DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendments
This office action responds to the amendments filed on March 3, 2026 for application 18/027,988. Claims 1 and 10-12 are amended, claim 14 is added as a new claim, and claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments filed on March 3, 2026, and the Examiner responds as provided below.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks that concerns the rejection, the Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the claim amendments are persuasive, and consequently the Examiner conducted a new prior art search. The Applicant’s arguments are now moot with respect to the pending claims because the arguments do not apply to one of the references currently used in the rejection of the claims as detailed below.
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.
The following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akula (US 2014/0173450, “Akula”) in view of Goel et al. (US 2019/0214060, “Goel”) and Bostick et al. (US 2017/0206374, “Bostick”), and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0087602, “Park”) and Sampson (US 10,049,227, “Sampson”).
Regarding Claim 1
Akula discloses
An information display apparatus (Fig. 2, ¶ [0027], “computer system 200”) comprising:
a display (Fig. 2, ¶ [0027], “…one or more output devices 215 (e.g., a display device, a printer, etc.).”);
at least one memory storing instructions (¶ [0044], “These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums [memory], such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions.”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044], “It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine, such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits [processors] programmed with the instructions to perform the methods.”) to:
1 …;
2 …;
receive an input for designating desired personal information of the first user…3 to be displayed on the display unit (Fig. 3, ¶¶ [0031]-[0033], “A request [input] can be received by the application 310 from the [first] user through the application interface 325 to unmask [thus requesting to be displayed] the element displaying [on the display unit] the at least one field of information identified as sensitive [personal information]. For example, the user may click a button or other control associated with [thereby designating desired] the sensitive [personal] information in the application interface 325.”); and
determine, …4,
whether or not to remove the masking applied to the specific image portion corresponding to the desired personal information (Fig. 3, ¶ [0033], “In response to the request, a determination can be made by the application 310 and/or access manager 350 [via the “configuration”/permission data] as to whether to grant the user access to the at least one field of information identified as sensitive. In response to determining to grant the user access to the at least one field of information identified as sensitive, the user interface 325 can be updated by the application 310 to unmask [and thereby is able to be displayed] the element displaying the at least one field of information identified as sensitive as will be described in greater detail below.”);
5 …; and
6 ….
Akula doesn’t disclose
1 read an image that is acquired by a camera capturing the image of a physical medium containing personal information of a first user;
2 display the image on the display, wherein the image contains a specific image portion that includes the personal information of the first user to which masking is applied;
3 … that a second user requests…
4 …, based on permission data designating personal information of the first user that is permitted to be displayed on the display by the first user, …
5 receive an input to change a display form of the desired personal information;
6 change the display form of the desired personal information between an image in which the masking applied to the specific image portion is removed and text objects indicating a content of the desired personal information based on the input to change the display form of the desired personal information.
Goel, however, discloses
4 …, based on permission data designating personal information of the first user that is permitted to be displayed on the display by the first user (¶ [0029], “The masking determination system 118 is adapted to apply a prediction algorithm to automatically determine whether to mask [or alternatively permit displaying] the data [personal information] requested for display in the user computing device 114 (step 210) by comparing the time, location and network characteristics information associated with the current data display request with the usage profile of the individual making the request.”; and ¶ [0037], “To make such a determination, the server 402 interacts with the rule engine 404 that is configured to update and maintain one or more usage profiles, including the usage profile of the user corresponding to the requesting computing device 114. As described above, each usage profile includes one or more rules and patterns [permission data] describing the preferences of the user with respect to data masking [and the unmasked personal information that is permitted to be displayed].”),
Regarding the combination of Akula and Goel, 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 security display system of Akula to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a masking rule feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the security display system of Goel, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the masking rule feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the masking rule feature to the base security display system of Akula, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bostick, however, discloses
3 … that a second user requests… (Fig. 5, ¶ [0046], “In FIG. 5, a second modified version of the digital identification document 132 is displayed on the mobile device 100. In this example the user (with their mobile device 100) is located at a restaurant during opening hours to collect a package. When the restaurant employee asks [second user requests] to see the user's ID (e.g., for age verification to serve a beverage), the user launches the ID app 106, authenticates, and initiates a request to the ID server 102.”; and “The context module 110 then causes the ID program 108 to create a modified version of the digital identification document based on the rules contained in the matching user profile 118. In this example, the matching user profile 118 specifies that for this location the modified version of the digital identification document includes: user photograph; and an indicator 134 of whether the user is older or younger than twenty-one years old.”)
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel and Bostick, 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 security display system of Akula-Goel to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula-Goel, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a digital ID feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the security display system of Bostick, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the digital ID feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the digital ID feature to the base security display system of Akula-Goel, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Park, however, discloses
1 read an image that is acquired by a camera capturing the image of a physical medium containing personal information of a first user (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0053]-[0054], “First, the offline document de-identification apparatus 100 acquires an offline document [physical medium] including personal identification information as an [captured] image (S610). That is, the image obtainer 110 acquires an offline document including personal identification information as an image through a scanner or a camera of a smart phone.”; and “The offline document de-identification apparatus 100 performs image processing on [by reading] the image acquired in step S610 to detect a document area (S620).”);
2 display the image on the display, wherein the image contains a specific image portion that includes the personal information of the first user to which masking is applied (Figs. 2-4, ¶ [0055], “In step S630, the offline document de-identification apparatus 100 performs masking [for the personal information of the first user] on an area [specific image portion] in which the de-identification (non-discrimination) is required in the document area (corrected document area) detected in step S620. That is, the de-identifier 130 performs [applies] masking on the area 131 requiring de-identification through a masking program. Here, the area 131 requiring de-identification can be automatically or manually selected by a user [where manual selection requires the image to be displayed on the display to enable the user to make the selection].”);
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel-Bostick and Park, 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 security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a camera capturing feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the security display system of Park, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the camera capturing feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the camera capturing feature to the base security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Sampson, however, discloses
5 receive an input to change a display form of the desired personal information (Fig. 3, Col. 17:3-22, “Referring to step 305, embodiments of the present inventive concept may further permit generation of a request [input] to reveal [display] one or more portions of the block of data that is, or would be, masked by a limited expression format. The revelation request may be provided before or after [to change] the block of data [desired personal information] is expressed in a limited expression format at the destination device.”);
6 change the display form of the desired personal information between an image in which the masking applied to the specific image portion is removed and text objects indicating a content of the desired personal information based on the input to change the display form of the desired personal information (Fig. 4, Col. 17:40-18:17, “As depicted by FIG. 4, clicking on the ‘View’ button or icon may cause operation of a shutter or partial shutter (or mask). Clicking or pressing the View button, for example, may cause sensitive information to be revealed [change the display form of the desired personal information between an image in which the masking applied to the specific image portion is removed and displaying the corresponding text objects] or even partially revealed, such as via a partial shutter or partial mask, on a display of a mobile device.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park and Sampson, 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 security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a text revelation feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the security display system of Sampson, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the text revelation feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the text revelation feature to the base security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Akula in view of Goel and Bostick, and further in view of Park and Sampson (“Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson”) discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
1 …,
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to determine that the {specific image portion (Park Figs. 2-4, ¶ [0055])} including desired personal information is able to be displayed on the display (¶ [0032], “The sensitive information can be pre-defined as such in a variety of different ways but, for example, can be identified as such by an administrator, developer or other user through a configuration interface 345 of a configuration module 335 which in turn sets and stores a set of configuration data 340 (e.g., as a policy) for use by the application 310. Thus, upon execution and when generating the user interface 325, the application can determine which [personal] information is considered to be sensitive and therefore masked. The application server 305 can also include an access manager 350 for user by or in conjunction with the application 310 to control access to the sensitive information or other application data 330, for example when the user [or the “rule engine” as taught by Goel ¶¶ [0029], [0037]] requests the sensitive information to be unmasked [and displayed].”), and
2 …,
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to determine that the {specific image portion (Park Figs. 2-4, ¶ [0055])} the desired personal information is unable to be displayed on the display (¶ [0032], “The sensitive information can be pre-defined as such in a variety of different ways but, for example, can be identified as such by an administrator, developer or other user through a configuration interface 345 of a configuration module 335 which in turn sets and stores a set of configuration data 340 (e.g., as a policy) for use by the application 310. Thus, upon execution and when generating the user interface 325, the application can determine which [personal] information is considered to be sensitive and therefore masked [and unable to be displayed].”).
Goel further discloses
1 wherein in a case where the permission data designates the desired personal information as the personal information that is permitted to be displayed on the display (¶¶ [0029], [0037], i.e., the rule engine determines whether personal information can be displayed because it will not be masked),
2 in a case where the permission data does not designate the desired personal information as the personal information that is permitted to be displayed on the display (¶¶ [0029], [0037], i.e., the rule engine determines whether personal information will be masked and not permitted to be displayed),
Regarding the combination of Akula and Goetz, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goetz-Bostick and Park, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 4
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to
receive an input of an operation designating the desired personal information (Fig. 4C, ¶ [0038], “As shown here, the element 425 and 435 displaying the at least one field [as input] of information identified as sensitive [desired personal information] can be masked [as an operation], e.g., presented as a series of asterisks or other characters or graphics in place of the actual text.”, i.e., the name of the field is input that indicates the presence of personal information),
the operation being performed by using an image displayed on the display (Fig. 4C, ¶ [0039], “As shown here, the element 425 and 435 displaying the at least one field of information identified as sensitive can be masked, e.g., presented as a series of asterisks [as an image] or other characters or graphics [image] in place of the actual text.”).
Regarding Claim 5
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 4, and Akula further discloses
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to receive the input of the operation designating, on the image, the desired personal information (¶ [0038], i.e., the input for the masking on the image for the personal information is received to enable the masking).
Regarding Claim 6
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 5, and Akula further discloses
wherein the display is configured to remove the masking applied to the {specific image portion (Park Figs. 2-4, ¶ [0055])} the desired personal information in a case where the at least one processor determines that the desired personal information is able to be displayed on the display (¶ [0039], “As illustrated in FIG. 4B, upon clicking the button 430 or other control associated with the element 425 containing the desired sensitive information, the user may be required to be authenticated and/or authorized before the sensitive [personal] information is unmasked [and thus can be displayed via this determination]. For example, if this is the first request by the user to view sensitive information in the interface 400, a dialog box 450 or other element may be opened in the interface 400 through which the user can provide a password 455 or other identifying information. Upon a successful authentication and/or authorization, the element 425 containing the requested sensitive information can be updated to unmask [and display] that [personal] information as illustrated in FIG. 4C.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goetz-Bostick and Park, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 7
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to…1
Goel further discloses
1 …receive an input collectively designating a plurality of types of the desired personal information (¶ [0029], “The masking determination system 118 is adapted to apply a prediction algorithm to automatically determine whether to [collectively] mask the [plurality of] data [and without respect to individual or different types of personal information] requested for display in the user computing device 114 (step 210) by comparing the time, location and network characteristics information associated with the current data display request with the usage profile of the individual making the request. FIG. 3 is an illustrative prediction process 300 executed by the masking determination system 118 to automatically determine data masking, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula and Goel, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Regarding Claim 8
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to…1, and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to…2.
Goel further discloses
1 …receive an input of position data related to a position of the display (¶ [0023], “In some embodiments, the masking determination system 118 is also configured to receive/detect [input] from the user computing device 114 an approximate physical location [physical data] of the user where the data display request is made (step 206). For example, the masking determination system 118 can determine the user's physical location (e.g., map coordinates) based on signals emitted by the user computing device 114, such as cellular triangulation and GPS signals and/or publicly broadcasted Wi-Fi access points service set identifier (SSID) and media access control (MAC) data from neighboring Wi-Fi networks.”),
2 …set personal information that is required at the position indicated by the position data, as the desired personal information (¶ [0026], “The masking determination system 118 is adapted to automatically determine whether to mask [or to set] the data requested for display in the user computing device 114 based on the time, location [position] and network characteristics information (step 210).”, i.e., the masking is determined based upon the location of the display).
Regarding the combination of Akula and Goel, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claim 10
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
the display is able to change a display form of the {specific image portion (Park Figs. 2-4, ¶ [0055])} including the desired personal information (¶ [0031], “As will be described below, this interface 325 can include information identified as sensitive and thus masked upon display by the client device 315 but which can be made readable [and changed], i.e., unmasked [as a display form], upon request by the user of the client device.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goetz-Bostick and Park, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claim 13
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Goel further discloses
wherein the permission data…1 (¶¶ [0029], [0037]),
2 ….
Bostick further discloses
1 …includes permission data units indicating whether or not a certain type of the personal information of the first user (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0037]-[0040], “Still referring to FIG. 2, the ID server 102 may also store a user profile 118 and a provider profile 120 in the storage system 112. In embodiments, the user profile 118 is a data structure that is created by the user of the mobile device 100. The user profile 118 allows a user to specify a subset of the user data [permission data units] 114 that is to be included in the user's digital identification in a predefined context. For example, the user profile 118 may specify that when the mobile device 100 is located at a particular location (e.g., a restaurant) during predefined hours, the user's digital identification will only include the digital image (photograph) [certain type of the personal information] of the user and an indication of whether the user is over or under a certain age (e.g., twenty-one years old).”),
2 which is designated by the first user beforehand, is permitted to be displayed, a number of the permission data units is equal to a number of items of the personal information of the first user (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0037]-[0040], “Still referring to FIG. 2, the ID server 102 may also store a user profile [designated by the first user beforehand] 118 and a provider profile 120 in the storage system 112. In embodiments, the user profile 118 is a data structure that is created by the user of the mobile device 100. The user profile 118 allows a user to specify a subset of the user data [] 114 that is to be included [permitted to be displayed] in the user's digital identification in a predefined context. For example, the user profile 118 may specify that when the mobile device 100 is located at a particular location (e.g., a restaurant) during predefined hours, the user's digital identification will only include the digital image (photograph) of the user and an indication of whether the user is over or under a certain age (e.g., twenty-one years old) [and thereby a number of the permission data units is equal to a number of items of the personal information of the first user, where in this case is two].”).
Regarding the combination of Akula and Goetz, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goetz and Bostick, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding Claim 14
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to…1.
Sampson further discloses
1 display the text objects indicating the content of the desired personal information on the display in a display form in which a text of interest is recognizable to the second user (Fig. 4, Col. 17:40-18:17, “In one embodiment, the network computing device or administrator overseeing processing of a revelation request may be configured to permit or deny the requested [of the second user] unmasking in whole or in part.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park and Sampson, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 14.
Regarding Independent Claims 11 and 12
With respect to independent claims 11 and 12, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11 and 12. Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
B. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akula in view of Goel and Bostick, and further in view of Park and Nichols et al. (US 10,719,592, “Nichols”).
Regarding Claim 3
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to
receive an input of voice designating the desired personal information (Col. 8:55-10, “FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing one example of a process flow 300 that may be executed by a privacy tool, such as the privacy tool 104A, 104B of the environment 100 of FIG. 1, to select a privacy level for a task. At operation 302, the privacy tool [to perform designating personal information] may receive a task request [input of voice] from a user, such as the user 106 of the environment 100. The task request may be received via an audio I/O channel of the user computing device 102 in the user's voice.”).
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson and Nichols, 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 security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a voice command feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the privacy system of Nichols, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the voice command feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the voice command feature to the base security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
C. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akula in view of Goel and Bostick, and further in view of Park and Boelter et al. (US 2014/0087656, “Boelter”).
Regarding Claim 9
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson discloses the information display apparatus according to claim 1, and Akula further discloses
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (¶ [0044]) to generate, based on the desired personal information (Fig. 3, ¶¶ [0031]-[0033]),
1 …,
wherein the display is configured
(i) in a case where the at least one processor determines that the desired personal information is able to be displayed on the display, to display the image (Fig. 3, ¶ [0033], “In response to the request, a determination can be made by the application 310 and/or access manager 350 as to whether to grant the user access [and thereby display] to the at least one field of [personal] information identified as sensitive. In response to determining to grant the user access to the at least one field of information [that is able to be displayed] identified as sensitive, the user interface 325 can be updated by the application 310 to unmask [and make recognizable] the element displaying the at least one field of information [as an image on the display] identified as sensitive as will be described in greater detail below.”), and
(ii) in a case where the at least one processor determines that the desired personal information is unable to be displayed on the display unit (¶ [0033]), not to display the image (¶ [0038], “As shown here, the element 425 and 435 displaying the at least one field of [personal] information identified as sensitive can be masked, e.g., presented as a series of asterisks or other characters or graphics in place of the actual text [such the personal information is unrecognizable].”).
Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson doesn’t disclose
1 an image imitating a physical medium in a predetermined format containing the desired personal information,
Boelter, however, discloses
1 an image imitating a physical medium in a predetermined format containing the desired personal information (Fig. 2, ¶ [0019], “As shown in FIG. 2, a similar mechanism to obscure identification information presented in an image of the license 20 can be realized. Thus as shown in FIG. 2, in a locked state, the identification information within image frame 25 a is unreadable, e.g., due to a pixel manipulation process [that imitates a physical medium in a predetermined format involving pixels]. Instead in an unlocked state, the identification information is clearly seen, as shown in FIG. 2, namely in frame 25 b.”),
Regarding the combination of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson and Boelter, 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 security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an image imitation feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the privacy system of Boelter, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the image imitation feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the image imitation feature to the base security display system of Akula-Goel-Bostick-Park-Sampson, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights