DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 09/16/2025. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. A new non-final is made to respond to applicant’s arguments.
2. Status of the claims:
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Regarding claims 22-26, Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but it is not convincing .
Applicant argues that “However, Walters does not disclose a "programmatic text-based representation" as required by the claim. Walters defines "text-based data" broadly as "any data that contains text characters including alphanumeric and special characters, including email letters, office documents, pictures with included text, ascii art, as well as binary data rendered as text data. "Walters, at [0040]. Walters further states:"For example, the text-based data may be a scanned text image in PDF format." Id Thus, Walters'"text-based data" is static in nature, “ (Remarks page 9-10).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the examiner disagrees because WATTES discloses in [0039] a sensitive data that is a social security. A social security is not a static data , but varied with the person holding the social security. And it is also disclosed on the specification that sensitive data can be the social identity of a person which a social security is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
4a. Claims 1, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadsall (US 9,898,610 B1), in view of OH et al. (hereinafter “OH”) (US 2016/0378534 A1), and further in view of Sharifi et al. (hereinafter “Sharifi”) (US 2017/0098159 A1).
Claim 1, Hadsall discloses a computer-implemented method of preventing sensitive data received via a remote access protocol from being output to a human operator, the method comprising:
determining, by the processor, or receiving from the virtual remote server to the processor, a programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the virtual remote server based on the data for rendering the image of the user interface sent from the virtual remote server (determining that a user is directing a computing device to an virtual insurance-related website that is communicating the computer device, when a user activate an internet search using a remote computer at a virtual network , computer device arrives at a landing associated with the financial institution, Hadsall, column 15, lines 54-60; Fig7); a network is disclosed being a virtual network, column 6, lines 34-39);
identifying, by the processor, sensitive data in the programmatic text-based representation of the application using one or more preselected filters (detecting eavesdropper is looking at the display; blurring sensitive or confidential data preventing sensitive data to be displayed , Hadsall, column 15, lines 32-37).
modifying, by the processor, the data for rendering an image of the user interface received from the virtual remote server to remove the identified sensitive data ( removing sensitive data from being displayed at a remote computer in a virtual network, Hadsall, column 15, lines 32-37; Fig 7; a network is disclosed being a virtual network, column 6, lines 34-39);
outputting, by the processor, the modified data to render an image of a modified user interface to one or more output peripherals of a computer for receipt by the human operator ( sensitive data being masked when displayed, Hadsall, column 16, lines 43-52);, wherein the computer is communicatively coupled to the processor and the virtual remote server ( a processor is communicating with a website in a virtual network , Hadsall, column 15, lines 27-30), wherein the computer having one or more input peripherals for receipt by a human user ( a display screen is the peripheral that displayed data to a user, Hadsall, column 16, lines 45-52), and wherein the modified user interface is configured for interaction with the human operator via the one or more input peripheral ( a display screen is masking sensitive information to a user , Hadsall, column 16, lines 45-52).
Hadsall does not disclose receiving, by a processor, from a virtual remote server via a remote desktop protocol, data for rendering an image of a user interface of an application executing on the virtual remote server, wherein the virtual remote server is a virtual machine and wherein automated processes are performed on the application as if by a virtual operator of the virtual machine using the user interface of the application.
HO discloses receiving, by a processor, from a virtual remote server via a remote desktop protocol, data for rendering an image of a user interface of an application executing on the virtual remote server (a virtual server is sending to a virtual client device an image of the virtual client device (HO, [0081];[0008]; where the a remote framebuffer protocol is disclosed in [0008]), wherein the virtual remote server is a virtual machine and wherein automated processes are performed on the application as if by a virtual operator of the virtual machine using the user interface of the application (a visual agent using a programmed daemon is sending the image of the virtual client device using a virtual desktop client device (by using the visual agent using a programmed daemon the process is performed automatically) (Ho, [0081]; [0084]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hadsall’s teachings with HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently without a human intervention by using a visual agent for doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface is a graphical user interface ( a user interface is disclosed (Hadsall, column 14, lines 54-60)).
Regarding claim 18, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the application is a web browser ( a web application browser is disclosed (Hadsall, column 14, lines 30-41)).
Regarding claim 19, Hadsall and HO disclose a non-transitory computer-related medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor ( a memory unit storing instructions executed by a processor (Hadsall, column 10, lines 50-55)); in addition, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
4b. Claims 7, 15, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadsall, in view of OH , and further in view of Smith (hereinafter “Smith”) (US 10,799,718 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO do not disclose wherein the step of receiving a user interface comprises receiving a user interface of a desktop of the virtual remote server, the user interface of the application forming a portion of the user interface of the desktop.
Smith discloses wherein the step of receiving a user interface comprises receiving a user interface of a desktop of the virtual remote server (a remote desktop protocol being used by a virtual remote desktop server (Smith, column 6, lines 1-2); in column 4, lines 10-14, a computer is disclosed being a virtual machine), the user interface of the application forming a portion of the user interface of the desktop ( the graphical user interface being rendered in an area of a screen displayed 204 with result in a configuration of a graphical user interface software ( the configuration of the graphical window interface is a modification of the graphical user interface (Smith, column 10, lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Smith’s teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently execute a remote application in a remote server by modifying the graphical user interface of an application on a screen area in order to be compatible the area of the screen.
Regarding claim 15, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO do not disclose wherein the modified image of the user interface is configured for interaction with the human operator via one or more input peripherals of the computer.
Smith discloses wherein the modified image of the user interface is configured for interaction with the human operator via one or more input peripherals of the computer ( the graphical user interface being rendered in an area of a screen displayed 204 with result in a configuration of a graphical user interface software ( the configuration of the graphical window interface is a modification of the graphical user interface (Smith, column 10, lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Smith’s teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently execute a remote application in a remote server by modifying the graphical user interface of an application on a screen area in order to be compatible the area of the screen.
Regarding claim 20, Hadsall and HO disclose discloses a non-transitory computing system ( a memory unit storing instructions executed by a processor (Hadsall, column 10, lines 50-55)) in addition, claim 20 is substantially similar to a combination of claims 1 and 15, thus the same rationale applies.
4c. Claims 6, 11-14, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadsall, in view of OH , and further in view of Walters et al. (hereinafter “Walters”) (US 2020/0012811 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO do not disclose further comprising, prior to the step of determining, or receiving from the virtual remote server, preselecting one or more filters based on sensitive data in the application.
Walters discloses further comprising, prior to the step of determining, or receiving from the virtual remote server, preselecting one or more filters based on sensitive data in the application (identifying sensitive data being done using censoring text-based data that has various permission levels that filter sensitive text-based that are set prior to receive the sensitive text-based data (Walters, [0054])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings Hadsall. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
Regarding claim 11, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO do not disclose wherein the preselected filter comprises a rule.
Walters discloses wherein the preselected filter comprises a rule (various permission levels that filter sensitive text-based that are set prior to receive the sensitive text-based data constitute the rule of censoring the sensitive text-based data (Walters, [0054])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
Regarding claim 12, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO and in view of Sharifi do not disclose wherein the preselected filter comprises a machine learning model.
Walters discloses wherein the preselected filter comprises a machine learning model (a machine learning model is disclosed identifying sensitive data using text-based data (Walters, [0047])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
Regarding claim 13, Hadsall, HO, and Walters disclose the method of claim 12.
Hadsall in view of HO and in view of Sharifi do not disclose wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify text.
Walters discloses wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify text (a machine learning model is disclosed identifying sensitive data using text-based data (Walters, [0047])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings Hadsall. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
Regarding claim 14, Hadsall, HO, and Walters disclose the method of claim 12.
Hadsall in view of HO and in view of Sharifi do not disclose wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify an image.
Walters discloses wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify an image (a machine learning model is disclosed identifying sensitive data using text-based data having image (Walters, [0047])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings and in view of Sharifi’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
Regarding claim 17. Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO and in view of Sharifi do not disclose wherein the unmodified image of the user interface is not output to the to one or more output peripherals of the computer.
Walters discloses wherein the unmodified image of the user interface is not output to the to one or more output peripherals of the computer (the sensitive information is disclosed not being intercepted a user using a device for communicating with the censoring system (Walters, [0054])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Walters’ teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently filter sensitive data from an application by using a filter that filters the sensitive information from the application.
4d. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadsall, in view of HO, , and further in view of Brueggemann et al. (hereinafter “Brueggemann”) (AU 2007307915 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hadsall and HO disclose the method of claim 1.
Hadsall in view of HO do not disclose wherein extracting text from the user interface of the application executing on the virtual remote server comprises using optical character recognition.
Brueggemann discloses wherein extracting text from the user interface of the application executing on the virtual remote server comprises using optical character recognition (optical character recognition is used on a captured image to determine a recognized text (Brueggemann, page paragraph starting with )).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Brueggemann’s teachings with Hadsall’s teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently recognize a text in a capture image by using an optical character recognition.
4e. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALTERS et al. (hereinafter “WALTERS”) (US 2020/0012671 A1) in view of OH et al. (hereinafter “OH”) (US 2016/0378534 A1).
Regarding claim 22, WALTERS discloses a computer-implemented method of preventing sensitive data received via a remote framebuffer protocol from being output to a human operator, the method comprising:
determining, by the processor or receiving from the remote server to the processor, a programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server ( receiving a text based data from server 160 using processor 150 that uses software to execute instructions to execute the text based data before distributed it, where the server is in the internet and remotely from a user device (WATTERS, [0060]; Fig.1)); identifying, by the processor, sensitive data in the programmatic text-based representation of the application using one or more preselected filters (sensitive data such as social security of a person being identified in a text based data using an artificial intelligence with a processor that censored the sensitive data by removing it (WATTERS, [0039]));
modifying, by the processor, the image of the user interface received from the virtual remote server to remove the identified sensitive data (removing completely a sensitive text from an entire text based data from a webpage user interface coming through server 160 process by processor 150 (by removing the sensitive data from the webpage the webpage is modified)(WATTERS, [0124]) Fig.1)); and outputting, by the processor, the modified image of the user interface to one or more output peripherals of a computer for receipt by the human operator ( outputting censored text based data to one or more user devices to users by a processor (WALTERS, [0062]; [0078]) fig.1).
WALTERS does not disclose receiving, by a processor, from a virtual remote server via a remote framebuffer protocol, an image of a user interface of an application executing on the virtual remote server, wherein the virtual remote server is a virtual machine and wherein automated processes are performed on the application as if by a virtual operator of the virtual machine using the user interface of the application.
HO discloses receiving, by a processor, from a virtual remote server via a remote framebuffer protocol, an image of a user interface of an application executing on the virtual remote server (a virtual server is sending to a virtual client device an image of the virtual client device using a remote framebuffer protocol (HO, [0081];[0008]; where the a remote framebuffer protocol is disclosed in [0008]), wherein the virtual remote server is a virtual machine and wherein automated processes are performed on the application as if by a virtual operator of the virtual machine using the user interface of the application (a visual agent using a programmed daemon is sending the image of the virtual client device using a virtual desktop client device (by using the visual agent using a programmed daemon the process is performed automatically) (Ho, [0081]; [0084]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HO’s teachings with WALTERS’ teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently send a remote image of a virtual client to a client device from a remote server by using virtual agent using a programmed daemon that performs the transfer efficiently.
Regarding claim 23, WALTERS and Ho disclose the method of claim 22, wherein receiving from the remote server to the processor the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server comprises:
WALTERS does not disclose receiving, by the processor from the remote server, the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server whenever the remote framebuffer protocol is in use.
HO discloses receiving, by the processor from the remote server, the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server whenever the remote framebuffer protocol is in use (a virtual server is sending to a virtual client device an image of the virtual client device using a remote framebuffer protocol (HO, [0081];[0008]; where the a remote framebuffer protocol is disclosed in [0008]) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HO’s teachings with WALTERS’ teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently send a remote image of a virtual client to a client device from a remote server by using virtual agent using a programmed daemon that performs the transfer efficiently.
Regarding claim 24, WALTERS and Ho disclose the method of claim 22, wherein receiving from the remote server to the processor the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server comprises:
WALTERS does not disclose sending, by the processor to the remote server, a message to request the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server.
HO discloses sending, by the processor to the remote server, a message to request the programmatic text-based representation of the application that is executing on the remote server (a virtual server is sending to a virtual client device an image of the virtual client device using a remote framebuffer protocol (HO, [0081];[0008]; where the a remote framebuffer protocol is disclosed in [0008]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HO’s teachings with WALTERS’ teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently send a remote image of a virtual client to a client device from a remote server by using virtual agent using a programmed daemon that performs the transfer efficiently.
Regarding claim 25, WALTERS and HO disclose a computing system (a memory storing software instruction that is executed by a processor (WALTERS, [0041])) in addition, claim 25 is substantially similar to a combination of claim 22, thus the same rationale applies.
4f. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALTERS, in view of HO, and further in view of in view of Smith (hereinafter “Smith”) (US 10,799,718 B2).
Regarding claim 26, WALTERS and HO disclose a non-transitory computing system comprising: a processor (a memory storing software instruction that is executed by a processor (WALTERS, [0041])); a virtual remote server communicatively coupled to the processor; and a computer communicatively coupled to the processor and the virtual remote server ( server 160 using processor 150 that uses software to execute instructions to execute the text based data before distributed it, where the server is in the internet and remotely from a user device (WATTERS, [0060]; Fig.1)), the computer having one or more output peripherals configured to output the modified image of the user interface and one or more input peripherals for receipt by a human user ( outputting censored text based data to one or more user devices to users by a processor (WALTERS, [0062]; [0078]) fig.1).
WALTERS in view of HO do not disclose wherein the modified image of the user interface is configured for interaction with the human operator via the one or more input peripherals.
Smith discloses wherein the modified image of the user interface is configured for interaction with the human operator via the one or more input peripherals ( the graphical user interface being rendered in an area of a screen displayed 204 with result in a configuration of a graphical user interface software ( the configuration of the graphical window interface is a modification of the graphical user interface (Smith, column 10, lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Smith’s teachings with WALTERS’ teachings in view of HO’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently execute a remote application in a remote server by modifying the graphical user interface of an application on a screen area in order to be compatible the area of the screen.
In addition, claim 26 is substantially similar to a combination of claim 22, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457