DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 11/3/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/3/20205 appear to focus on the newly amended subject matter reciting the use of ML models to predict when the user is about to enter the password or sensitive information, where such arguments are moot based on the new ground of rejection necessitated by such amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0319772 (Mishra) in view of US 6,798,887 (Andre) and US 2024/0070312 (Kwok).
With regard to claim 1, Mishra discloses a method, comprising:
automatically determining, at a mitigation agent that comprises a model implemented on a first computing system, if the first computing system is actively running a video communication service during a video communication session with a second computing system (Mishra: Abstract and Paragraph [0048]. Mishra presents the manipulation of a privacy filter based on detected context information (e.g. users in view of the camera) and based on detecting that a video conference application is currently running on the computer.).
Mishra fails to disclose, but Andre teaches:
that the mitigation model is a keyboard sound mitigation model; in response to determining that the first computing system is actively running the video communication service during the video communication session with a second computing system, automatically determining, by the model, if a user of the first computing system is entering a password or sensitive information into a webpage or window that is active on the first computing system; and in response to determining that the user of the first computing system is entering the password or the sensitive information, performing, by the keyboard sound mitigation model, a keyboard sound mitigation operation that masks or removes any keyboard sounds made while entering the password or the sensitive information (Andre: Figure 2 and Column 2, lines 3-11. Andre presents a system that determines when the user is to enter sensitive data (32), where such would be on some interface of the computer, whether through some window that the user is typing on or a webpage, such as those that would be used with the laptop of Mishra. Andre then masks the sounds made by the keyboard, such as by generating additional keyboard sounds.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the system of Andre to provide additional privacy with the video conferencing of Mishra, thus ensuring that information cannot be gleaned from what the user is typing (Andre: Column 1, lines 44-50), even over the video conference.
Mishra fails to teach, but Kwok teaches that the agent comprises a ML (machine learning) model, that the automatically determining, by the model, that a user of the first computing system is about to enter a password or sensitive information is automatically predicting, by the ML model, that a user of the first computing system is about to enter a password or sensitive information, and that the performing a keyboard sound mitigation action is in response to determining that the user…is about to enter the password or sensitive information (Kwok: Paragraph [0003]. Machine learning models can be employed to determine when a user is likely to enter sensitive information, and actions can be taken in response to this prediction.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a ML model to predict when the user is about to enter a password or sensitive information to realize the well-known benefits of machine learning and AI functions to improve upon systems to enable them to be more responsive and accurate in different scenarios, where the application of such to Mishra in view of Andre would leverage the ML models to ensure that any sensitive information that the user enters would be mitigated.
With regard to claim 2, Mishra in view of Andre fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches in response to determining that the first computing system is actively running the video communication service during the video communication session with the second computing system, and before determining that the user of the first computing system is about to enter the password or the sensitive information, automatically determining, by the keyboard sound mitigation model, if a microphone of the first computing system is actively turned on (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine if a microphone is on during a video conference and to take corrective action if this is the case (such as warning a user), where when combined with Andre, this would trigger the sound mitigation.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to trigger the sound mitigation of Andre after determining that the video communication service is running and the microphone is active to ensure that the sound mitigation only occurs as needed, as a user may not want to have the additional keyboard sounds when the microphone is not actually active, thus making the benefit of the sound mitigation questionable.
With regard to claim 3, Mishra in view of Andre fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches determining if the first computing system is actively running the video communication service during the video communication session with the second computing system comprises: iterating through a list of processes running on an operating system of the first computing system; and determining if any of the processes running on the operating system match a name of the video communication service (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that when determining if a certain type of software is running on a computer, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to search the processes on the computer for information matching known software of the type, which would serve to iteratively check each process for matching information, such as a name.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to search through processes on the computer for video communication services to ensure that the making of Mishra in view of Andre is utilized as needed without requiring specific integration into the video conferencing software..
With regard to claim 4, Mishra in view of Andre teaches that the keyboard sound mitigation model determines if the first computing system is actively running a video communication service according to a timing monitor (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the user of timing monitors to detect unauthorized software, such as spyware.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a timing monitor to detect the use of unauthorized software on the user’s computer that can record audio and/or video to allow privacy remedies to be implanted, such as those of Andre, to mitigate the harm such software can have. It is noted that the instant claim fails to provide how such timing monitor is utilized or what constitutes a timing monitor while the instant specification appears to fail to provide any more detail than the instant claim, where this rejection is based on how one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted such a timing monitor without any additional disclosure of its use or form.
With regard to claim 5, Mishra in view of Andre teaches that the keyboard sound mitigation operation comprises generating random sounds (Andre: Column 2, lines 3-11).
With regard to claim 6, Mishra fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art teaches that the random sounds are included in an operating system of the first computing system (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known in the art at the time of filing to provide software-based solutions run within an operating system as a design choice alternative to hardware-based solutions.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the random sounds included in an OS to provide the benefits of software, such as relatively low cost of installation and ease of updating and expanding versus hardware-based solutions.
With regard to claim 10, Mishra in view of Andre teaches that determining that the user of the first computing system is about to enter the password, or the sensitive information comprises: monitoring one or more keyboard events (Andre: Column 3, lines 25-33. The system would determine when the keys are pressed, and provide sounds around these key presses (e.g. echoes).).
With regard to claims 11-16 and 20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-6 and 10, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Andre and further in view of US 2012/0128146 (Boss).
With regard to claim 7, Mishra fails to teach, but Boss teaches that the keyboard sound mitigation operation comprises automatically muting a microphone of the first computing system (Boss: Paragraph [0057]. The conference can be automatically muted responsive to detecting sounds that should not be shared over the conference.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow for muting of the microphone as the sound mitigation to remove the need to generate sounds in cases when a user is not actively participating in the conference, thus reducing the impact on the user of additional generated sounds when no such sounds would be warranted based on the user’s lack of participation in the conference.
With regard to claim 17, the instant claim is similar to claim 7, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Andre and further in view of US 7,705,829 (Plotnikov).
With regard to claim 8, Mishra fails to teach, but Plotnikov teaches determining that the user of the first computing system is about to enter the password, or the sensitive information comprises: scanning the active webpage or window to find password input fields or sensitive information input fields (Plotnikov: Column 9, lines 14-18). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scan for the input fields to specifically determine when the user is interacting with such fields and to enable the implementation of other functions, such as masking the actual text, thus enhancing the privacy of the masking while ensuring that the masking is only used as needed.
With regard to claim 9, Mishra fails to teach, but Plotnikov teaches determining that the user of the first computing system is about to enter the password, or the sensitive information comprises: scanning underlying HTML code of the webpage for statements that are indicative of entering a password (Plotnikov: Column 9, lines 14-18). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scan for the input fields to specifically determine when the user is interacting with such fields and to enable the implementation of other functions, such as masking the actual text, thus enhancing the privacy of the masking while ensuring that the masking is only used as needed.
With regard to claims 18-19, the instant claims are similar to claims 8-9, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444