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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Office Action
The response on 07/03/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1,7,13,16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 14 have been removed and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Currently Claims 1,3-13 and 15-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant on Pages 10-11 states:
Devir consistently teaches a content processing system that may "obtain" identifiable information associated with a user device and may "receive" an identification for a user device. The identifiable information discussed by Devir - for example, machine code, MAC address, IP address, device type, location of the device, and account-related information - are examples of information that may be available to, obtained by, or received by the content processing system. That such information may exist or may be obtainable does not teach or suggest that the processor of the user device generates a device identification code, much less that such generation occurs at the start of operation of the user device. Stated differently, the availability of identifiable information is not equivalent to an act of startup-time generation performed by the processor of the information processing device.
Regarding the argument above, the Examiner would like to state the following: The argument is considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues on Page 12-13:
Claims 7 and 16 are directed to the fourth embodiment as shown in FIG. 9 and expressly recite a screen capture detection device 970, including a camera, that is external to the information processing device and is arranged to capture an area in which content displayed on the screen is observable. The detection of claims 7 and 16 is not merely detection of an internal screenshot function or software-level capture command. Rather, these claims address a scenario in which the displayed screen image is itself photographed by a worker or interloper. Thus, the configuration of the fourth embodiment serves to detect a screen capture attempt based on physical photographing of a display screen.
Regarding the argument above, the Examiner would like to state the following: The argument is considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues on Page 13:
Applicant asserts that claims depending from claim 1 are patentable for at least the same reasons as discussed above. Essentially, Shiomi teaches only encryption. Shiomi does not remedy the deficiencies of Lee and Devir as discussed relative to the amended claim 1.
Regarding the argument above, the Examiner would like to state the following: The argument is considered but is not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1,5-6,8-9,13,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Kothari (US20110066835).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses A method for operating an information processing device including a processor and a memory, the method comprising: (Paragraph [0022])
detecting, by the processor, a screen capture attempt on the information processing device; and (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The capture detection module detects the capture operation of the computing device.)
inserting, by the processor, a watermark into captured screen data stored in the memory, (Paragraph [0012] E.N. A watermark is not displayed on the screen of a computing device on which the screen leak prevention program is executed, but the watermark is inserted (added or overlapped) into captured data containing screen information of the computing device, so that a user of the computing device can work without being disturbed by the watermark.)
wherein the watermark and the device identification code are associated with each other. (Paragraph [0055-0056] E.N. The watermark contains identifiable information such as information for identifying a computing device (e.g. ID, MAC address and IP address)
Lee does not, but in related art, Kothari discloses generating, by the processor of the information processing device, at a start of operation of the information processing device, a device identification code for the information processing device, the generated device identification code being stored in the memory at the start of operation of the information processing device; (Paragraph [0014] E.N. The semiconductor chip may be operable to generate a unique device ID at boot using the cryptographic public key that is stored in the one-time programmable (OTP) memory in the semiconductor chip and a cryptographic hash algorithm such as a SHA algorithm and store the device ID in the memory in the semiconductor chip. The semiconductor chip contains a Processor (See Figure 1))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kothari because Lee does not explicitly disclose generating by the processor at the start of operation a device identification code which is disclosed by Kothari. Incorporating the teachings of Kothari to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the detecting the screen capture attempt comprises executing, by the processor, software installed on the information processing device to detect a screen capture operation on the information processing device. (Paragraph [0021] E.N. A computing device (information processing device) executes a screen leak prevention program and perform a screen leak prevention function provided by the screen leak prevention program according to the execution of the screen leak prevention program.)
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 5. Lee further discloses wherein the software comprises an operating system (OS) of the information processing device, (Paragraph [0057] E.N. The watermark generation module obtains the point in time at which the capture operation is performed (from the operating system))
and wherein the detecting the screen capture attempt comprises obtaining, from the operating system, information indicative of detection of the screen capture operation. (Paragraph [0057] E.N. The capture operation of the first process is detected by the capture detection module and generate a watermark)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the information processing device is configured to constantly display a watermark on a screen of a display connected to the information processing device, and wherein the inserting the watermark comprises storing the captured screen data including the constantly displayed watermark in the memory. (Paragraph [0012] E.N. A watermark is inserted into the captured data containing screen information of the computing device, allowing the ability to identify the leak path. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the watermark is constantly displayed and shows information regarding where the original content is from (i.e. device id))
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the inserting the watermark comprises: generating, by the processor, the watermark in response to detection of the screen capture attempt; (Paragraph [0056] E.N. The watermark generation module generates a watermark that includes time stamp as well as information for identifying a computing device)
reading the captured screen data stored in the memory; inserting the generated watermark into the captured screen data read from the memory; and storing the captured screen data with the inserted watermark in the memory. (Paragraph [0010] Watermark is inserted into the capture data before the capture data is converted into a file and stored as a file in the computing device by the program)
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses an information processing device comprising: a processor with computational capability; a memory connected to the processor; (Paragraph [0022])
a capture detection unit associated with the processor and configured to detect a screen capture attempt on the information processing device; (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The capture detection module detects the capture operation of the computing device.)
a watermark insertion unit associated with the processor and configured to insert a watermark into captured screen data stored in the memory; and (Paragraph [0012] E.N. A watermark is not displayed on the screen of a computing device on which the screen leak prevention program is executed, but the watermark is inserted (added or overlapped) into captured data containing screen information of the computing device, so that a user of the computing device can work without being disturbed by the watermark.)
an association data generation unit associated with the processor and configured to generate association data associating the watermark with the device identification code and to store the association data in the memory. (Paragraph [0055-0056] E.N. The watermark contains identifiable information such as information for identifying a computing device (e.g. ID, MAC address and IP address)
Lee does not, but in related art, Kothari discloses a device identification unit associated with the processor and configured to generate, at a start of operation of the information processing device, a device identification code for the information processing device and to store the generated device identification code in the memory at the start of operation of the information processing device; (Paragraph [0014] E.N. The semiconductor chip may be operable to generate a unique device ID at boot using the cryptographic public key that is stored in the one-time programmable (OTP) memory in the semiconductor chip and a cryptographic hash algorithm such as a SHA algorithm and store the device ID in the memory in the semiconductor chip. The semiconductor chip contains a Processor (See Figure 1))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kothari because Lee does not explicitly disclose generating by the processor at the start of operation a device identification code which is disclosed by Kothari. Incorporating the teachings of Kothari to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee further discloses wherein the capture detection unit is integrated into the information processing device and is further configured to detect a screen capture operation on the information processing device by operation of software associated with the processor. (Paragraph [0057] E.N. The watermark generation module obtains the point in time at which the capture operation is performed (from the operating system))
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee further discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee further discloses wherein the watermark insertion unit operates is further configured to operate constantly while the information processing device is operating. (Paragraph [0080-0081] E.N. A watermark is inserted into capture data without displaying watermark on the work screen of the computing device)
Claim(s) 3,10-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Kothari (US20110066835) and in further view of Devir (US20210357482).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses a type identification code indicating a type of the information processing device; (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The identifiable information associated with the user device includes a machine code, an IP address, a type of device (laptop, smartphone, router etc.))
and a distinction code that individually distinguishes the information processing device. (Paragraph [0028] E.N. The content processing system receives an identification for a user device (e.g. a user device MAC address)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose device identification code and indicating the type of device which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir to Lee and Kothari allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from such as the device type.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses wherein content of the inserted watermark is configured to include the device identification code read from the memory. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose inserting the device identification code into the watermark which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir and Kothari to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Kothari and in further view of Devir discloses the method of claim 10. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses wherein the inserting the watermark comprises: generating a data record associating the content of the watermark with the device identification code; and storing the data record in an association database. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose inserting the device identification code into the watermark which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir and Kothari to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view Kothari and in further view of Devir discloses the method of claim 11. Lee further discloses wherein the data record is maintained (Paragraph [0016] E.N. The recording medium includes hard disk drive, solid state drive, flash memory-based data storage device, DRAM, cache or a database that is used to install, execute or distribute a program. Data is stored.)
in the association database for a predetermined period. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device)
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses wherein the watermark insertion unit is further configured to read the device identification code from the memory, and wherein the watermark inserted into the captured screen data contains the device identification code. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose inserting the device identification code into the watermark which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses further comprising: a database unit, wherein the association data generation unit is further configured to generate a data record associating content of the watermark with the device identification code and to store the generated data record in the database unit. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose the watermark containing the device identification which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir to Lee and Kothari allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses A system comprising: an information processing device including a processor and a memory, (Paragraph [0022])
detect a screen capture attempt, (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The capture detection module detects the capture operation of the computing device)
insert, during screen capture, a watermark into captured screen data, and (Paragraph [0012] E.N. A watermark is not displayed on the screen of a computing device on which the screen leak prevention program is executed, but the watermark is inserted (added or overlapped) into captured data containing screen information of the computing device, so that a user of the computing device can work without being disturbed by the watermark.)
generate a data record associating content of the watermark with the device identification code; and (Paragraph [0055-0056] E.N. The watermark contains identifiable information such as information for identifying a computing device (e.g. ID, MAC address and IP address)
Lee does not, but in related art, Kothari discloses the processor configured to at a start of operation of the information processing device, generate a device identification code for the information processing device and store the generated device identification code in the memory, (Paragraph [0014] E.N. The semiconductor chip may be operable to generate a unique device ID at boot using the cryptographic public key that is stored in the one-time programmable (OTP) memory in the semiconductor chip and a cryptographic hash algorithm such as a SHA algorithm and store the device ID in the memory in the semiconductor chip. The semiconductor chip contains a Processor (See Figure 1))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kothari because Lee does not explicitly disclose generating by the processor at the start of operation a device identification code which is disclosed by Kothari. Incorporating the teachings of Kothari to Lee allows for the use of device ID to be inserted into the watermark to determine where the original content came from.
Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Devir discloses a database device including a database unit where the data record is stored. (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system obtains identifiable information associated with a user device (device identification). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, the device ID is generated and stored in order to be used by the content processing system.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose a database unit to store data records which is taught by Devir. Incorporating the teachings of Devir to Lee and Kothari allows for the databases to store records.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Kothari (US20110066835) and in further view of Shiomi (US20060248346).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Shiomi discloses wherein the device identification code is encrypted by the processor, and wherein the encrypted device identification code is stored in the memory. (Paragraph [0015] E.N. The secret information processing portion of the host device encrypts the device unique ID to thereby generate an encrypted device unique ID.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Shiomi because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose encrypting the device identification which is taught by Shiomi. Incorporating the teachings of Shiomi to Lee and Kothari allows for the device ID to be encrypted within the watermark and adds a layer of security to the watermark.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Kothari (US20110066835) and in further view of Jaeh (US20190156689).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the detecting the screen capture attempt comprises receiving, by the information processing device, input from a screen capture detection device connected to the information processing device, (Paragraph [0056] E.N. The watermark generation module generates a watermark includes at least one of a time stamp indicating the time at which a capture operation is performed. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine, the capture operation informs the processor to allow the watermark generation module to generate a watermark in regards to a leak.)
the input being indicative that a screen of a display connected to the information processing device is being photographed, and Lee (Paragraph [0048] E.N. The capture pattern is stored in the computing device or the screen leak prevention program and the capture detection module determine whether a capture operation is performed by referring to the stored list.)
Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Jaeh discloses wherein the screen capture detection device includes a camera that is external to the information processing device and is arranged to capture an area in which content displayed on the screen is observable. (Paragraph [0059] E.N. The test-taker interface of the system may rely on the use of the test-taker's camera, microphone, keyboard, and mouse to collect behavioral input during the exam session. Based on the test-taker's collected behavioral input, the system may flag or end the exam session and subsequently notify the exam provider in the event of aberrant behavior.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Jaeh because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose the screen capturing device including an external camera to capture the area in which content displayed on the screen is observable, which is taught by Jaeh. Incorporating the teachings of Lee and Kothari to Jaeh allows for security outside of the device and in the vicinity.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Kothari discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the capture detection unit is further configured to detect, based on input from a screen capture detection device connected to the information processing device, (Paragraph [0056] E.N. The watermark generation module generates a watermark includes at least one of a time stamp indicating the time at which a capture operation is performed. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine, the capture operation informs the processor to allow the watermark generation module to generate a watermark in regards to a leak.)
that a screen of a display connected to the information processing device is being photographed and (Paragraph [0048] E.N. The capture pattern is stored in the computing device or the screen leak prevention program and the capture detection module determine whether a capture operation is performed by referring to the stored list.)
Lee and Kothari do not, but in related art, Jaeh discloses wherein the screen capture detection device includes a camera that is external to the information processing device and is arranged to capture an area in which content displayed on the screen is observable. (Paragraph [0059] E.N. The test-taker interface of the system may rely on the use of the test-taker's camera, microphone, keyboard, and mouse to collect behavioral input during the exam session. Based on the test-taker's collected behavioral input, the system may flag or end the exam session and subsequently notify the exam provider in the event of aberrant behavior.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Kothari to incorporate the teachings of Jaeh because Lee and Kothari do not explicitly disclose the screen capturing device including an external camera to capture the area in which content displayed on the screen is observable, which is taught by Jaeh. Incorporating the teachings of Lee and Kothari to Jaeh allows for security outside of the device and in the vicinity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AAYUSH ARYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2838. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/AAYUSH ARYAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights