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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the notion of the claims does refer to the same invention and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,042,955 corresponds to claim 1 of the current application. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,042,955 anticipates claim 1 of the current application because it includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,042,955
1. A method comprises:
providing a computing device having a graphical user interface and a video buffer;
providing the graphical user interface having a compositing window manager wherein the compositing window manager produces composite content for a display;
opening a document in an application program on the computing device;
producing display content in a display buffer with content of the document by the application program;
producing composite content in the video buffer with the display content in the display buffer by the compositing window manager wherein the composite content comprises content of the document;
1. A method comprising:
providing a computing device having a graphical user interface and a graphics processing unit wherein the graphics processing unit comprises a video buffer;
providing the graphical user interface having a compositing window manager wherein the compositing window manager produces composite content for a display;
opening a document in an application program on the computing device;
producing display content in a display buffer with content of the document by the application program;
producing composite content in the video buffer with the display content in the display buffer by the compositing window manager wherein the composite content comprises content of the document; and
producing augmentation content in the video buffer by the compositing window manager wherein the augmentation content comprises a security marker, wherein the security marker is visually on top of the composite content, wherein the security marker protects content of the document; and making the video buffer available for video refresh by the compositing window manager wherein the composite and augmentation contents are visible on a display after a video refresh.
providing a display content augmentation adapter for producing augmentation content wherein the compositing window manager invokes the display content augmentation adapter after producing composite content including content provided by an application for display by an operating system of the computing device, before the composite content has been augmented with a security marker, and before making the video buffer available for video refresh by the operating system; invoking the display content augmentation adapter to render the augmentation content over the composite content by the compositing window manager wherein the augmentation content comprises a security marker rendered over content of the document.
Below is a claim mapping between the current application and U.S. Patent No. 11,042,955
Current Application
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955
1
6
13
13
19
20
13
14
15
18
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 2011/0066971)(Hereinafter referred to as Forutanpour). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 of the current application except wherein a device driver is installed in the compositing window manager.
Forutanpour teaches a device driver that can be utilized to control electrical signals and software components which allow the operating system to manage applications in a suitable manner (The various input devices on a computing device may include both hardware components for converting user inputs to electrical signals, and software components, such as a device driver, which allow the operating system 100 to provide the electrical signals to the applications in a suitable manner. See paragraph [0066]).
U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 and Forutanpour teach of compositing window managers (Forutanpour; In an aspect in which the window manager 120 is similar to a "compositing" window manager, the window object 122a, 122b may include a buffer storing the graphical output of the application instance 132a, 132b. See paragraph [0069]) and Forutanpour teaches that the device driver allows the device to control software and hardware, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 with the device driver capabilities of Forutanpour such that the device could control the hardware and software.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 in view of Kaufman et al. (US 2015/0296368)(Hereinafter referred to as Kaufman). U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 except wherein information related to an attempted access to the document comprises a process identifier of the application program.
Kaufman teaches the ability have a policy control for access control to documents (It is contemplated that a conflict resolution technique can set authority levels per-source (e.g., based on source identifier (ID)) or per-type of source (e.g., differing authority levels can be set for messaging servers versus MDM servers versus mobile operator management servers versus the internal policy source component(s) 110). Moreover, the authority levels can be defined per-policy or for groups of policies. Pursuant to an example, the conflict resolution technique can specify respective authority levels for policy source types for a group of policies, and differing respective authority levels for the policy source types for a differing group of policies. According to an illustration, a class definition of authority level can be supported. A same authority level can be considered a class, and how a class conflicts with another class can be defined. For example, a given class can include one or more policy sources, and conflict resolution between the classes can be determined by rules that are part of a particular conflict resolution technique. See paragraph [0032])( A document server can have a policy application system (e.g., supporting information rights management) that applies policies for access to documents.)
U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 and Kaufman teach of security based control of information and Kaufman teaches that access to specific documents can be controlled by policies, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system of U.S. Patent No. 11/042,955 with the access control techniques of Kaufman such that the system could prevent unauthorized access.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Kim et al. (US 2014/0247961).
Kim teaches creating a watermark overlay based on display policy information (According to the present invention, when an application is executed or a document is opened by a user's manipulation, it is determined whether a watermark is displayed based on a message generated from an operating system and screen watermark display policies, and when it is determined that the watermark is displayed, the watermark is displayed on a screen. According to the present invention, when the watermark is displayed on a screen, it is possible to provide a user with notification that corresponding content is important content or confidential content. See abstract ), but is silent to producing augmentation content in the video buffer by the compositing window manager wherein the augmentation content comprises a security marker, wherein the security marker is visually on top of the composite content, wherein the security marker protects content of the document; and making the video buffer available for video refresh by the compositing window manager wherein the composite and augmentation contents are visible on a display after a video refresh,
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “producing augmentation content in the video buffer by the compositing window manager wherein the augmentation content comprises a security marker, wherein the security marker is visually on top of the composite content, wherein the security marker protects content of the document; and making the video buffer available for video refresh by the compositing window manager wherein the composite and augmentation contents are visible on a display after a video refresh” of claim 1 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 1 and thus claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-12 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murtagh (US 2010/0079480)(Hereinafter referred to as Murtagh), generally teaches windows compositing manager for alpha blending a window with a background (see abstract).
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 NICHOLAS R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00PM.
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 (572)-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.
/NICHOLAS R WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights