DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 2/21/2025. Amendments to claims 1 and 3 have been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined. The rejections are stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and claim 12 is directed to a device; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for adding family members to a shared account and managing restrictions to content access and purchases based on age within the shared account, which is a commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, bolded below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
at an electronic device in communication with one or more input devices and a display:
displaying an input field for receiving an identifier of a family member to be added to a family account at an online content storage system that is shared between family members;
responsive to receiving the identifier of the family member to be added to the family account, determining an age of the family member to be added to the family account;
responsive to the age of the family member being less than a predetermined age limit, selecting one of a plurality of content access and purchase restriction templates to be associated with the family member;
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an indication of the selected content access and purchase restriction template; and
applying the selected content access and purchase restriction template to the account of the added family member.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “an electronic device in communication with one or more input devices and a display:”, “an input field” of the display for gathering information, “an online content storage system” and “one or more display generation components” in claim 1, all additional elements of claim 1 plus “one or more processors of an electronic device” in claims 11 and 12, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 1 ,11 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed for communicating over a generic network to transmit and receive information via an input element of a display, to perform the steps of displaying, determining, selecting, displaying and applying. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network to be displayed, see at least FIG.1A, 1B and 3.8 and paragraphs [0034-0067], [0134] and [0136-0137] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). The input element displayed for selecting information is used in a most ordinary manner for gathering information to be used by the abstract idea which is not inventive. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Claims 1, 11 and 12 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of adding family members to a shared account and managing restrictions to content access and purchases based on age within the shared account, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 2 further defines the abstract idea by determining a current age and determining content restrictions which can be completed mentally but for the nominal recitation of generic computing devices. Then applying the restrictions for content access and purchases. Claim 3 similarly further refines the abstract idea through displaying various information/data to be selected to refine the abstract idea. Displaying information is an abstract idea. Claim 4 further refines the abstract idea by defining that the administrator can further apply and/or change/update account restrictions which is applying business rules to a certain account and is part of the abstract idea itself. Claim 5 further refines the abstract idea by automating restrictions based on age and applying them with the user account. Claim 6 recites enabling a real-time notification for when the family account is accessed. This is part of the abstract idea. The real-time aspect is due to using a generic computing device as a tool to provide notifications. Claim 7 merely narrows claim 6 by defining that whenever the user account accesses the family account a notification is sent to an adult or administrator which is further refining and defining the abstract idea. Claim 8 further refines the abstract idea by allowing the adult or administrator approve or decline the user account attempt to access the family account with nothing more. There are no technical implementation details. Claim 9 further refines the abstract idea by providing an invitation to the family member to join the family account. Displaying information is an abstract idea and there are no technical detail implementation details presented. Claim 10 merely recites displaying family member on a generic display and the types of participation allowed for each family member which is further refining the abstract idea.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for adding family members to a shared account and managing restrictions to content access and purchases based on age within the shared account) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for adding family members to a shared account and managing restrictions to content access and purchases based on age within the shared account) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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, 2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al.(US 8,700,524 B2)(Williams hereinafter)
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12: (Currently Amended) Williams discloses a method (claim 1), non-transitory computer- readable medium (claim 17) and device (at least col.2, lines 44-54) comprising:
at an electronic device in communication with one or more input devices and one or more display generation components a display:
displaying an input field for receiving an identifier of a family member to be added to a family account at an online content storage system that is shared between family members; responsive to receiving the identifier of the family member to be added to the family account, determining an age of the family member to be added to the family account; (at least col. 4, lines 33-37, “a group may have more than two mobile phones; and the data storage facility may store data to associate multiple groups of mobile phones.”, at least col.12, lines 42-58, at least col.18, lines 47-67, the parent can register multiple children, at least col.22, lines 44-55, “…the age (521) ( or parental consent) is received from the parent; and the age (521) can be updated on the anniversaries) of the date. Alternatively, a birth date ( or year) of the underage user may be stored to indicate the age (521).”)
responsive to the age of the family member being less than a predetermined age limit, selecting one of a plurality of content access and purchase restriction templates to be associated with the family member; displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an indication of the selected content access and purchase restriction template; and applying the selected content access and purchase restriction template to the account of the added family member, (at least abstract, “…determines whether to reject the payment request based at least in part on the restriction data and the identity of the merchant.”, at least FIG. 26, at least col.7, lines 46-48, “…the user of the mobile phone (116) can specify a set of restrictions that are applied to the purchase requests made by the users of the associated mobile phone (117). and lines 55-59, “…parent may use the restrictions to apply parental control of the purchase activities of a child.”, at least col.19, lines 12-27).
Regarding claim 2: (Original) Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to the added family member accessing the family account, determining a current age of the added family member; responsive the current age of the added family member having changed, determining a content restriction template to be applied to the account of the family member based on the current age of the family member and a current country; and applying the determined content restriction templated to the account of the family member, the content restriction template restricting access and purchase to online content from a content source, (at least col.8, lines 11-22, at least col.11, lines 53-61, “If it is determined that the user is a child under an age limit, the user interface illustrated in FIG. 9 is presented to require the user to provide the phone number (123) of the parent in the entry box (185).”, at least col.19, lines 12-27, at least col.22, lines 44-55).
Regarding claim 4: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to an administrator account for the family account accessing a user account associated with the family account, displaying, via the display, one or more restrictions applied to the accessed user account; receiving, via the one or more input devices, a request from the administrator account to change the one or more restrictions applied to the accessed user account; and updating the restrictions applied to the accessed user account based on the received administrator account changes, (at least col.7, lines 46-59, “Thus, a parent may use the restrictions to apply parental control of the purchase activities of a child.”, at least col.13, lines 4-14, at least col.19, lines 40-52, “a PIN or password can be provided to the mobile phone (116) at the parent's phone number (123) to allow the parent to log into a portal to view the activities and set controls.”, at least col.27, lines 33-36 and 44-46).
Regarding claim 5: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a request from the administrator account to set up automatic restrictions associated with the user account of the added family member based on an age of the added family member when the added family member accesses the family account; and applying the automatic restrictions associated with the user account of the added family member based on the age of the added family member, (at least col.7, lines 46-59, at least col.11, lines 47-61, at least col.27, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 6: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
initiating a real-time notification process each time a user account of the added family member attempts to use the family account, (at least col.19, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 7: (New) Williams further discloses The method of claim 6, further comprising:
responsive to the user account of the added family member accessing the family account, notifying at least one computing device associated with an adult member of the family account or administrator account for the family account that the user account of the added family member is accessing the family account, (at least col.19, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 8: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
receiving from the at least one computing device associated with the adult member of the family account or the administrator account for the family account a request to approve or decline the added family member's attempt to use the family account, (at least col.6, lines 13-19, at least col.11, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 9: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
after receiving an input, via the one or more input devices, indicating the identifier of the family member to be added to the family account and before adding the family member to the family account, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an indication that an invitation to join the family account has been transmitted to the family member, (at least col.12, lines 51-53, “…the mobile phone (117) of the child is used to prompt for the phone number of the parent, when the child registers with the interchange (101).”, at least col.18, lines 37-55, “the interchange (101) presents user interfaces (e.g., via a website, or an SMS message) to the child to request the mobile phone number (123) of the parent ( e.g., after the child is forwarded to the web portal of the interchange (101) by the merchant or service provider)”, SMS verification message, col. 22, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 10: (New) Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface that includes a representation of a first family member that has been added to the family account and a representation of a second family member that has been added to the family account, wherein the representation of the first family member is displayed with a visual indication that indicates a first type of participation of the first family member in the family account, and the representation of the second family member is displayed with a visual indication that indicates a second type, different from the first type, of participation of the second family member in the family account, (at least col.7, lines 46-59, at least col.13, lines 4-14, at least col.18, lines 47-49, “register phone numbers for their children”, at least col.19, lines 40-52, “parental control”, at least col.27, lines 33-36 and 44-46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al.(US 8,700,524 B2)(Williams hereinafter) in view of Matthews (US 8,881,975 Bl)
Regarding claim 3: (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying, via the display, for each of a plurality of content sources a control for selecting whether to allow or restrict access to the content source by the added family member; displaying, via the display, a control for selecting a country from a plurality of countries, each country associated with a set of content ratings; and displaying, via the display, at least a portion of the set of content ratings for a selected country for applying to restrict the access of the added family member to the content source, (at least Abstract, “…receiving a user interface selection representing a request to authorize or restrict card account transactions,…”, at least col.12, lines 52-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the systems and methods to restrict payment transactions of Williams the ability to restrict or authorize card transactions by geographic region as disclosed by Matthews since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Matthews, to the known invention of Williams, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that restricting the use of a payment account in a certain geographic region reduces fraudulently transactions if someone gains possession of the financial transaction card linked to an account because it will not be able to be used, see Summary of the Invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693