1.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Horton in view of Maragoudakis et al. (US 20180007558 A1) hereinafter referred to as Maragoudakis.
As per claim 6, Horton does not teach … wherein creating the policy comprises creating application limits that determine how many minutes per day the user can use a particular application, after which the particular application will be blocked.
However, Maragoudakis teaches time limits (Para. 210 and 94);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Maragoudakis as it increases children safety and not allow them to much screen time which can potentially hurt their cognitive ability.
As per claim 7, Horton does not teach … wherein registering the extension comprises, when a schedule is created, the blocking application initiates the monitoring of blocked applications, websites, or other content according to the specified schedule.
However, Maragoudakis teaches time limits (Para. 210 and 94);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Maragoudakis as it increases children safety and not allow them to much screen time which can potentially hurt their cognitive ability.
As per claim 9, Horton does not teach … wherein registering the extension comprises, if a intervalDidStart method is called for a schedule by the operating system, the blocking application starts blocking applications for that schedule from an intervalDidStart callback, by creating a new ManagedSettingsStore object.
However, Maragoudakis teaches time limits (Para. 210 and 94);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Maragoudakis as it increases children safety and not allow them to much screen time which can potentially hurt their cognitive ability.
As per claim 13, Horton does not teach … further comprising, after unblocking the previously blocked applications, after a reset time period, the blocking application calls the startMonitoring method from the DeviceActivityCenter in the operating system to start blocking the previously blocked applications again.
However, Maragoudakis teaches time limits (Para. 210 and 94);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Horton with the method of Maragoudakis as it increases children safety and not allow them to much screen time which can potentially hurt their cognitive ability and to allow ability to use after a time limit.
Claims 11, 16 and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 2011/0314539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Horton in view of Williams et al. (US 2015/0079943 A1) hereinafter referred to as Williams.
As per claims 11, 16 and 19, Horton does not teach … wherein receiving a call to the registered extension comprises the operating system launching the blocking application's ShieldConfigurationDataSource extension and blocking the application or website, so that the user defines when the user does not want to be able to use a particular type of application and have the operating system and blocking application work in concert to carry out the blocking.
However, Williams teaches (e.g., determining the types of applications that are running (Para. 48); ensuring that the control application loads as a foreground process (Para. 27); the user interface component of the control application may enable execution of a predetermined set of allowed applications (Para. 28, 30); the user interface component disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications (Para. 28); the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application (Para. 44);)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton to include wherein the launcher preventing the apps in the first set of the one or more selected apps from running in the foreground comprises: determining information identifying one or more apps running in the foreground; and if the information identifying at least one app running in the foreground matches the stored information identifying the first set of the one or more selected apps, bringing the launcher to the foreground and outputting a message to the user, or showing an overlay over the identified at least one app running in the foreground, the overlay making the identified at least one app running in the foreground invisible and the overlay preventing user interaction with the identified at least one app running in the foreground, using the known methods of entering state 202 corresponding to an active state in which the control application is executing as the primary executing application after a user initiates the control application and begins to move at more than a threshold rate of speed, wherein the control application presents a user interface that enables only limited functionality that enables a user to execute a set of allowed applications and disallow execution of non-approved applications, wherein the user interface component of the control application disallows access to dialing of non-emergency numbers, text messaging, and mobile gaming applications, wherein the user interface includes a restriction notification which reflects that functionality is currently limited due to excessive speed, and the control application may take action to prevent instantiating an unapproved application as the primary execution application, as taught by Williams, in combination with the application and notification restriction system of Horton in view of Kim, for the purpose of enabling restriction of functionality of a protected mobile communication device by ensuring that a protected mobile communication device is placed in one of a number of known states (Williams-Para. 16). Another benefit of the combination includes forcing the device to display the user interface of the control application when attempting to access an unapproved application, thereby effectively restricting the user in their use of the device (Williams-Para. 21).
Other Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (US 2013/0184933 A1)—Smith et al. discloses an apparatus that restricts or disables electronic device functionality based on vehicle status data received from the on-board computer ("OBD") of a public service vehicle (Abstract).
Singh (US 9,661,127 B1)—Singh discloses automatically, selectively, and temporarily blocking certain device functions on the handheld mobile device (Col. 5, lines 60-67).
Vaughn et al. (US 2020/0389551 A1)—Vaughn discloses blocking the appearance of calls on mobile devices in certain situations (Para. 59).
Ben Ayed (US 8,595,810 B1)—Ben Ayed discloses when the application is launched or brought to the foreground, the security layer displays a lock screen that prevents the user from accessing the app. If the user tries to unlock the lock screen, an authentication procedure is initiated, for example, verifying that a Bluetooth token is present within proximity. Once the user is authenticated, the lock screen is removed, and the user can access the application. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token is not within proximity while the application is in the foreground, the lock screen is displayed, and alarms/alerts are triggered. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token is not within proximity while the application is in the background, the application may ignore the event or the lock screen is displayed, and/or alarms/alerts are triggered. If the security layer detects that the Bluetooth token after alarms are triggered, or if an unlock code is entered, the security layer stops alarming (Col. 13, line 62-Col. 14, line 13).
Ashili (US 2017/0339270 A1)—Ashili discloses running an application in the background on the mobile device to monitor for events or speed configurations and thereafter transitions into the foreground to control the operations of the mobile device (Para. 41).
Ladouceur (US 2008/0058006 A1)—Ladouceur discloses a mobile device that allows picture taking upon insertion of a removable key (Fig. 21; Para. 49).
Elliott (US 2018/0316788 A1)—Elliott discloses restricting features of a mobile device based on the operating condition of a vehicle and the position of the mobile device in the vehicle interior (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3906. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7AM-4PM).
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 on (571) 272-1183. 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.
/SIMON P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights