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 02/18/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been amended. No new claims have been added or removed.
Response to Arguments
Currently Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 10:
Devir (0027) discloses a content processing system, which is a server/head-end type system, that "may obtain identifiable information associated with a user device (also referred to as a device identification) configured to receive content and generate a digital watermark reflecting the identification of the device." In other words, Devir's device identification is obtained by the content processing system as information that is merely associated with a user device or a user account. Devir does not disclose or suggest (1) that the user device itself generates a device identification code and (2) that the generation occurs at the start of operation (booting) of the user device.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument above, the Examiner would like to state the following: In order for the content processing system to obtain the device identification, one of ordinary skill in the art can determine that the device identification needs to be generated. The Examiner is unsure of the Applicant’s arguments as Devir states that the content processing system obtains the identifiable information (such as machine code, IP address, type of device, location of device, information associated with an account of the user that is used for authentication of the user device, device MAC address etc.) from the device. Devir discloses in Paragraph [0036]: The system may communicate with device using data packages to obtain identifiable information (e.g. device information, account-related information etc.) Devir also discloses in Paragraph [0028]: The content processing system may receive an identification for a user device (e.g. a user device MAC address (which is a form of device identification)) and associate a watermark with the identification.). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Page 11:
In short, Devir is a fundamentally different architecture. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Lee teaches the screen-capture watermarking aspects and that Devir teaches using some form of "device identification" in watermarking, the proposed combination still fails to teach or suggest the specifically recited startup-time generation of the device identification code by the information processing device.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner would like to state the following: In the Specification it is stated that the device identification code “may be configured to include a type identification code indicating a type of device and a distinction code that individually distinguishes the device”. Devir in Paragraph [0028] discloses a user device MAC address which is a distinct code that individually distinguish a device. Also, Devir in Paragraph [0027] discloses that the identifiable information associated with the user device includes machine code, IP address, type of device, location of device etc. Therefore, if the device is at a different location different identifiable information is generated. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Page 12:
In particular, the "device identification" per Devir is information which is obtained by the content processing system as information that is merely associated with a user device or a user account. As such, Devir fails to disclose the architecture recited in claim 13.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner would like to state the following. The argument is not persuasive due to the Examiner’s reason stated above regarding Claim 1.
Applicant further argues in Page 12:
According to claim 13, an information processing device includes (1) a processor- associated device identification unit that acquires a device identification code and that (2) stores the device identification code in the memory of the information processing device. Furthermore, claim 13 recites an association data generation unit that stores association data in that same memory. Applicant argues that the content processing system of Devir, as the entity which obtains device identification, is not equivalent to a device-side, acquisition and storage arrangement. Nor does Devir teach a processor-associated functional architecture as in claim 13.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner would like to state the following. Devir in Paragraph [0028] discloses: The content processing system may receive an identification for a user device (e.g. a user device MAC address) and associate a watermark with the identification. The association of the watermark and the identification may be stored in a database for a future reference. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in Page 12:
Accordingly, even if the Office Action were to maintain that the cited references could be applied to claim 13, Applicant holds that Lee and Devir still fail to teach or suggest the additional lifecycle-based limitations of claim 14.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, the Arguments are not persuasive due to Devir in Paragraph [0027] disclosing that the identifiable information associated with the user device includes machine code, IP address, type of device, location of device etc. Therefore, if the device is at a different location, different identifiable information is generated. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in Page 14:
Moreover, claim 20 requires that the processor of the information processing device (1) generates a data record that associates content of the watermark with the device identification code and that (2) this data record is stored in a database device. Lee and Devir, considered alone or in combination, simply do not consider these limitations. On the other hand, the present application expressly contemplates device-side generation and persistence of association information in connection with capture-event watermarking.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner would like to state the following. Devir in Paragraph [0028] discloses: The content processing system may receive an identification for a user device (e.g. a user device MAC address) and associate a watermark with the identification. The association of the watermark and the identification may be stored in a database for a future reference. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in Page 14-15:
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Lee addresses screen-capture prevention and that Devir addresses watermarking using device identification information, the proposed combination still fails to teach or suggest the limitations as claimed. That is, Lee in view of Devir does not disclose (i) inserting a watermark during screen capture into the captured screen data, i.e., a capture-event operation, or (ii) the device-processor generation of a data record that associates watermark content and device identification code and is stored in a database device.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner would like to state the following: Lee in Paragraph [0012] discloses 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. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in Page 15:
For example, Shiomi merely teaches encryption of device identification codes in the context of device key generation systems. Shiomi does not remedy the deficiency of Lee and Devir regarding the generation timing and local processing architecture as discussed above.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner would like to state the following. The claim limitation of Claim 4 is “the method of claim 1, wherein the device identification code is encrypted by the processor, and wherein the encrypted device identification code is stored in the memory”. The Examiner is unsure regarding the Applicant’s argument of “Shiomi does not remedy the deficiency of Lee and Devir regarding the generation timing and local processing architecture” as Claim 4 does not explicitly disclose those limitation. Shiomi discloses in Paragraph [0015] The secret information processing portion of the host device encrypts the device unique ID to thereby generate an encrypted device unique ID. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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) 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Devir (US20210357482).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses A method of operation 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] Examiner Note (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, Devir discloses generating, at a start of operation of the information processing device, a device identification code for the information processing device, (Paragraph [0027-0028] 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. The identifiable information includes location of the device. The content processing system may also receive an identification for a user device (e.g. a user device MAC address). One of ordinary skill in the art can determine that the user device generates some form of an identification code (i.e. MAC address) as well as a new code that is generated during the bootup due to the device’s current location).
the generated device identification code being stored in the memory; (Paragraph [0027] E.N. The content processing system is a computer system that includes a processor and a memory for storing instructions. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine, data is stored within the systems memory.)
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 device identification code and storing it in the memory 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 2, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of Claim 1. Lee does not but in related art, Devir discloses wherein the device identification code is the start of operation of the information processing device. (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 to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose device identification code and storing it in the memory 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 3, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of Claim 1. Lee does not but in related art, Devir discloses wherein wherein the device identification code is configured to include:
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 to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose device identification code and indicating the type of device 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 such as the device type.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the 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 Devir 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 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 7, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the 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(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.)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Devir 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, 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 Devir discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the comprises: generating, by the processor, the watermark in response to detection of the screen capture attempt; [[and]] (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 [[it]] 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 10, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of claim 1. Lee does 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 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 11, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of claim 10. Lee does not, but in related art, Devir discloses wherein the 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 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 12, Lee in 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 13, Lee discloses an information processing device (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; (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.)
and 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, a device identification unit associated with the processor and configured to acquire a device identification code for the information processing device and to store the device identification code in 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. The content processing system is a computer system that includes a processor and a memory for storing instructions. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine, data is stored within the systems memory.)
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 device identification code and storing it in the memory 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 14, Lee in view of Devir discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee does not but in related art, Devir discloses wherein the device identification code is generated and stored in the memory at a start of operation of the information processing device. (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 to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose device identification code and storing it in the memory 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 15, Lee in view of Devir 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 16, Lee in view of Devir discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee further discloses wherein the capture detection unit is further configured to detect that a screen of a display connected to the information processing device is being photographed using a screen capture detection means connected to the information processing device. (Paragraph [0045] E.N. The capture detection module detects capture operation of the computing device.)
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Devir 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)
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Devir discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee does 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 Devir discloses the information processing device of claim 13. Lee does 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 to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the watermark containing the device identification 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 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 [[the]] 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, Devir discloses the processor configured to acquire a 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.
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 to incorporate the teachings of Devir because Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose device identification code and storing it in the memory 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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20190035244) in view of Devir (US20210357482) and in further view of Shiomi (US20060248346).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Devir discloses the method of claim 1. Lee and Devir 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 Devir to incorporate the teachings of Shiomi because Lee and Devir do not explicitly disclose encrypting the device identification which is taught by Shiomi. Incorporating the teachings of Shiomi to Lee and Devir allows for the device ID to be encrypted within the watermark and adds a layer of security to the watermark.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights