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
This action is in response to the communication filed on 05/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08/13/2025 has been entered and considered.
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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,775. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: A method comprising: receiving a request to login a user into an application that is installed on a user device; detecting a change to a date of birth information associated with a user profile subsequent to the request to login a user into the application causing a change in an age of the user; and subsequent to the detecting of the change to the date of birth that results in the change in the age of the user, preventing accessibility of one or more features of the application to the user
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “the request to login a user does not information corresponding to the user's date of birth or age”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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, 7-9, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibb (US 2020/0242212 A1) and Mathews et al. (US 2003/0125973 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gibb discloses A method comprising: receiving a request to login a user into an application that is installed on a user device [par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation…”, par. 0066, “the authorization information and profile identification transmitting component 316 may transmit the authorization information and a user profile identifier from the mobile device 112 to the authorization server 110”]; date of birth information associate with a user profile [par. 0066, “authorization information may include an age of a user (either explicitly or implicitly via, for example, a birth date of the user)”, par. 0094, “the authorization server 110 checks the accuracy of the authorization information by comparing the authorization information to the information associated with the user profile”].
Gibb does not explicitly disclose detecting a change to a date of birth information subsequent to the request to login a user into the application causing a change in an age of the user; and subsequent to the detecting of the change to the date of birth that results in the change in the age of the user, preventing accessibility of one or more features of the application to the user.
However, Mathews et al. teaches detecting a change to a date of birth information subsequent to the request to login a user into the application causing a change in an age of the user [par. 0050, “The verification module performs an age check (step 208). The age check evaluates whether the player is providing an accurate date of birth and name”]; and subsequent to the detecting of the change to the date of birth that results in the change in the age of the user [par. 069, “par. 0069, “The goal of the age check is to assess the accuracy of the identity information the player provides during registration. The age check is used to ensure that players do not register using a fictitious name or provide inaccurate information regarding their age”], preventing accessibility of one or more features of the application to the user [par. 0078, “Risk policy rules detect suspicious patterns in player information, such as date of birth mismatch”, par. 0039, “If a player fails a verification check, the player is immediately rejected without proceeding with another verification check”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Mathews et al. into the teaching of Gibb with the motivation to ensure that players do not register using a fictitious name or provide inaccurate information regarding their age as taught by Mathews et al. [Mathews et al.: par. 0069].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the user profile is stored by an interaction system external to the user device [par. 0210, “wherein the authorization information relates to a condition related to authorizing access to restricted content associated with a multimedia computer, and wherein the user profile identifier is usable by the authorization server to retrieve from a database previously-stored user information”].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the request to login the user includes login credentials of the user for the application [par. 0091, “the user can be prompted for access to authorization information related to the condition. The user's mobile device may have, stored in a memory component thereof, copies of various information that may be requested, such as copies of various credentials. A copy of the information related to the condition is also associated with a profile of the user at the authorization server 110. The application operating on the mobile device 114 may secure this information and may be utilized to access the information”].
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses retrieving login credentials from the user profile, the login credentials being stored in the user profile within an interaction system external to the user device [par. 0007, “The user profile identifier is usable by the authorization server to retrieve from a database previously-stored user information for comparison with the authorization information so as to confirm a validity of the authorization information”].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the application executing at the user device is from a third party system, the third party system being external to the user device [par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation of the system and methods associated therewith. The application may be configured to establish a secure communication channel with the authorization server 110 and/or the content server 106”, par. 0113, “downloading application”].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses preventing accessibility of the one or more features is further based on a minimum age value [par. 0110, “the authorization information transmitted form the mobile device to the authorization server may include the necessary requirements to be confirmed, for example a minimum age to be confirmed”, par. 0095].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the preventing accessibility of the one or more features is in response to the age of the user associated with the user profile being greater than or equal to the minimum age value [par. 0110, “the authorization information transmitted form the mobile device to the authorization server may include the necessary requirements to be confirmed, for example a minimum age to be confirmed”, par. 0135, “the condition is a minimum-age restriction, and the restricted content includes a functionality of the GUI that is age-restricted”].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the request to login the user into the application initiates retrieval of login credentials stored in the user profile stored by an interaction system external to the user device [par. 0090, “the mobile device can retrieve specifics of the defined condition that relates to authorizing the user 114 for access to the restricted content”, par. 0091, “the user can be prompted for access to authorization information related to the condition. The user's mobile device may have, stored in a memory component thereof, copies of various information that may be requested, such as copies of various credentials. A copy of the information related to the condition is also associated with a profile of the user at the authorization server 110. The application operating on the mobile device 114 may secure this information and may be utilized to access the information”].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses in response to the age of the user associated with the user profile being less than the minimum age value, denying the request to login the user into the application [par. 0110, “the authorization information transmitted form the mobile device to the authorization server may include the necessary requirements to be confirmed, for example a minimum age to be confirmed”, par. 0095].
Regarding claim 19, it recites limitations like claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, it recites limitations like claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibb (US 2020/0242212 A1) and Mathews et al. (US 2003/0125973 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-14 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Hochberg et al. (US 9,607,341 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb and Mathews et al. disclose the interactive system.
They do not explicitly disclose the interaction system includes a messaging system configured to send messages between users.
However, Hochberg et al. teaches the interaction system includes a messaging system configured to send messages between users [col. 6, lines 21-22, “within a social networking system, a first user may send a second user a message”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hochberg et al. into the teaching of Gibb and Mathews et al. with the motivation such that a content access management system retrieves the identified access rule and retrieves requesting user information based on the access rule. An access determination is made based on the retrieved access rule and requesting user information as taught by Hochberg et al. [Hochberg et al.: abs.].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the user device and the interaction system correspond to different entities [fig. 1, authorization server 110, par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation of the system and methods associated therewith. The application may be configured to establish a secure communication channel with the authorization server 110 and/or the content server 106”, par. 0052, “The communication network 108 can include a wide-area network, such as the Internet”].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the user device and the interaction system are systems within the same entity [fig. 1, authorization server 110, par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation of the system and methods associated therewith. The application may be configured to establish a secure communication channel with the authorization server 110 and/or the content server 106” (mobile device include the interaction system)].
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb and Mathews et al. disclose the interactive system.
They do not explicitly disclose the request to login a user does not information corresponding to the user's date of birth or age.
However, Hochberg et al. teaches the request to login a user does not information corresponding to the user's date of birth or age [col. 18, lines 54-58, “then age information is retrieved for the requesting user. An access determination is made 660 for the requesting user and the requested content object based on the retrieved user information and the retrieved access rule”, fig. 6, 630, receive request for access, 640, retrieve access rule (age requirement information), (access rule has stated age information)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hochberg et al. into the teaching of Gibb and Mathews et al. with the motivation such that a content access management system retrieves the identified access rule and retrieves requesting user information based on the access rule. An access determination is made based on the retrieved access rule and requesting user information as taught by Hochberg et al. [Hochberg et al.: abs.].
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibb (US 2020/0242212 A1) and Mathews et al. (US 2003/0125973 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-14 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Longano (US 20200364746 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Gibb discloses the application configured to obtain the preventing accessibility of the one or more features, the preventing accessibility of the one or more features indicating a result of an evaluation of the age of the user associated with the user profile with respect to the minimum age value [par. 0048, “a user of an application on a mobile device can also be a customer of a merchant”, par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation of the system and methods associated therewith. The application may be configured to establish a secure communication channel with the authorization server 110 and/or the content server 106”, par. 0110, “the authorization information transmitted form the mobile device to the authorization server may include the necessary requirements to be confirmed, for example a minimum age to be confirmed”, par. 0083, “The database consulting component 508 may be arranged to consult the database to retrieve information associated with the user profile corresponding to the user profile identifier, and the authorization information accuracy checking component may be arranged to check the accuracy of the authorization information that the user has provided against the information retrieved from the database”].
They do not explicitly disclose the application includes an age filter software development kit (SDK), the age filter SDK configured to obtain the response value.
However Longano teaches the application includes an age filter software development kit (SDK), the age filter SDK configured to obtain the response value [par. 0028, “the integrated and executed SDK may cause the application program (e.g., the gaming application) to generate and present a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates access to the marketplace platform system 120”, par. 0035, “the applied rules may include, but are not limited to: (i) an age-specific rule, which targets advertisements associated with particular age-specific types of products or services to the particular customer (e.g., certain types of shoes for customers between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and other types of shoes for customer between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, etc.); (ii) a preference-specific rule that selects advertisements associated with the customer's specified preferences (e.g., as specified within the profile data); or (iii) an application- or game-specific rule, which selects advertisements based on the type of application program or gaming program that integrates the SDK, or a specific video game with which the customer interacts”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Longano into the teaching of Gibb and Mathews et al. et al. with the motivation such that by integrating the SDK into the application program (e.g., the gaming application), the execution of the application program and the integrated SDK may enable the application program to interact with, and to participate in, an electronic marketplace established and maintained by marketplace platform system using any of the exemplary processes as taught by Longano [Longano: par. 0027].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated.
Gibb further disclose the age filter is configured to permit a user represented by the user profile in the interaction system to connect to the application using credentials of the user with respect to the interaction system [par. 0090, “the mobile device can retrieve specifics of the defined condition that relates to authorizing the user 114 for access to the restricted content. In the present example embodiment, the condition includes a minimum-age requirement... A user may be provided with a selectable “login” option, and may select this to advance the method”, par. 0091, “the user can be prompted for access to authorization information related to the condition. The user's mobile device may have, stored in a memory component thereof, copies of various information that may be requested, such as copies of various credentials. A copy of the information related to the condition is also associated with a profile of the user at the authorization server 110. The application operating on the mobile device 114 may secure this information and may be utilized to access the information”].
Longano teaches the application includes an age filter software development kit (SDK) [par. 0028, “the integrated and executed SDK may cause the application program (e.g., the gaming application) to generate and present a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates access to the marketplace platform system 120”, par. 0035, “the applied rules may include, but are not limited to: (i) an age-specific rule, which targets advertisements associated with particular age-specific types of products or services to the particular customer (e.g., certain types of shoes for customers between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and other types of shoes for customer between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, etc.); (ii) a preference-specific rule that selects advertisements associated with the customer's specified preferences (e.g., as specified within the profile data); or (iii) an application- or game-specific rule, which selects advertisements based on the type of application program or gaming program that integrates the SDK, or a specific video game with which the customer interacts”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Longano into the teaching of Gibb, Hochberg et al., Wang and Sharma et al. with the motivation such that by integrating the SDK into the application program (e.g., the gaming application), the execution of the application program and the integrated SDK may enable the application program to interact with, and to participate in, an electronic marketplace established and maintained by marketplace platform system using any of the exemplary processes as taught by Longano [Longano: par. 0027].
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further disclose the application includes an age filter, the age filter configured to obtain the preventing accessibility of the one or more features, the preventing accessibility of the one or more features indicating a result of an evaluation of the age of the user associated with the user profile, wherein the age filter is configured to deny a request to connect the user to the application using login credentials of the user with respect to an interaction system external to the user device if the preventing accessibility of the one or more features indicates that the age of the user associated with the user profile is less than the minimum age value [par. 0090, “the mobile device can retrieve specifics of the defined condition that relates to authorizing the user 114 for access to the restricted content. In the present example embodiment, the condition includes a minimum-age requirement... A user may be provided with a selectable “login” option, and may select this to advance the method”, par. 0091, “the user can be prompted for access to authorization information related to the condition. The user's mobile device may have, stored in a memory component thereof, copies of various information that may be requested, such as copies of various credentials. A copy of the information related to the condition is also associated with a profile of the user at the authorization server 110. The application operating on the mobile device 114 may secure this information and may be utilized to access the information. Details of the condition (e.g., criteria required to be met to authorize a user for access to restricted content) may be specified and defined at the network address, and a user may not be able to access the restricted content if these criteria are not met by information the mobile device provides. One example of a condition is a minimum-age restriction—the age of a user according to the information stored on their mobile device may need to meet or exceed the required minimum age before the mobile device allows the method to proceed.”].
Longano teaches the third party app includes an age filter software development kit (SDK) [par. 0028, “the integrated and executed SDK may cause the application program (e.g., the gaming application) to generate and present a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates access to the marketplace platform system 120”, par. 0035, “the applied rules may include, but are not limited to: (i) an age-specific rule, which targets advertisements associated with particular age-specific types of products or services to the particular customer (e.g., certain types of shoes for customers between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and other types of shoes for customer between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, etc.); (ii) a preference-specific rule that selects advertisements associated with the customer's specified preferences (e.g., as specified within the profile data); or (iii) an application- or game-specific rule, which selects advertisements based on the type of application program or gaming program that integrates the SDK, or a specific video game with which the customer interacts”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Longano into the teaching of Gibb, Hochberg et al., Wang and Sharma et al. with the motivation such that by integrating the SDK into the application program (e.g., the gaming application), the execution of the application program and the integrated SDK may enable the application program to interact with, and to participate in, an electronic marketplace established and maintained by marketplace platform system using any of the exemplary processes as taught by Longano [Longano: par. 0027].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gibb further discloses the interaction system and the application are provided by different entities executed via different software routines [fig. 1, authorization server 110, par. 0054, “the mobile device 112 can have an application installed thereon which facilitates operation of the system and methods associated therewith. The application may be configured to establish a secure communication channel with the authorization server 110 and/or the content server 106”, par. 0113, “downloading application”], wherein the age filter is configured to surface an authorization request on a display device of the client computer system, detect a positive response to the authorization request, and submit to the interaction system the request to evaluate stated age information associated with the user profile only in response to the detecting of the positive response to the authorization request [par. 0110, “the authorization server may check the attestations or authorization information with minimum requirements without consulting previously-stored information for the user. In such an embodiment, the authorization information transmitted form the mobile device to the authorization server may include the necessary requirements to be confirmed, for example a minimum age to be confirmed. Then, the authorization code may only be generated if such requirements are met”].
Longano teaches the application includes an age filter software development kit (SDK) [par. 0028, “the integrated and executed SDK may cause the application program (e.g., the gaming application) to generate and present a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates access to the marketplace platform system 120”, par. 0035, “the applied rules may include, but are not limited to: (i) an age-specific rule, which targets advertisements associated with particular age-specific types of products or services to the particular customer (e.g., certain types of shoes for customers between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and other types of shoes for customer between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, etc.); (ii) a preference-specific rule that selects advertisements associated with the customer's specified preferences (e.g., as specified within the profile data); or (iii) an application- or game-specific rule, which selects advertisements based on the type of application program or gaming program that integrates the SDK, or a specific video game with which the customer interacts”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Longano into the teaching of Gibb, Hochberg et al., Wang and Sharma et al. with the motivation such that by integrating the SDK into the application program (e.g., the gaming application), the execution of the application program and the integrated SDK may enable the application program to interact with, and to participate in, an electronic marketplace established and maintained by marketplace platform system using any of the exemplary processes as taught by Longano [Longano: par. 0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 10990654 B1 Age-based App Lock
US 10984458 B1 Network Based Age Verification Method
US 20200312064 A1 AUXILIARY DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT PERFORMS VERIFICATION OPERATIONS FOR AGE-RESTRICTED INTERACTIONS WITH AN ESTABLISHMENT
US 20200260361 A1 Systems And Methods For Authorizing User Access To Restricted Content
US 20200211099 A1 Decentralized Customer-Controlled Credit Verification
US 20200092285 A1 SECURE AGE VERIFICATION SYSTEM
US 20070005766 A1 Method And System For Providing External And Internal Services Through An Application Intermediation Gateway
US 20060173793 A1 System And Method For Verifying The Age And Identity Of Individuals And Limiting Their Access To Appropriate Material And Situations
US 6847777 B1 Video Player And Video Playback Method Of A Video Player Having An Audio-visual Restriction Capability
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3393. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/JASON CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights