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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0013, line 3, “day to day” should be “day-to-day”.
In paragraph 0029, line 3, “shared conditions” should be “shared condition”.
In paragraph 0046, line 1, “COMPUTER” should be “Computer”.
In paragraph 0047, line 1, “PROCESSOR” should be “Processor”.
In paragraph 0049, line 1, “COMMUNICATION FABRIC” should be “Communication fabric”.
In paragraph 0050, line 1, “VOLATILE MEMORY” should be “Volatile memory”.
In paragraph 0051, line 1, “PERSISTENT STORAGE” should be “Persistent storage”.
In paragraph 0051, line 7, “solid state” should be “solid-state”.
In paragraph 0051, line 8, “open source” should be “open-source”.
In paragraph 0052, line 1, “PERIPHERAL DEVICE SET” should be “Peripheral device set”.
In paragraph 0053, line 1, “NETWORK MODULE” should be “Network module”.
In paragraph 0055, line 1, “END USER DEVICE” should be “End user device”.
In paragraph 0056, line 1, “REMOTE SERVER” should be “Remote server”.
In paragraph 0057, line 1, “PUBLIC CLOUD” should be “Public cloud”.
In paragraph 0059, line 1, “PRIVATE CLOUD” should be “Private cloud”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-15 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 9 recites the limitation "the system" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because both lines 1 and 5 of claim 9 recite “a system”, making it indefinite on whether “the system” in line 7 refers to “a system” in line 1 or line 5. A change should be made such that if “a system” in line 5 is a new system, there is a distinction from “a system” in line 1. If not, then “a system” in line 5 should be changed to “the system” to refer to “a system” in line 1.
Dependent claims 10-15 incorporate independent claim deficiency from claim 9 and thus also rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (US 2011/0202850 A1, hereinafter Chan).
In regards to claim 1, Chan teaches a method comprising: ([Abstract] “A method for automatic censoring of a graphical user interface (GUI) screen”)
detecting, at a privacy application for a system, a system display associated with a user is in a shared condition; ([0020] “In block 202, a censor trigger is received by the censoring module 103. The trigger may include… facial recognition software determining the viewing of the user's screen by another person… or sending of a screen share.”)
detecting a first item associated with a first application running on the system is visually presented on the system display; ([0020] “In block 203, information, including metadata, is identified regarding objects located in the user screen 102 by object recognition module 104… In block 204, censoring module 103 determines sensitive content to be censored from the information identified in block 203.”)
determining from privacy settings for the first application a privacy screening condition for the first item; ([0020] “In block 201, preferences regarding the types of information to be censored are determined and stored in censoring preferences module 105”, where “sensitive content to be censored from the information identified… is [determined] by comparing the information gathered by object recognition module 104 with the censoring preferences stored in censoring preferences module 105”)
and masking the first item according to the privacy screening condition to obscure the visual presentation of contents of first item on the system display in the shared condition ([0020] “In block 205, the sensitive content determined in block 204 is removed from screen 102. Removal may comprise… black-out or replacement of the sensitive information, leaving the window visible.”).
Regarding claim 2, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the system display in a shared condition comprises: detecting a screen sharing application on the system is displaying contents presented on the system display as a shared screen ([0020] “In block 202, a censor trigger is received by the censoring module 103. The trigger may include… facial recognition software determining the viewing of the user's screen by another person… or sending of a screen share.”).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, further comprising: detecting a private display associated with the user; ([0019] “Censorship preferences may vary based on the identity of a person viewing the information, such as chat partner, viewer of a screen, or participant in a web conference.”)
wherein the system display in the shared condition comprises a mirrored presentation of the contents presented on the private display associated with the user; ([0020] “In block 202, a censor trigger is received by the censoring module 103. The trigger may include… sending of a screen share.”)
where masking the first item according to the privacy screening condition comprises: obscuring the visual presentation of contents of first item in the mirrored presentation of the contents presented on the system display in the shared condition; ([0020] “In block 203, information, including metadata, is identified regarding objects located in the user screen 102 by object recognition module 104”, where, “In block 204, censoring module 103 determines sensitive content to be censored from the information identified in block 203” [0020], and “In block 205, the sensitive content determined in block 204 is removed from screen 102. Removal may comprise minimizing or removal of a window or region containing the sensitive information, or black-out or replacement of the sensitive information, leaving the window visible.” [0020])
and displaying the first item according to original display settings of the first application on the private display. ([0019] “Different viewing schemes may be applied to different participants in a web conference. The user may define various viewing schemes in the preferences, such ‘View Everything’”)
Regarding claim 4, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the system display in a shared condition comprises: detecting, using at least one presence sensor, at least one additional physical viewer of the system display ([0020] “In block 202, a censor trigger is received by the censoring module 103. The trigger may include… facial recognition software determining the viewing of the user's screen by another person… or sending of a screen share.”).
Regarding claim 5, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing an indication to the user indicating the system display is in a shared condition; ([0020] “The user may also be presented with a list of information gathered from the screen 102, allowing the user to select content to be censored.”)
requesting a confirmation from the user to mask the first item; ([0020] “Some types of sensitive content may trigger a warning to the user, allowing the user to choose whether or not to censor the content based on the warning.”)
and masking the first item upon receiving the confirmation from the user. ([0020] “The user's response to a warning may be added to the preferences stored in censoring preferences module 105 in some embodiments.”)
Regarding claim 8, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein privacy settings for the first application comprise one or more of: ([0016] “This determined information may then be compared to a set of user preferences to determine which portions of the screen comprise sensitive information to be censored”)
obscuring a visual presentation of all sensitive content marked by the first application; obscuring a visual presentation of a subset of sensitive content marked by the first application; ([0016] “Granular censorship of information may be performed… [on] all or any part of the information in a particular application”)
and obscuring a visual presentation of all application content related to the first application. ([0016] “Data located outside of but related to a shared region may also be used to determine whether to censor information located inside the shared region”)
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a system form. Chan further teaches a system comprising: ([0004] “An exemplary embodiment of a system for automatic censoring of a graphical user interface (GUI) screen includes a censoring module”, also “computer 600 may include one or more processors 610”)
a computer processor; and a memory containing a program which when executed by the computer processor performs an operation ([0026] “The processor 610 is a hardware device for executing software that can be stored in the memory 620”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has substantially similar limitations to claim 3, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has substantially similar limitations to claim 4, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has substantially similar limitations to claim 5, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has substantially similar limitations to claim 8, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a computer product form. Chan further teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: ([0005] “An exemplary embodiment of a computer program product”)
a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation ([0005] “comprising a computer readable storage medium containing computer code that, when executed by a computer, implements a method for automatic screen censoring”, where “the processor 610 is configured to execute software stored within the memory 620” [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has substantially similar limitations to claim 3, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has substantially similar limitations to claim 5, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 has substantially similar limitations to claim 8, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2011/0202850 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0167482 A1, hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 6, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: detecting a second item associated with a second application running on the system is visually presented on the system display; determining from privacy settings for the second application a privacy screening condition for the second item; and displaying the second item according to original display settings of the second application.
However, this is known in the art by Han. Han is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to censoring private content in display devices. Han further teaches that the embodiment works for more than one application ([0071] “[i]n other embodiments, the redaction tool is available across numerous other applications (e.g., a web browser application, e-mail application, SMS messaging application, etc.), as a selectable option within those applications”), such that the user can access redacted content across multiple applications ([0044] “in order for a user… to access various applications that operate on the device”). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Han to Chan, such that users can redact content across multiple applications.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has substantially similar limitations to claim 6, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has substantially similar limitations to claim 6, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2011/0202850 A1) in view of Haslam et al. (US 12182302 B1, hereinafter Haslam).
Regarding claim 7, Chan teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: receiving a privacy override request from the user; confirming from privacy settings for the first application the privacy override request is allowed for the first item; and unmasking the first item to present the visual presentation of contents of first item on the system display according to original display settings of the first application.
However, this is known in the art as taught by Haslam. Haslam teaches further comprising: receiving a privacy override request from the user; ([col. 14, lines 22-27] “the processor 42 may receive… any other user input requesting that the censored data be made viewable”)
confirming from privacy settings for the first application the privacy override request is allowed for the first item; ([col. 14, lines 17-19] “the processor 42 may uncensor or present the sensitive information in response to determining that the sensitive information is permitted to be presented”)
and unmasking the first item to present the visual presentation of contents of first item on the system display according to original display settings of the first application. ([col. 14, lines 20-22] “the processor 42 may present the sensitive information based on an input provided by a user that the sensitive information may be presented”).
Haslam is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to censoring sensitive information to be displayed on computing devices. Haslam further teaches that “[i]n this way, the disclosure techniques may improve the efficiency of the user working with sensitive information because the user may still receive the sensitive information to utilize for the tasks” [col. 4, lines 49-52]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Haslam to Chan to improve the user’s efficiency when working with sensitive information to be displayed.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has substantially similar limitations to claim 7, therefore, will be rejected using the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA HA whose telephone number is (571)272-3601. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM, and Fri 9:00 AM - 1:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/ALICIA HA/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611