DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/227332 filed on June 3, 2025 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood (US 2012/0047560) in view of Farah (US 2016/0269412).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Underwood discloses A method, comprising:
receiving, from a software application executing on a requestor computing device, a request to perform a particular action (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20-21, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches a child requesting access to a website, such as a social network site. The Examiner would note that this would have to be performed using a software application such as a web browser. Underwood, paragraph 5, also teaches the child requesting access to a “social networking system, another website, an online service, a game or other online application, a media item, or any other computing resource that requires parental authorization”.);
identifying at least one grantor computing device capable of authorizing the particular action to be performed (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20-1, 31-32, and 35-36, teaches verifying that the parent of the child has a valid registered account. Underwood, Figure 4, recites step 402 of “Identify Parent User’s Account Based on Identifying Information”. Underwood, paragraph 31, teaches receiving the name, address, contact information, user ID, and screen name of the parent.);
generating, based at least on the particular action, a request package … (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches forwarding the child’s access request to the social networking site for the parent to approve or deny the access request. Underwood, paragraph 65, teaches sending the request to the parent through the social network site, email, text message, MMS, instant message, or other online communication. Therefore, as this request message is sent to the parent it must have been generated.);
transmitting, to the at least one grantor computing device, the request package … (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches forwarding the child’s access request to the social networking site for the parent to approve or deny the access request. Underwood, paragraph 65, teaches sending the request to the parent through the social network site, email, text message, MMS, instant message, or other online communication.);
receiving, from the at least one grantor computing device, a [response] (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches receiving a response from the parent.); and
handling the particular action in accordance with the [response] (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches granting or denying the access request based on the response from the parent.)
However, Underwood does not specifically teach “a request package that includes a question and at least one answer choice”.
Farah discloses generating, based at least on the particular action, a request package that includes a question and at least one answer choice (Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 804 where the user requests access to a website. The Examiner would note that this would have to be performed using a software application such as a web browser. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 808 of forwarding the access request to the authorizing user such as a parent. Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches that the request includes a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES”, “NO”, or “Later”.);
transmitting, to the at least one grantor computing device, the request package to cause the at least one grantor computing device to output a user interface that enables a selection of the at least one answer choice (Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 808 of forwarding the access request to the authorizing user such as a parent. Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches that the request is a user interface to display a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES”, “NO”, or “Later”.);
receiving, from the at least one grantor computing device, a selected answer choice from the at least one answer choice (Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 810 where the authorizing user (parent) approves or denies the access request.); and
handling the particular action in accordance with the selected answer choice (Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 810 where the authorizing user (parent) approves or denies the access request and then the system either allows or blocks access to the website based on the response of the authorizing user (parent).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Farah with the teachings of Underwood. Underwood teaches request parental permission for a child to access some form of content such as an application or website and grants or denies access based on the response from the parent. However, Underwood does not provide specifics on how this request is performed. Farah teaches displaying a user interface for the parent to provide information about the request and display a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES” and “NO” to receive the response from the parent. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Underwood to use the user interface and selectable options of Farah for the purpose of providing a simple interface to receive the response from the parent. This would also have been a simple substitution of one known form of requesting permission from the parent for another to yield the predictable results of requesting permission from the parent and granting or denying access based on the response from the parent.
Claim 8 recites the additional limitations of “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor included in a requestor computing device, cause the requestor computing device to carry out steps that include …” (Underwood, paragraphs 71-72, teaches storing a computer program on a memory to be executed by a computer processor. Farah, paragraphs 119-122, teaches storing programming instructions on a memory/medium to be executed by a processor.)
Claim 15 recites the additional limitations of “A requestor computing device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the requestor computing device to carry out steps that include …” (Underwood, paragraphs 71-72, teaches storing a computer program on a memory to be executed by a computer processor. Farah, paragraphs 119-122, teaches storing programming instructions on a memory/medium to be executed by a processor.)
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Underwood in view of Farah discloses wherein: the request package is transmitted by way of a messaging protocol that is accessible to the requestor computing device; and the at least one grantor computing device executes a messaging application that: implements the messaging protocol, receives the request package by way of the messaging protocol, and is associated with the user interface, wherein the user interface conveys the question and the at least one answer choice (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches forwarding the child’s access request to the social networking site for the parent to approve or deny the access request. Underwood, paragraph 65, teaches sending the request to the parent through the social network site, email, text message, MMS, instant message, or other online communication. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 808 of forwarding the access request to the authorizing user such as a parent. Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches that the request is a user interface to display a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES”, “NO”, or “Later”.)
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Underwood in view of Farah discloses wherein: the request package further includes additional information comprising a name associated with a user associated with the requestor computing device, an identifier associated with the requestor computing device, identifying information associated with the software application, or some combination thereof; and the user interface further conveys at least some of the additional information (Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches the request including the child’s name, the website the child is trying to access, and a rating for the recommended age range for the website.)
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Underwood in view of Farah discloses wherein the selected answer choice is received by way of the messaging protocol (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches forwarding the child’s access request to the social networking site for the parent to approve or deny the access request. Underwood, paragraph 65, teaches sending the request to the parent through the social network site, email, text message, MMS, instant message, or other online communication. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 808 of forwarding the access request to the authorizing user such as a parent. Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches that the request is a user interface to display a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES”, “NO”, or “Later”.)
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Underwood in view of Farah discloses wherein handling the particular action in accordance with the at least one answer choice comprises: permitting the particular action to be performed based on the at least one answer choice; or prohibiting the particular action from being performed (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches granting or denying the access request based on the response from the parent. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 810 where the authorizing user (parent) approves or denies the access request and then the system either allows or blocks access to the website based on the response of the authorizing user (parent).)
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Underwood in view of Farah discloses further comprising, prior to identifying the at least one grantor computing device: causing the requestor computing device to output a second user interface that: indicates an authorization is needed to perform the particular action, provides a first option to issue the request package for the authorization, and provides a second option to forego issuing the request package for the authorization (Underwood, Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 31-32 and 35, teaches requesting the child to provide the parents information for the authorization request. This indicates to the child that parental authorization is required. At this point, the child can a) provide the parents information to request authorization or b) close the application to stop the request.)
As per claims 7 and 14, Underwood in view of Farah discloses wherein: the requestor computing device is associated with a child user account that belongs to a family group; and the at least one grantor computing device is associated with a parent or a guardian user account that belongs to the family group and that is permitted to authorize actions requested to be performed by child user accounts that are members of the family group (Underwood, Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 5-7, 14-16, 20-21, 31-32, 35-36, and 65-68, teaches a child requesting access to a website and forwarding the child’s access request to the social networking site for the parent to approve or deny the access request. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 804 where the child requests access to a website. Farah, Figure 8 and associated texts, teaches step 808 of forwarding the access request to the authorizing user such as a parent. Farah, Figures 6-7 and associated texts such as paragraphs 90-95, teaches that the request includes a question such as “Do you approve?” along with selectable options such as “YES”, “NO”, or “Later”.)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Day (US 2017/0149795) – teaches the WebSafety application that is installed on a childs phone to provide notifications to the parent about the child’s online activity.
Niejadlik (US 2011/0237222) – teaches requesting permission from a parent for the child to purchase items online. The child must enter the parents phone number to request permission as shown in Figure 9.
Wu (US 2017/0353463) – teaches requesting access to a website, forwarding an authorization request to a registered device, and granting or denying access based on the authorization request.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights