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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Application's amendment/response filed on 02/24/2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 12, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 regarding the newly-added, “detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on determining, from the data indicative of the user interaction, that a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus;” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments to claims 1 and 11 found in the remarks filed on 02/24/2026 on Page 8 Paragraph 2, a first argument was made that reference Chauhan fails to express/imply "detecting the attempt to screenshot the image comprises detecting the user interface is out of focus from the data indicative of user interaction" and that, "intercepting a request from the user to the screen capture tool is a distinct mechanism from" the claim limitation. Notably, detecting a screenshot attempt by determining "a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus" may be performed before a request to a screenshot tool, or without any request to a screenshot tool.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim limitation of "detecting the attempt to screenshot the image comprises detecting the user interface is out of focus from the data indicative of user interaction" would require being performed before a request to a screenshot tool, or without any request to a screenshot tool. The claim limitation itself does not expressly or implicitly have this requirement. The broadest reasonable interpretation of "web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus" is that a screenshot tool is in focus. This interpretation of the claim is consistent with the limitation provided by dependent claim 8, which reads, “wherein the user interface is out of focus when a snapshot tool is in focus”. Chauhan teaches in [0174], ". . . to detect by intercepting a request from the user to the screen capture tool " and “. . . detect by determining that the screen capture tool 1112 is loading.” which is being interpreted as the being able to detect the usage of a screen capture tool. The usage of a screen capture tool would mean that the tool is “in focus”, and thus Chauhan would teach the newly amended limitation.
A second argument was made that "detection based on determining that a specific capture tool is loading is a distinct mechanism from" the claim limitation. Once again, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to detecting by intercepting a request from the user to the screen capture tool, the other embodiment of detecting the loading of the screen capture tool would imply that it is being used. Thus, Examiner maintains Chauhan [0174] teaches being able to detect the usage of a screen capture tool, and thus the newly amended claim limitation.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 9 and 15 found in the remarks filed on 02/24/2026 on Page 10 paragraphs 2-5 that prior arts fail to express or imply the claim limitation of, "detecting the attempt to screenshot the image comprises detecting a code addition to the user interface by an extension" have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejections in regards to claims 9 and 15 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20140106180 A) in view of Sbai (“The Threat of Screenshot-Taking Malware: Analysis, Detection and Prevention”) and in further view of Chauhan (US 20210192062 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses A method, comprising: generating a job application document based on user input; (See [0002], “In this case, a user may create or edit electronic document data using applications belonging to the Office group of Microsoft, and display the completed electronic document data to an audience using a projection device such as a projector or a large display device.” Also see [0028], “Electronic documents can be included in the Word, Excel, PowerPoint . . .” Although Kim doesn’t explicitly mention creating a job application document, it is well-known that creating a job application document can be done using programs such as Word.)
creating an image of the job application document; (See [0028], “It also includes structured electronic documents such as HTML, XML, and SGML, and can also include moving images or images that are created, sent, received, or stored in electronic form.” Also note that a Word document can be viewed as an image on a User Interface. Thus by having the Word document displayed on a UI, it can be considered as creating an image of the document.)
rendering the image in a portion of a user interface; (See [0035], “The display unit 120 of the electronic document sharing apparatus 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention displays the shared electronic document content.” Since the document is displayed, it would be reasonable to assume that it is being rendered in a portion of a user interface.)
transmitting the user interface with the image to a computing device for presentation of the user interface on a display of the computing device; (See [0002] “In this case, a user may create or edit electronic document data using applications belonging to the Office group of Microsoft, and display the completed electronic document data to an audience using a projection device such as a projector or a large display device.” Also see [0003], “an electronic document environment through screen sharing between terminals has begun to emerge, such as when a presentation is performed through screen sharing using individual PCs.” Lastly, see Fig. 3 showing a computing device presenting a UI and transmitted document data.)
receiving data from the computing device indicative of user interaction during the presentation; (See [0078], “The processor 130 may detect a screen capture event while displaying the electronic document content on the client terminal (S300).” Note that it would be reasonable to assume that data is received from the client terminal (computing device).)
detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on the data indicative of the user interaction; (See [0078] teaching detecting an attempt to screenshot the document content (the image).)
generating a manipulated image from the image in response to detecting the attempt to screenshot the image, (See [0080], “The capture obstruction operation may display a layer covering the displayed electronic document content when the screen capture operation is performed. The layer covering the electronic document content may be the aforementioned watermark, image processed electronic document content, or an opaque layer.”)
transmitting a modified user interface with the manipulated image to the computing device, wherein the manipulated image replaces the image as a screenshot. (See [0080] teaching the modifying the UI with a layer (manipulated image) that covers (replaces) the document content (image). See Fig. 4a-4c as examples of different layers used to cover the document content (modified user interfaces with manipulated images).
Also see [0081], “After performing capture interruption operation, the shared electronic document content is continuously displayed (S500). Alternatively, after the screen capture fact is notified to the host terminal, the host terminal or another terminal may perform follow-up measures such as stopping sharing, adjusting authority, file damage, and deleting files.”
Here, “screen sharing” can be considered as “transmitting a user interface” to a computing device. Kim in [0081] implies that the capture interruption operation (which is the layer covering described in [0080]) is shown through the screen sharing, and thus discloses that the layer covering (manipulated image) would be used to cover (replace) the document content even while screen sharing. All this would be considered as “transmitting a modified user interface with the manipulated image to the computing device”.)
However, Kim fails to explicitly disclose detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on determining, from the data indicative of the user interaction, that a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus;
generating a manipulated image from the image in response to detecting the attempt to screenshot the image, including manipulating one or more pixels of the image to apply a blur to the image; and
Sbai teaches generating a manipulated image from the image in response to detecting the attempt to screenshot the image, including manipulating one or more pixels of the image to apply a blur to the image; (See Page 191 Section 8.1 “Proposed mode: On-the-fly screenshot alteration” Paragraph 3, “The idea, instead of returning a screenshot containing the whole information displayed on the screen in response to a screenshot API call, is to return an altered image (Figure 8.2).” Further see Page 197 Section 8.2.1 “Pattern used inside hidden areas” Paragraph 1, “We propose three patterns to hide areas on altered screenshots: uniform colour (Section 8.2.1.1), gaussian blur (Section 8.2.1.2) . . .” Further see Page 198 Fig. 8.5 showing an example of the Gaussian blur pattern being applied. Lastly, see Page 199 Paragraph 3, “However, contrary to the uniform pattern, the blur pattern varies according to what is displayed inside the hidden area. As a result, it requires to apply a filter on each pixel of the image, which can be detrimental to real-time display.” Here, Sbai directly teaches “manipulating one or more pixels of the image to apply a blur to the image”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Sbai to include manipulating one or more pixels of the image by applying a Gaussian blur.
The motivation to combine Kim with Sbai would have been obvious as both are arts related to preventing malicious screenshot attempts (See Sbai Page 2 Abstract and Page 191 Section 8.1 “Proposed mode: On-the-fly screenshot alteration”). Using a Gaussian blur would have been obvious as Kim already teaches watermarking the screen with a layer covering the document content, and using a blur on the pixels of the screen achieves a similar purpose of protecting information from being maliciously taken.
However, Kim in view of Sbai still fails to explicitly disclose detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on determining, from the data indicative of the user interaction, that a web browser associated with the user inter is out of focus;
Chauhan teaches detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on determining, from the data indicative of the user interaction, that a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus; (See [0172], “The client application 1110 may include an embedded browser 1120 and a screen capture mediator 1122.” Also see [0174], “The screen capture mediator 1122 may be configured to detect a screen capture event in embodiments where the screen capture tool 1112 is separate from the client application 1110. . . In some embodiments, the screen capture mediator 1122 may be configured to detect by intercepting a request from the user to the screen capture tool 1112. In some embodiments, the screen capture mediator 1122 may be configured to detect by determining that the screen capture tool 1112 is loading.”
In this case, Chauhan teaches client application (user interface) which may include a browser, a screen capture tool, as well as detecting that the screen capture tool is used by detecting a request from the user to the screen capture tool and if the screen capture tool is loading. Based on the interpretation that “a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus” means that a snapshot tool is in focus, then detecting that the screen capture tool being used is equivalent to detecting “a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus” and this would be considered based on “data indicative of user interaction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Sbai with Chauhan to include detecting the use of a screen capture tool such that the user interface is considered out of focus.
The motivation to combine Kim in view of Sbai with Chauhan would have been obvious as Kim, Sbai, and Chauhan are all within the same field of detecting or preventing screenshots. Chauhan simply teaches the well-known existence of screen capture tools and a way to detect if they are being used (See Chauhan [0174]). Such tools and detection capability would have been obvious to combine, as it would enhance and make a more comprehensive screen shot prevention system by being able to account for screen capture tools.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan disclose The method of claim 1, wherein generating the manipulated image further comprises applying a mathematical function to the one or more pixels of the image to set a pixel value of the one or more pixels to a weighted average of surrounding pixel values to apply the blur to the image. (See Sbai Page 197 Section 8.2.1 “Pattern used inside hidden areas”, Paragraph 1, “We propose three patterns to hide areas on altered screenshots: uniform colour (Section 8.2.1.1), gaussian blur (Section 8.2.1.2). . .”
Also see Sbai Page 199 Paragraph 3, “However, contrary to the uniform pattern, the blur pattern varies according to what is displayed inside the hidden area. As a result, it requires to apply a filter on each pixel of the image, which can be detrimental to real-time display.” Note that a “gaussian blur” is well-known to correspond to “applying a mathematical function to the one or more pixels of the image to set a pixel value of the one or more pixels to a weighted average of surrounding pixel values”. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan disclose The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the data indicative of the user interaction comprises receiving one or more keystrokes. (See Kim [0037], “The event for screen capture may include a key event. In this case, the input unit 140 may include a touch screen, a keypad, a keyboard, a mouse, and the like.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan disclose The method of claim 4, wherein detecting the attempt to screenshot the image comprises identifying one or more of the one or more keystrokes that initiate screenshot functionality. (See Kim [0037], “The event for screen capture may include a key event. In this case, the input unit 140 may include a touch screen, a keypad, a keyboard, a mouse, and the like.” Also see Kim [0038], “For example, the screen capture event may include a PrintScreen key event on a PC keyboard, a screen capture event on iOS, a screen capture event on Android OS, and the like.” Here, the keystroke that is identified is the PrintScreen key.)
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan disclose The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the data indicative of user interaction comprises receiving one or more keystrokes that initiate a print preview. (See Kim [0038], “For example, the screen capture event may include a PrintScreen key event on a PC keyboard, a screen capture event on iOS, a screen capture event on Android OS, and the like.” Note that it is well-known that performing the PrintScreen Key on an operating system such as Windows will initiate a print preview.)
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface is out of focus when a snapshot tool is in focus. (See Chauhan [0174] teaching the user interface and a screen capture tool (snapshot tool) as well as detecting the usage of the screen capture tool (in focus). The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan A screenshot prevention system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor that stores instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the screenshot prevention system to: (See Kim [0032], “The electronic document sharing apparatus 100 may be a device or a terminal including at least a microprocessor, a memory, a communication module, and may be a portable portable terminal.” Also see Kim [0078] and [0080] teaching a system for detecting and preventing screenshots.)
generate a job application document based on user input; create an image of the job application document; render the image in a portion of a user interface; transmit the user interface with the image to a computing device for presentation of the user interface on a display of the computing device; receive from the computing device, data indicative of user interaction during the presentation; detect an attempt to screenshot the image based on determining, from the data indicative of the user interaction, that a web browser associated with the user interface is out of focus generate a manipulated image from the image in response to detecting the attempt to screenshot the image, wherein to generate the manipulated image from the image, the instructions cause the screenshot prevention system to manipulate one or more pixels of the image to apply a blur to the image; and transmit a modified user interface with the manipulated image to the computing device, wherein the manipulated image replaces the image as a screenshot. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 contains similar limitations as to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 2.
Claims 3, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan and in further view of Zhong et al. (CN 114896625 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Zhong).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan fails to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting that the image was saved within a clipboard prior to generation of the manipulated image; and saving the manipulated image to the clipboard, wherein the manipulated image replaces the image within the clipboard prior to execution of a paste operation associated with the image.
Zhong teaches detecting that the image was saved within a clipboard prior to generation of the manipulated image; (See Page 17 Paragraph 10, “In the case of detecting a screen capture operation, determining a screen capture area, and adjusting the display content in the screen capture area, wherein the adjusted display content does not contain confidential content;”
Also see Page 18 Paragraph 5, “The clipboard monitoring unit is configured to acquire the clipboard content when a content cutting operation is detected, transmit the clipboard content to the review terminal, receive the feedback content from the review terminal, and send the clipboard content to the review terminal. Feedback content replaces the clipboard content.” In this case, “cutting operation is detected” corresponds to “detecting that the image was saved within a clipboard”, and we know that this detection happens prior to the generation of a manipulated image, since Zhong further teaches reviewing the clipboard content, and replacing that content. In combination with Kim and Sbai, one would obviously be using the manipulated image as the one for replacement, and thus the generation of the manipulated image would happen after the detection of the clipboard content.)
and saving the manipulated image to the clipboard, wherein the manipulated image replaces the image within the clipboard prior to execution of a paste operation associated with the image. (See Page 18 Paragraph 5, “The clipboard monitoring unit is configured to acquire the clipboard content when a content cutting operation is detected, transmit the clipboard content to the review terminal, receive the feedback content from the review terminal, and send the clipboard content to the review terminal. Feedback content replaces the clipboard content.”
In summary, Zhong teaches detecting if there is copying, and then obtains the contents in the clipboard for review. After that, it replaces (saving) the clipboard with the feedback content. Once again, in combination with Kim and Sbai, the feedback content would be the manipulated image. Lastly, note that this would be implied to happened prior to the execution of a paste operation given the fact that Zhong is trying to defend against screenshot attempts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan with Zhong to include detecting when an image is saved within a clipboard and saving the manipulated image onto the clip to replace the image.
The motivation to combine Kim in view of Sbai and Chauhan with Zhong would have been obvious as Kim, Sbai, Chauhan, and Zhong are all within the same field of detecting or preventing screenshot attempts (See Zhong Page 17 Paragraph 10). The benefit of detecting and replacing the image on the clipboard is obvious as some screenshots are well-known to be stored within the clipboard (See Zhong Page 18 Paragraph 5), and thus detecting and preventing to account for more possibilities and provide better protection that would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Sbai, Chauhan, and Zhong disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising triggering execution of code on the computing device to copy the manipulated image to a clipboard overwriting the image. (See Zhong Page 18 Paragraph 5, “The clipboard monitoring unit is configured to acquire the clipboard content when a content cutting operation is detected, transmit the clipboard content to the review terminal, receive the feedback content from the review terminal, and send the clipboard content to the review terminal. Feedback content replaces the clipboard content.” The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 3 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 contains similar limitations as to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 contains similar limitations as to Claim 10 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-22 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 17 recites the limitations of receiving an image of a job application document generated based on user input; generating a manipulated image from the image by manipulating one or more pixels of the image to apply a blur to the image; displaying the image in a portion of a window of a web browser; monitoring user interaction; detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on detecting an injection, by a screenshot extension, of browser code into the web browser displaying the image to a user via a user interface; and replacing the image with the manipulated image. Specifically, the limitation of detecting an attempt to screenshot the image based on detecting an injection, by a screenshot extension, of browser code into the web browser displaying the image to a user via a user interface is what renders the claim and its dependent claims, novel and non-obvious as the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious, the combination of elements recited in the claims as a whole.
Claims 18-22 are dependent upon the base claim of 17 and thus are also allowable.
Claim 9 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9, the cited prior art does not disclose or render obvious the combination of elements cited in the claims as a whole. Specifically, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations: wherein detecting the attempt to screenshot the image comprises detecting a code addition to the user interface by an extension. Thus Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 contains similar limitations as to Claim 9 and therefore contains allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights