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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second to last limitation in claim 1 recites “In response.” The capital letter “I” should be in lower case. 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 5 and 14 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 5 recites “a contour map of the changed content that is displayed.” What is a contour map of an image? The Examiner understands in plain language that a contour map shows depth in 3D landscapes. However, when in the context of an image in claim 5, the Examiner is not clear how a contour map (associated with 3D landscapes) relates to an image (a screenshot of a desktop). Neither does the specification explain what a contour map is, nor how it’s generated, in regards to a desktop image. The Examiner interprets this to mean a way to visually see the differences between images. Claim 14 recites similar limitations.
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, 3-4, 6-13, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bank et al., Patent Application Publication Number US 20120144286 A1 (hereinafter “Bank”).
Claim 1: Bank teaches “A method for triggering a generation of a graphical capture of a desktop environment of a computing device comprising:
detecting an operating system-level change in the computing device (i.e. In FIG. 1, a system 100 includes a computer 137 configured to receive user input (e.g., via a keyboard, a mouse, etc.) [Bank 0015, Fig. 1] note: instant specification 0008 defines “an operating system-level change is any input to the computing device that causes a change to a component of the operating system, such as keystrokes, movement with a pointing device (e.g., a mouse), toggling a device setting, a changing network status, saving a file, and so forth”);
categorizing the operating system-level change based on an operating system component that is affected by the operating system-level change (i.e. trigger may be a user activated indicator or input (e.g., a user clicks a button… a user provides an audible instruction via a microphone, etc.) that indicates to the system to begin capturing content… the system detects an activity that can be interpreted as a trigger and initiates the content-capture mode automatically (e.g., the system detects opening of one of more applications…)… the system automatically initiates a content-capture mode based on a pre-specified indicator (e.g., the system detects a user-specified setting that specifies to begin capturing content when a specific application or file is opened) [Bank 0021, Fig. 2] note: several activities may be detected and interpreted as a trigger, which means that the system performs a categorizing step. Bank 0021 at least discloses direct input trigger category, activity trigger category, and pre-specified indicator category);
quantifying the operating system-level change utilizing a mechanism selected based on the categorizing of the operating system-level change (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes, activity that occurred over a number of steps, etc.). Once the specific number or amount or activities or interactions is attained, the system can create the content-capture [Bank 0026] note: “capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions” is quantifying the operating system-level change. The term “specific” indicates that the number is clearly defined, or intentionally selected);
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies a threshold level of change that is calculated based on the categorizing of the operating system-level change (i.e. the system can capture a specific number… of activities or interactions (e.g. … activity that occurred over a number of steps, etc.). Once the specific number or amount or activities or interactions is attained, the system can create the content-capture [Bank 0026] note: number of interactions is satisfied at a threshold, based on the activity category);
In response to determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change, triggering the generation of the graphical capture of the desktop environment recording a current state of the desktop environment (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes, activity that occurred over a number of steps, etc.). Once the specific number or amount or activities or interactions is attained, the system can create the content-capture [Bank 0026]); and
providing the graphical capture of the desktop environment to a graphical capture consumer (i.e. the system can create the content-capture and associate annotations (e.g., overlay visual indicators) that indicate the activities or interactions [Bank 0026]… generate annotations that describe activities that must have occurred to cause the change in appearance on the panel 510 [Bank 0028] note: the screenshot is provided to the annotator, which corresponds to a graphical capture consumer that uses the screenshot).”
Claim 3: Bank teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the operating system-level change is a changed content that is displayed on the computing device (i.e. detecting a modification of a portion of content presented on a display… generating a screen capture of at least the portion of the content presented on the display in response to detecting the modification of the portion of the content [Bank 0003]… the system 100 can capture the screen shot 110 based on whether the activity modifies a position of the content, based on whether the activity opens a window, a panel, a menu, etc., based on whether the activity modifies text, numbers, symbols, or other values in the content, based on whether the activity selects a list option, a dropdown, a toolbar, etc., based on whether a panel is deactivated or advances to a new panel, etc [Bank 0018]).”
Claim 4: Bank teaches “The method of claim 3, wherein:
the quantified operating system-level change is a numerical representation of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes, activity that occurred over a number of steps, etc.). Once the specific number or amount or activities or interactions is attained, the system can create the content-capture [Bank 0026]… activity modifies a position of the content, based on whether the activity opens a window, a panel, a menu, etc., based on whether the activity modifies text, numbers, symbols, or other values in the content, based on whether the activity selects a list option, a dropdown, a toolbar, etc., based on whether a panel is deactivated or advances to a new panel, etc [Bank 0018]);
the threshold level of change is a predefined difference between the numerical representation of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device and a numerical representation of a previously displayed content (Bank 0026’s “specific number… of activities or interactions” is a predefined difference between an original displayed content and a changed content); and
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that a difference between the numerical representation of the changed content and the numerical representation of a previously displayed content is greater than or equal to the predefined difference (i.e. Once the specific number or amount or activities or interactions is attained, the system can create the content-capture [Bank 0026] note: when the number of activities is attained, satisfies the threshold level of change. The number of changes is the difference between the original content and the changed content).”
Claim 6: Bank teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein:
the operating system-level change is a user input (i.e. trigger may be a user activated indicator or input (e.g., a user clicks a button… a user provides an audible instruction via a microphone, etc.) that indicates to the system to begin capturing content… the system detects an activity that can be interpreted as a trigger and initiates the content-capture mode automatically (e.g., the system detects opening of one of more applications…) [Bank 0021]);
the quantified operating system-level change is a sequence of user inputs (i.e. system can perform the content capturing based on an order (e.g., chronological order), or sequence, of the activities, such as via a series of activities that cause a screen or panel to appear visually different after each of the activities [Bank 0023] note: a series of inputs that perform the activities);
the threshold level of change is a predefined sequence of user inputs (i.e. system can perform the content capturing based on an order (e.g., chronological order), or sequence, of the activities, such as via a series of activities that cause a screen or panel to appear visually different after each of the activities [Bank 0023] note: a series of inputs that perform the activities); and
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that the sequence of user inputs matches the predefined sequence of user inputs (i.e. system can perform the content capturing based on an order (e.g., chronological order), or sequence, of the activities [Bank 0023] note: a sequence of activities necessitates a sequence of inputs).”
Claim 7: Bank teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein:
the operating system-level change is an application signal (i.e. system 100 detects activity that occurs to portions of the content during the screen-capture mode (e.g., the system 100 detects interactions with portions of the panel 101). The activity may be performed by the user, by a group of users, by code, by components of the system 100, etc. The activity causes modifications to occur to portions of the content [Bank 0017]);
the quantified operating system-level change comprises determining that the application signal is directed to a trigger application programming interface (i.e. system 100 detects activity that occurs to portions of the content during the screen-capture mode (e.g., the system 100 detects interactions with portions of the panel 101). The activity may be performed by the user, by a group of users, by code, by components of the system 100, etc. The activity causes modifications to occur to portions of the content [Bank 0017]);
the threshold level of change is a command to the trigger application programming interface to generate a graphical capture (i.e. the system automatically generates the screen shot 110 in response to the modifications {of paragraph 0017} [Bank 0018]); and
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that the application signal that is directed to the trigger application programming interface is the command to the trigger application programming interface to generate the graphical capture (i.e. system 100 detects activity that occurs to portions of the content during the screen-capture mode (e.g., the system 100 detects interactions with portions of the panel 101). The activity may be performed by the user, by a group of users, by code, by components of the system 100, etc. The activity causes modifications to occur to portions of the content [Bank 0017]… the system automatically generates the screen shot 110 in response to the modifications {of paragraph 0017} [Bank 0018]).”
Claim 8: Bank teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the operating system-level change is detected in accordance with a predefined set of triggers (i.e. the system utilizes pre-specified settings to determine when to initiate content-capturing, when to take content-captures… interface 900 includes a first section 910 related to triggers that initiate… a content-capture mode. Settings 901, for example, are related to a keystroke combination (e.g., Ctrl+F10) that a user specifies to trigger the content-capture mode [Bank 0031, Fig. 9]… second section 920 is related to activity triggers that cause a content-capture to occur during content-capture mode. Settings 921 specify to capture content either each time that an activity occurs or when an active panel changes via user input or user initiated events [Bank 0032]).”
Claim 9: Bank teaches “The method of claim 8, wherein the predefined set of triggers is configured by a user preference of the computing device (i.e. the system utilizes pre-specified settings to determine when to initiate content-capturing, when to take content-captures… interface 900 includes a first section 910 related to triggers that initiate… a content-capture mode. Settings 901, for example, are related to a keystroke combination (e.g., Ctrl+F10) that a user specifies to trigger the content-capture mode [Bank 0031, Fig. 9]… second section 920 is related to activity triggers that cause a content-capture to occur during content-capture mode. Settings 921 specify to capture content either each time that an activity occurs or when an active panel changes via user input or user initiated events [Bank 0032]).”
Claim 10: Bank teaches “The method of claim 8, wherein the predefined set of triggers is automatically configured based on an analysis of user activity (i.e. Settings 922 indicate that the system auto analyzes when to generate content-captures [Bank 0032, Fig. 9] note: setting 922 is under “capture activity triggers,” which is analyzing activity. These activities appear to be “user activities” due to the other settings in second section 920 that relate to user activity, such as “each activity on panel,” “active panel change,” “next, pg. down, scroll, frame” and “manual indication”).”
Claim 11: Bank teaches a system for triggering a generation of a graphical capture of a desktop environment of a computing device comprising: a processing system; and a computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon that when executed by the processing system cause the system (i.e. a processor of a general purpose computer [Bank 0041]… computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer [Bank 0042]) to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is similar in content and in scope to claim 3, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13: Claim 13 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15: Claim 15 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16: Claim 16 is similar in content and in scope to claim 8, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17: Claim 17 is similar in content and in scope to claim 9, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 10, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Bank teaches a computer-readable storage medium for triggering a generation of a graphical capture of a desktop environment of a computing device, the computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that when executed by the processing system (i.e. a processor of a general purpose computer [Bank 0041]… computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer [Bank 0042]) cause the system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is similar in content and in scope to claim 8, thus it is rejected under 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank, in view of Dolph et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20190121609 A1 (hereinafter “Dolph”).
Claim 2: Bank teaches all the limitations of claim 1, above. Bank teaches “wherein: the operating system-level change is an elapsed time period (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes… [Bank 0026]);
the quantified operating system-level change is a number of seconds of the elapsed time period (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes… [Bank 0026] note: period of minutes multiplied by 60 to arrive at a number of seconds);
the threshold level of change is a predefined number of seconds (i.e. the system can capture a specific number or amount of activities or interactions (e.g., activity over a period of a number of minutes… [Bank 0026] note: period of minutes multiplied by 60 to arrive at a number of seconds);…”
Bank is silent regarding “determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that the number of seconds of the elapsed time period is greater than or equal to the predefined number of seconds.”
Dolph teaches “wherein: the operating system-level change is an elapsed time period;
the quantified operating system-level change is a number of seconds of the elapsed time period (i.e. screen aggregator 414 may take a screen shot of the GUI of evoked application 102… after a threshold time period elapses [Dolph 0120] note: number of seconds of the elapsed time period corresponds to a period of time after (greater than) Dolph’s threshold time period);
the threshold level of change is a predefined number of seconds (i.e. a threshold time period [Dolph 0120]); and
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that the number of seconds of the elapsed time period is greater than or equal to the predefined number of seconds (i.e. screen aggregator 414 may take a screen shot of the GUI of evoked application 102… after a threshold time period elapses [Dolph 0120]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Bank to include the feature of having the ability to determine that a number of time has elapsed as disclosed by Dolph.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of preventing the system from taking too many screenshots too close together, which may not track enough GUI changes. This saves processing power and saves storage space.
Claims 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank, in view of Lees et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20200159370 A1 (hereinafter “Lees”).
Claim 5: Bank teaches all the limitations of claim 3, above.
Bank is silent regarding “wherein: the quantified operating system-level change is a contour map of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device; the threshold level of change is a predefined difference between the contour map of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device and a contour map of a previously displayed content; and determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that a difference between the contour map of the changed content and the contour map of a previously displayed content is greater than or equal to the predefined difference.”
Lees teaches “wherein: the quantified operating system-level change is a contour map of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device (i.e. The trigger event may be based on pixel changes in the screen display. For example, the average intensity of pixels over a given area, or over multiple areas, may be compared from one screen to the next [Lees 0029]);
the threshold level of change is a predefined difference between the contour map of the changed content that is displayed on the computing device and a contour map of a previously displayed content (i.e. The trigger event may be based on pixel changes in the screen display. For example, the average intensity of pixels over a given area, or over multiple areas, may be compared from one screen to the next, and the change may be monitored by comparing the amount of change with a threshold. The trigger event may then be the detection of a change greater than the threshold [Lees 0029]); and
determining that the quantified operating system-level change satisfies the threshold level of change comprises determining that a difference between the contour map of the changed content and the contour map of a previously displayed content is greater than or equal to the predefined difference (i.e. The trigger event may be based on pixel changes in the screen display. For example, the average intensity of pixels over a given area, or over multiple areas, may be compared from one screen to the next, and the change may be monitored by comparing the amount of change with a threshold. The trigger event may then be the detection of a change greater than the threshold [Lees 0029]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Bank to include the feature of having the ability to graphically compare differences as disclosed by Lees.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to compare the degree of differences between images, which allows the system to decide whether to trigger a screenshot based on finer graphical detail, which increases flexibility.
Claim 14: Claim 14 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dixit (US 20200327148 A1) listed on 892 is related to capturing screenshots, and then performing identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights