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 is a first action on the merits regarding applicants Request for Continued Examination filed June 20, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 26, 41-43, 48 and 51 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All arguments relate to claims as amended and the new grounds of rejection is used to teach the claims as amended. Therefore, arguments are further moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11-13 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the object" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further the following rejections from the previous action are maintained with modification for the new form of the claims:
Claim 11 includes the limitation, “determining that the shared document was shared via a chat or instant message feature of the video web conference”. Assuming that the intent of the language “chat or instant message feature” was to distinguish an instant message feature from a chat feature. Claim 1 now recites that the object is included in a message “a message shared via the chat feature”. There is no description provided in the spec that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to combine sharing an object in a chat feature and simultaneously sharing that object in a distinct instant message feature and further allowing a determination that the object is being shared by both of these features. Examiner further notes that if the object is shared through a chat feature to satisfy this claim then this claim also fails to further limit the invention from the recitation in claim 1.
Claim 12 includes the limitation “determining that the shared document was shared via a screen share feature of the video web conference” however claim 1 limits the object to being included in “a message shared via the chat feature”. These appear to be related to separate embodiments indicated in paragraph [0021] of the specification. There is no description provided in the spec that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to combine sharing an object in a chat feature and simultaneously sharing that object via the screen share feature and further allowing a determination that the object is being shared by both of these features. Claim 13 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 12.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 26 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault et al. (US 2021/0028952 A1), herein referred to as Baribault in further view of Hulten et al. (US 2009/0217370 A1), Herein referred to as Hulten.
Regarding claim 1 Baribault teaches:
A computing apparatus, comprising:
a hardware platform comprising a processor and a memory in its most basic configuration, (Baribault [0060] a computing system 800 typically includes at least one hardware processing unit 802 and memory 804.); and
instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor to (Baribault [0059] “a physical and tangible memory capable of having thereon computer-executable instructions that may be executed by a processor.”):
provide access (Baribault [0045] “automatically generating a join URL by using a meeting identifier, thereby enabling joining of a meeting using just a meeting identifier”) to a video web conference (video: Baribault [0031] Audio/video devices (such as speakers 112, amplifiers, microphones 113 and cameras 114) provide or render media from the meeting service.” web conference: Baribault [0034] “the client application navigates a browser to the native web application of the online meeting service, and renders content from that web application 131 so that the venue system can render the meeting content to the meeting participant(s) within the venue.”) with a chat feature (Baribault [0021] “As an example, URLs may be exchanged in a chat associated with a meeting.”);
actively monitor the chat feature and determine that a message shared via the chat feature includes a shared object (Baribault [0056] – [0057] “For example, if the non-native online meeting service provides a chat interface, it may be possible for a remote attendee to send a chat message containing a malicious URL. If the in-room participants were able to click that URL and open the content, it could be damaging to the venue system. To avoid this, the client application monitors URLs that are provided in the context of the joined meeting so that only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.” Examiner’s note: a URL is an object other than a passive text message since it is selectable.);
responsive to the determining, analyze features of the shared object to determine a reputation for the shared object (Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Examiners note: By not matching the predetermined criteria of a trusted URL this indicates a URL is determined to be untrusted (example of reputation));
and according to the reputation, modify a conference experience for at least one participant of the video web conference (experience is modified for one or more participants: Baribault [0056] “only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.”; Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Examiners note: By not matching the predetermined criteria of a trusted URL this indicates a URL is determined to be untrusted (example of reputation)).
Baribault does not teach:
wherein the shared object is a shared document
However, Hulten teaches
wherein the shared object is a shared document (Hulten [0060] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (see [0027]) (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107) (cloud query)).
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 the invention of Baribault to determine reputations of shared documents (instead of or in addition to URLs) as taught by Hulten, in order to protect the client devices from infection via malicious documents.
Regarding claim 3, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein modifying the conference experience comprises notifying all participants of the video web conference (Baribault [0056]-[0057] if the determination is that the reputation of the URL is that the URL is trusted then the URL will be selectable to all users and the selectability of the URL is notification to all participants that the URL is safe).
Regarding claim 4, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein modifying the conference experience comprises blocking access to the shared document (Baribault [0056] “only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.” This means that URLs shared that do not satisfy the one or more predetermined criteria, the untrusted URLs, are made unselectable (access to the URL is blocked); shared object is shared document rather than URL in view of Hulten [0027] and [0006] as cited previously).
Same motivation to combine as Claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein modifying the conference experience comprises modifying the shared document (Baribault [0056] “only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.” This means that URLs shared that do not satisfy the one or more predetermined criteria, the untrusted URLs, are made unselectable (URLs are modified to be unselectable); shared object is shared document rather than URL in view of Hulten [0027] and [0006] as cited previously).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8 Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1,
Baribault does not teach however Hulten teaches:
wherein determining the reputation of the shared document comprises a cloud query (Hulten [0060] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (see [0027]) (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107) (cloud query)).
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 the invention of Baribault to determine reputations of shared documents (instead of or in addition to URLs) as taught by Hulten, in order to protect the client devices from infection via malicious documents and to look up those reputations via a cloud query to utilize information collected from many devices which are clients of a cloud reputation service to determine the reputation.
Regarding claim 9, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 7, wherein determining the reputation comprises determining that the shared document has a file type that supports executable data (Hulten [0027] “If the data file needs to be protected, perhaps because it is a native executable or because the data file type is known to have an exploit, the original data file can be wrapped in a new protective data file”; Hulten [0031] the wrapping includes the logic for the reputation lookup of [0060]).
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 the invention of Baribult to request reputations for files that support executable data, as taught by Hulten, to prevent exploits that those file types are vulnerable to from affecting the client device.
Regarding claim 11, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining that the shared object has been shared comprises determining that the shared document was shared via a chat or instant message feature of the video web conference (Baribault [0056] – [0057] “For example, if the non-native online meeting service provides a chat interface, it may be possible for a remote attendee to send a chat message containing a malicious URL. If the in-room participants were able to click that URL and open the content, it could be damaging to the venue system. To avoid this, the client application monitors URLs that are provided in the context of the joined meeting so that only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.”; shared object is shared document rather than URL in view of Hulten [0027] and [0006] as cited previously).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Baribault teaches:
One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions to:
Initiate (Baribault [0032] “the meeting schedule stage might not always occur as sometimes unscheduled meetings may be started ad hoc.”) a video web conference (video: Baribault [0031] Audio/video devices (such as speakers 112, amplifiers, microphones 113 and cameras 114) provide or render media from the meeting service.” web conference: Baribault [0034] “the client application navigates a browser to the native web application of the online meeting service, and renders content from that web application 131 so that the venue system can render the meeting content to the meeting participant(s) within the venue.”) with a chat feature (Baribault [0021] “As an example, URLs may be exchanged in a chat associated with a meeting.”);
actively monitor the chat feature and determine that a message shared via the chat feature includes a shared object (Baribault [0056] – [0057] “For example, if the non-native online meeting service provides a chat interface, it may be possible for a remote attendee to send a chat message containing a malicious URL. If the in-room participants were able to click that URL and open the content, it could be damaging to the venue system. To avoid this, the client application monitors URLs that are provided in the context of the joined meeting so that only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.” Examiner’s note: a URL is an object other than a passive text message since it is selectable.); … and
according to the reputation, modify a conference experience for at least one participant in the video web conference (experience is modified for one or more participants: Baribault [0056] “only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.”; Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Examiners note: By not matching the predetermined criteria of a trusted URL this indicates a URL is determined to be untrusted (example of reputation)).
Baribault does not teach however, Hulten teaches:
Wherein the shared object is a shared document (Hulten [0027] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation is look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107)).
based on features of the Shared document, query a cloud service for a reputation for the object ((Hulten [0027] data file may be wrapped based on type of file (feature of the object); Hulten [0031] the wrapper contains logic to look up the reputation of the object (query the remote reputation service server (cloud query) see [0060]));
Receive the reputation (Hulten [0060] the response to the lookup at the reputation service would be a receipt of the reputation; see also Hulten [0006] “the associated data file is made accessible upon receipt of data file reputation information”);
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 the invention of Baribault to determine reputations of shared documents (instead of or in addition to URLs) as taught by Hulten, in order to protect the client devices from infection via malicious documents and to look up those reputations via a cloud query to utilize information collected from many devices which are clients of a cloud reputation service to determine the reputation.
Regarding claim 51 Baribault teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
beginning (Baribault [0032] “the meeting schedule stage might not always occur as sometimes unscheduled meetings may be started ad hoc.”) a video web conference (video: Baribault [0031] Audio/video devices (such as speakers 112, amplifiers, microphones 113 and cameras 114) provide or render media from the meeting service.” web conference: Baribault [0034] “the client application navigates a browser to the native web application of the online meeting service, and renders content from that web application 131 so that the venue system can render the meeting content to the meeting participant(s) within the venue.”) with a chat feature ;
actively monitor the chat feature and determining that a message shared via the chat feature includes a shared object (Baribault [0056] – [0057] “For example, if the non-native online meeting service provides a chat interface, it may be possible for a remote attendee to send a chat message containing a malicious URL. If the in-room participants were able to click that URL and open the content, it could be damaging to the venue system. To avoid this, the client application monitors URLs that are provided in the context of the joined meeting so that only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.” Examiner’s note: a URL is an object other than a passive text message since it is selectable.);
wherein the reputation is based on features of the shared object (Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Examiners note: By not matching the predetermined criteria of a trusted URL this indicates a URL is determined to be untrusted (example of reputation) and following a pattern common to trusted URLs indicates features of the object); and
according to the reputation, modifying a conference experience for at least one participant in the video web conference (experience is modified for one or more participants: Baribault [0056] “only URLs satisfying one or more predetermined criteria are selectable.”; Baribault [0057] “These predetermined criteria could be that the URL is in a list of trusted URLs, or perhaps follows a pattern common to trusted URLs.” Examiners note: By not matching the predetermined criteria of a trusted URL this indicates a URL is determined to be untrusted (example of reputation)).
Baribault does not teach, however, Hulten teaches:
Wherein the shared object is a shared document (Hulten [0060] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (see [0027]) (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107) (cloud query));
receiving a reputation for the object (Hulten [0060] the response to the lookup at the reputation service would be a receipt of the reputation; see also Hulten [0006] “the associated data file is made accessible upon receipt of data file reputation information”),
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 the invention of Baribault to determine reputations of shared documents (instead of or in addition to URLs) as taught by Hulten, in order to protect the client devices from infection via malicious documents.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten and in further view of Sobel et al. (US 7,634,814 B1), herein referred to as Sobel.
Regarding claim 2, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1,
Wherein the communication experience is a conference experience (web conference: Baribault [0034] “the client application navigates a browser to the native web application of the online meeting service, and renders content from that web application 131 so that the venue system can render the meeting content to the meeting participant(s) within the venue.”).
Baribault in view of Hulten does not tech however, Sobel teaches:
wherein modifying the communication experience (column 3 19-29 instant messaging (chatting) between two or more users) comprises notifying the at least one participant of the reputation (Column 7 lines 25-31 “notification is provided that protective action has been taken. Illustratively, the recipient IM user is notified that the recipient IM user is not receiving the IM attachment. In one embodiment, the recipient IM user is also notified that the IM attachment contained malicious code and/or that the IM attachment has been sent to quarantine or otherwise contained or destroyed.” Where the reputation (malicious) was determined by, column 5 lines 15-17 “the IM attachment is scanned for malicious signatures, e.g., known sequence of bytes indicating that the IM attachment contains malicious code” following a determination that, column 5 lines 7-12, “file type is not a safe file type and the IM attachment is being sent from an un-trusted source”).
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten the to notify at least one participant of the reputation of the object as taught by Sobel alert the user that a malicious object was sent to allow the user to determine whether it is safe to continue to interact with the user that sent the malicious object
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten, and in further view of Kaidi (US 20210185060 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein modifying the conference experience comprises [performing actions to protect network resources from the file] (Baribault [0056]-[0057] makes an object unselectable based on the reputation to protect conference system; shared object is shared document rather than URL in view of Hulten [0027] and [0006] as cited previously);
and wherein the file is a shared document (Hulten [0060] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (see [0027]) (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107) (cloud query));
Baribault in view of Hulten does not teach, however, Kaidi teaches:
[wherein performing actions to protect the network resources from the file] comprises converting the file to a static file (Kaidi [0051] the attack detection manager 202 may change the extension associated with the executable script from “.exe” to “.txt”, from “.html” to “.txt”, etc.).
While Kaidi does not convert files in a web conference or instant messaging environment, the focus of this prior art is on protecting users and devices in a connected environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply conversion of file types to the web conference art as a method of dealing with shared infected files.
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten to convert unsafe document file types to non-executable files, as taught by Kaidi, in order to prevent any device (or user in the conference) from accidently executing malicious code in the file (Kaidi [0051]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten and in view of Giralt (US 20200342131 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1,
Wherein the shared object is a shared document (Hulten [0060] a file (Hulten [0006] gives example of text file (document)) shared through instant messaging (see [0027]) (analogous to chat feature) for which a reputation look-up (query) occurs at a remote reputation service server (Fig. 1A item 107) (cloud query));
Baribault does not teach, however, Giralt teaches:
wherein determining that the shared object has been shared comprises determining that the shared object was shared via a screen share feature of the web conference (Giralt [0015] – [0016] determines an object has been shared based on OCR of a screen share after significant pixel changes in a video feed are detected).
If an object was shared via a chat feature of the video web conference of Baribault then that object would necessarily be visible on screen share of the total content of the web conference application, the system taught by Giralt would be capable of detecting such an object within the video web conference session.
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten, to detect the sharing of objects (such as the shared document) via a screenshare feature, as taught by Giralt, in order to prevent users from visually obtaining an object outside of the chat.
Regarding claim 13, Baribault in view of Hulten and in further view of Giralt teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 12, wherein the instructions are further to provide optical character recognition (OCR) on the screen share feature (Giralt [0024]-[0025] OCR is performed on a shared screen).
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten to use OCR to detect identifiable text in a screenshare feature, as taught by Giralt, in order to prevent the sharing of security-sensitive content to unauthorized participants (Giralt [0010]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault, in view of Grevers (US 20170223066 A1) and in further view of Kasarabada et al. (US 20200084511 A1), herein referred to as Kasarabada.
Regarding claim 14, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The computing apparatus of claim 1,
Baribault in view of Hulten does not teach however Grevers teaches:
wherein the instructions are further to determine that a remote device participating in the web
conference has [begun screen recording] (captured a screenshot) (Grevers [0012] detects screen
capture events such as screenshot or print-screen), and wherein modifying the conference experience
comprises notifying the at least one participant of the [screen recording] (screenshot) (Grevers [0012]
presenter is notified that a screenshot has been performed on their content).
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten to detect a capture (such as by a screenshot) of shared screen content as taught by Grevers, in order to maintain confidentially of the content (Grevers [0002]).
Baribault in view of Hulten and in further view of Grevers does not teach, however, Kasarabada teaches:
determine that a [remote device participating in the web conference] (user) has begun screen
recording (Kasarabada [0033] session manager determines that a screen recording session by a user is
in progress), and … notifying [the at least one participant] (a presenting entity) of the screen recording
(Kasarabada [0034] application (as the presenting entity) is messaged that a screen recording is in
progress).
Instead of warning an application, in a web conference setting it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to warn the
conference presenter (as the presenting entity) of a screen recording as Grevers already teaches a
warning to a conference presenter of a screenshot to prevent leaking of confidential content (Grevers
[0002]). Whether the content is captured through a screenshot or a screen recording, confidentiality could be compromised through unauthorized distribution making it obvious to alert the presenter about
both.
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 the invention of Baribault, Hulten and Grevers to detect that screen recording has begun, as taught by Kasarabada, alternatively to detection of screen captures
taught by Grevers, to give the presenting entity a chance to protect the content from further
recording (Kasarabada [0024]).
Claims 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten, in further view of Grevers and in further view of Kasarabada.
Regarding claim 41, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26,
Baribault in view of Hulten does not teach however Grevers teaches:
wherein the instructions are further to determine [that screen recording has begun] (a screenshot has been captured) (Grevers [0012] detects screen capture events such as screenshot or print-screen), and wherein modifying the conference experience comprises notifying the at least one participant (Grevers [0012] presenter is notified that a screenshot has been performed on their content).
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten to detect a capture (such as by a screenshot) of shared screen content as taught by Grevers, in order to maintain confidentially of the content (Grevers [0002]).
Baribault in view of Hulten in further view of Grevers does not teach, however, Kasarabada teaches:
wherein the instructions are further to determine that screen recording has begun (Kasarabada [0033] session manager determines that a screen recording session is in progress), and wherein modifying the conference experience comprises notifying [the at least one participant] (a presenting entity) (Kasarabada [0034] Application (as the presenting entity) is messaged that a screen recording is in progress).
Instead of warning an application, in a web conference setting it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to warn the conference presenter (as the presenting entity) of a screen recording as Grevers already teaches a warning to a conference presenter of a screenshot to prevent leaking of confidential content (Grevers [0002]). Whether the content is captured through a screenshot or a screen recording, confidentiality could be compromised through unauthorized distribution making it obvious to alert the presenter about both.
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 the invention of Baribault, Hulten, and Grevers to detect that screen recording has begun, as taught by Kasarabada, alternatively to detection of screen captures taught by Grevers, to give the presenting entity a chance to protect the content from further recording (Kasarabada [0024]).
Regarding Claim 43, Baribault in view of Hulten in further view of Grevers and in further view of Kasarabada teaches:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory computer- readable media of claim 41, wherein determining that screen recording has begun comprises statically observing an application with screen [recording] (capture) capability (Grevers [0035] client application monitors for screen capture process launched from an application such as OSX /usr/sbin/screencapture).
While Grevers does not select monitoring of an application that does screen recording instead of screen capture, they are sufficiently related in the art to be obvious to substitute for one another especially in view of Kasarabada which focuses on detection of screen recording.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement as the method for determining that screen recording has begun in the invention of Baribault, Hulten, Grevers, and Kasarabada to be statically observing an application with screen recording capability. The reason for doing so would be because a process running from such an application indicates the start of content capture (Grevers [0035]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten, in further view of Grevers, in further view of Kasarabada, in further view of Liske (US 20150319183 A1) and in further view of Chourdakis (previously cited non-patent literature).
Regarding Claim 42, Baribault in view of Hulten, in further view of Grevers and in further view of Kasarabada teaches:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 41,
Baribault in view of Hulten, in further view of Grevers and in further view of Kasarabada does not teach, however, Liske teaches:
wherein determining that screen recording has begun comprises observing [API activity related to screen recording] (Liske [0095] blocks screen recording after detecting combinations of API calls relating to screen recording).
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 the invention of Baribault, Hulten, Grevers and Kasarabada to detect API calls (such as those from DirectX) to determine that recording has begun, in order to take action regarding the screen recording attempt, as taught by Liske (Liske [0095]).
Baribault in view Hulten in further view of Grevers, in further view of Kasarabada and in further view of Liske does not teach but Chourdakis teaches:
[API activity related to screen recording as] DirectX activity (Chourdakis teaches a library for recording a screen using DirectX API calls such as CreateTexture2D, CreateDXGIFactory1, D3D11CreateDevice, D3D11CalcSubresource).
While Liske does not describe detection of DirectX activity it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Liske and Chourdakis, to substitute the particular API call combinations in Liske with any combinations of the calls in Chourdakis for screen recording with DirectX.
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 the invention of Baribault, Hulten, Grevers, Kasarabada and Liske to detect DirectX API calls related to screen recording, such as those used by Chourdakis, (in addition to the API calls in Liske) as the means to determine a screen recording has begun in order to stop a malicious screen recording ([0095] Liske).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baribault in view of Hulten in further view of Dunn et al. (US 20130263021 A1), herein referred to as Dunn.
Regarding claim 48, Baribault in view of Hulten teaches:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26,
Baribault in view of Hulten does not teach, however, Dunn teaches:
wherein the instructions provide a browser plugin (Dunn [0052] user downloads a one-time installation browser plug-in to access an internet video conferencing system).
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 the invention of Baribault and Hulten to use a browser plugin as the means to provide access to a web conference on the client end, as taught by Dunn, in order to replace a potentially large software application download with a small web browser plugin (Dunn [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GANOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/ANDREW J GANOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights