Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on April 24, 2026. Claim 21 was previously canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2026 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on April 24, 2026. The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 4-5, 14, and 16-17. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments (Remarks) filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot. Note that this action is made FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 14 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.
The rest of the amendments were reworded and therefore, have been rejected based on the same rationale. See also 103 rejection below.
Applicant amended the claims, therefore the 112(b) rejection and the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses: A method comprising:
detecting an attempt to capture digital media associated with target by an electronic device (“Request receiving module 316 may be configured to receive a request to capture the content through the second user interface. The request may include a response to receipt of user input through the second user interface conveying that the content should be captured” [0045] [Examiner notes that the content displayed in the UI is the target]);
identifying a location of the target in response to detecting the In particular embodiments, privacy settings may allow a user to specify one or more geographic locations from which objects can be accessed. Access or denial of access to the objects may depend on the geographic location of a user who is attempting to access the objects” [0066] [Examiner notes that in order for access or denial of access to depend on the geographic location of a user, the system necessarily identifies or determines the geographic location of the user at the time of the access attempt. Examiner also notes that privacy settings define location-based access rules which in turn, leads the system to determine whether access is allowed or denied after checking whether those rules apply to the place from which the object is being accessed]); and
in response to determining the a restricted pattern from the restriction policy; and in response to determining a match, based on the comparison, causing the electronic device to perform a predetermined action to the digital media associated with the target to be captured, wherein the predetermined action is described in the restriction policy (“Implementations described herein address the aforementioned shortcomings and other shortcomings by providing for screenshot and screen recording prevention on a social media platform. Such prevention can be directed to an individual recipient, a group of recipients, and/or all other users on the social media platform. Some implementations change metadata associated with the content. In one aspect, instructions (e.g., protocol) can be implemented that changes security/permissions metadata for the content posted by a user. Some implementations may establish a protected mode screen when the content is accessed. The entire protected mode screen may be marked as a child mode or subview of a parent secure text element. As a result, the entire screen can be prevented from screen capture (e.g., screenshot or screen recording). When an individual or entity attempts to access the posted content, a message may be displayed conveying to the individual/entity that the content cannot be accessed. In some implementations, a secure text field associated with a password field may be increased to prevent screen capture of a larger portion of the user's screen. In one aspect, the protocol can convert non-image to image content, wherein the protocol can change the security/permissions metadata for the user content. In yet another aspect, the protocol can change security/permissions metadata for the user content for text data posted by the user” [0028-0030] [Examiner notes that the system checks the attempted capture vs. the allowed actions in the security/permissions metadata. Examiner also notes that the system-enforced actions are defined by the instructions set forth by the policy. The predetermined actions include a protected mode screen or a message being displayed]; (“In particular embodiments, privacy settings for an object may specify a "blocked list" of users or other entities that should not be allowed to access certain information associated with the object. In particular embodiments, the blocked list may include third-party entities. The blocked list may specify one or more users or entities for which an object is not visible. As an example and not by way of limitation, a user may specify a set of users who may not access photo albums associated with the user, thus excluding those users from accessing the photo albums (while also possibly allowing certain users not within the specified set of users to access the photo albums). In particular embodiments, privacy settings may be associated with particular social-graph elements. Privacy settings of a social-graph element, such as a node or an edge, may specify how the social-graph element, information associated with the social-graph element, or objects associated with the social-graph element can be accessed using the online social network. As an example and not by way of limitation, a particular concept node corresponding to a particular photo may have a privacy setting specifying that the photo may be accessed only by users tagged in the photo and friends of the users tagged in the photo. In particular embodiments, privacy settings may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their content, information, or actions stored/logged by the social-networking system or shared with other systems (e.g., a third-party system). Although this disclosure describes using particular privacy settings in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates using any suitable privacy settings in any suitable manner” [0056] [Examiner notes that the system is comparing the object to the privacy rules/blocked list to determine if there is a match. Examiner also notes that the text shows determining a restriction policy associated with an object because the object has associated privacy settings that specify access restrictions, including a blocked list identifying users or entities that are restricted from accessing the object]).
Wang does not disclose: identifying a location of the target in response to detecting the attempt based on a capture range of the electronic device;
However, Angell discloses: identifying a location of the target in response to detecting the attempt based on a capture range of the electronic device (“The illustrative embodiments provide a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer program product for identifying positional data for an object moving in an area of interest. In one embodiment, positional data for each camera in a set of cameras associated with the object is retrieved. The positional data identifies a location of the each camera in the set of cameras within the area of interest. The object is within an image capture range of the each camera in the set of cameras. Metadata describing video data captured by the set of cameras is analyzed using triangulation analytics and the positional data for the set of cameras to identify a location of the object. The metadata is generated in real time as the video data is captured by the set of cameras. The positional data for the object is identified based on locations of the object over a given time interval. The positional data describes motion of the object” [0047]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the added structure of Angell in order to identify positional data for an object moving in an area of interest (see Angell 0047).
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, in the form of a system for implementing the corresponding method, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale. Examiner notes that the “communications circuitry configured to access an electronic device; and control circuitry” limitation is read upon in paragraphs 0053 and 0088.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang further discloses: obtaining geographical coordinates of the electronic device that is attempting to capture the digital media associated with the target (“In particular embodiments, privacy settings may allow a user to specify one or more geographic locations from which objects can be accessed. Access or denial of access to the objects may depend on the geographic location of a user who is attempting to access the objects. As an example and not by way of limitation, a user may share an object and specify that only users in the same city may access or view the object. As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may share an object and specify that the object is visible to second users only while the first user is in a particular location. If the first user leaves the particular location, the object may no longer be visible to the second users. As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that an object is visible only to second users within a threshold distance from the first user. If the first user subsequently changes location, the original second users with access to the object may lose access, while a new group of second users may gain access as they come within the threshold distance of the first user” [0066]); and
Wang does not disclose: estimating the location of the target based on the geographical coordinates of the electronic device and a capture range of a camera used by the electronic device to attempt the capture.
However, Angell discloses: estimating the location of the target based on the geographical coordinates of the electronic device and a capture range of a camera used by the electronic device to attempt the capture (“The illustrative embodiments provide a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer program product for identifying positional data for an object moving in an area of interest. In one embodiment, positional data for each camera in a set of cameras associated with the object is retrieved. The positional data identifies a location of the each camera in the set of cameras within the area of interest. The object is within an image capture range of the each camera in the set of cameras. Metadata describing video data captured by the set of cameras is analyzed using triangulation analytics and the positional data for the set of cameras to identify a location of the object. The metadata is generated in real time as the video data is captured by the set of cameras. The positional data for the object is identified based on locations of the object over a given time interval. The positional data describes motion of the object” [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the added structure of Angell in order to identify positional data for an object moving in an area of interest (see Angell 0047).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang further discloses: comparing the one or more patterns for the identified target with the restriction pattern from the restriction policy to determine the match (“In particular embodiments, privacy settings for an object may specify a "blocked list" of users or other entities that should not be allowed to access certain information associated with the object. In particular embodiments, the blocked list may include third-party entities. The blocked list may specify one or more users or entities for which an object is not visible. As an example and not by way of limitation, a user may specify a set of users who may not access photo albums associated with the user, thus excluding those users from accessing the photo albums (while also possibly allowing certain users not within the specified set of users to access the photo albums). In particular embodiments, privacy settings may be associated with particular social-graph elements. Privacy settings of a social-graph element, such as a node or an edge, may specify how the social-graph element, information associated with the social-graph element, or objects associated with the social-graph element can be accessed using the online social network. As an example and not by way of limitation, a particular concept node corresponding to a particular photo may have a privacy setting specifying that the photo may be accessed only by users tagged in the photo and friends of the users tagged in the photo. In particular embodiments, privacy settings may allow users to opt in to or opt out of having their content, information, or actions stored/logged by the social-networking system or shared with other systems (e.g., a third-party system). Although this disclosure describes using particular privacy settings in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates using any suitable privacy settings in any suitable manner” [0056] [Examiner notes that the system is comparing the object to the privacy rules/blocked list to determine if there is a match]); and
Wang does not disclose: using image recognition to identify the target; identifying, based on the image recognition, one or more patterns for the identified target;
However, Angell discloses: using image recognition to identify the target; identifying, based on the image recognition, one or more patterns for the identified target (“Face detection/recognition technology 612 is software for identifying a human based on an analysis of one or more images of the human's face. Face detection/recognition technology 612 may be utilized to analyze images of objects captured by cameras deployed at entry ways, or any other location, to capture and recognize faces” [0089] [Examiner notes that face detection/recognition inherently extracts facial patterns/features]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the added structure of Angell in in order to be able to identify the target to make sure all of the privacy restrictions are successful.
Regarding claim 11, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang further discloses: wherein the restriction policy restricts any one of: capturing of the digital media associated with the target; and sharing of captured digital media associated with the target on a social media website (“Implementations described herein address the aforementioned shortcomings and other shortcomings by providing for screenshot and screen recording prevention on a social media platform. Such prevention can be directed to an individual recipient, a group of recipients, and/or all other users on the social media platform. Some implementations change metadata associated with the content. In one aspect, instructions (e.g., protocol) can be implemented that changes security/permissions metadata for the content posted by a user. Some implementations may establish a protected mode screen when the content is accessed. The entire protected mode screen may be marked as a child mode or subview of a parent secure text element. As a result, the entire screen can be prevented from screen capture (e.g., screenshot or screen recording). When an individual or entity attempts to access the posted content, a message may be displayed conveying to the individual/entity that the content cannot be accessed. In some implementations, a secure text field associated with a password field may be increased to prevent screen capture of a larger portion of the user's screen. In one aspect, the protocol can convert non-image to image content, wherein the protocol can change the security/permissions metadata for the user content. In yet another aspect, the protocol can change security/permissions metadata for the user content for text data posted by the user” [0028-0030] [Examiner notes that the system-enforced actions are defined by the instructions set forth by the policy. The restriction of capturing the digital media associated with the target include a protected mode screen or a message being displayed]).
Regarding claim 12, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang further discloses: providing a platform for uploading a restriction pattern; and associating the uploaded restriction pattern with the identified location of the target (“In particular embodiments, privacy settings may allow a user to specify one or more geographic locations from which objects can be accessed. Access or denial of access to the objects may depend on the geographic location of a user who is attempting to access the objects” [0066] [Examiner notes that in order for access or denial of access to depend on the geographic location of a user, the system necessarily identifies or determines the geographic location of the user at the time of the access attempt. Examiner also notes that privacy settings define location-based access rules which in turn, leads the system to determine whether access is allowed or denied after checking whether those rules apply to the place from which the object is being accessed. The restriction pattern is seen as the location-based privacy rule]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 2020/0159223 A1 Egner.
Regarding claim 3, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claim 2.
Wang-Angell do not disclose: determining that the electronic device is a drone; obtaining model information associated with the drone; determining a camera capture range based on the obtained model of the drone; and estimating the location of the target based on the determined camera capture range of the drone.
However, Egner discloses: determining that the electronic device is a drone; obtaining model information associated with the drone; determining a camera capture range based on the obtained model of the drone; and estimating the location of the target based on the determined camera capture range of the drone (“Some of the above methods determine a distance between the drone and the target. Any method may be used to determine the distance between the drone and the target. For example, a drone may include a laser rangefinder. As the drone tracks a target, the drone may use the laser rangefinder to determine the distance between the drone and the target. In another example, personnel on the ground may have a laser rangefinder. The personnel on the ground may use the laser rangefinder to determine a distance between the drone and the personnel and report that distance to the drone for use as the distance between the drone and the target. In another example, a drone may include a GPS receiver and topographical map information. The GPS receiver may report the altitude and geographic location of the drone. The drone may use the geographic location and topographical map to determine the altitude of the ground at the geographic location of the drone. The drone may subtract its altitude as reported by the GPS receiver from the altitude of the ground where the drone is located as determined using the topographical map. The difference in altitude may be used as the distance between the drone and the target. In another example, security personnel may report the geographic location of the target to the drone. The drone may use its own geographic location as reported by the GPS receiver on the drone and the topographical map information stored in memory to determine a distance between the drone and the target. In another example, a target may be tagged with a tracking device the reports the geographic location and altitude of the target. The target location and altitude information may be reported to the drone. The drone may use its geographic location and altitude as reported by a GPS receiver to determine the distance between the drone and the target” [0062] [Examiner notes that the system identifies information associated with the drone and depending on the drone mode, the drone may include specific hardware, such as laser rangefinder, GPS receiver, a camera system, or other distance-measurement sensors. This information reflects the model-dependent capabilities of the drone. Based on the identified drone model/capabilities and its associated components, the system determines how the camera range can be established (if the model includes a laser rangefinder, the capture range may be determined using that, if the model includes GPS and topographical mapping functionality, the capture range can be determined using geographic location and altitude calculations; these are being interpreted as the location estimations)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Egner in order to be inclusive on the different types of devices that can capture content for social media.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 2020/0169606 A1 to Kreutzer et al. (hereinafter, “Kreutzer”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang-Angell do not disclose: searching a database using the identified location of the target as a search query; analyzing results from the search to identify one or more restriction policies associated with the location; and selecting, based on the analysis, the
However, Kreutzer discloses: searching a database using the identified location of the target as a search query; analyzing results from the search to identify one or more restriction policies associated with the location; and selecting, based on the analysis, the The manager function determines which of the geographical regions a respective data resource can be stored in, based on any region-restriction of that data resource. For example, the manager function may use the database as a look-up table to check if any of the stored geographical regions satisfy the region-restriction of the data resource” [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Kreutzer in order to satisfy the region-restriction of the data resource (see Kreutzer 0026).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 11743298 B1 to Badana et al. (hereinafter, “Badana”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claims 1/14.
Wang-Angell do not disclose: causing to download the restriction pattern from the restriction policy to the electronic device; and causing the electronic device to automatically perform the comparison using the downloaded restriction pattern.
However, Badana discloses: causing to download the restriction pattern from the restriction policy to the electronic device; and causing the electronic device to automatically perform the comparison using the downloaded restriction pattern (“The client 210 can apply policies that are stored locally in a local cache 208 to the client device 102. The local cache 208 is populated with the policies from the policy store 110 that are relevant for the respective client device 102. As conditions change, the policies that are in effect could also change. For example, the use of websites that may access camera/video sensors-based applications on the client device 102 could be disabled inside the office, home, or factory, but re-enabled outside of a geofenced area. Specific features, functions, or applications might be disabled by a specific policy for the websites until specific/particular conditions exist. For example, there may be a policy that restricts websites from accessing adult apps on the mobile of the end-user 106 during the daytime or when using an unrecognized Virtual Private Network (VPN). Further, another policy permits the use of the websites for accessing shopping websites from the client device 102. The client 210 supports the user app 206, apps 212 running on the client device 102, or a browser 202 in communication with the mid-link server 108 via a Local Area Network (LAN) 204” [Col. 8, lines 18-37] [Examiner notes that the policies are stored locally in a cache on the client device as they are populated from a policy stored (downloaded) and the client device applied these policies automatically to apps or functions]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Badana in order to apply policies that are stored locally (see Badana, Col. 8, lines 18-37).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 2023/0319373 A1 to Yallen et al. (hereinafter, “Yallen”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claim 1.
Wang-Angell do not disclose: determining that the restriction policy includes instructions for watermarking the digital media associated with the captured target; and causing embedding of the watermark on the digital media associated with the target after its capture based on the instructions from the restriction policy.
However, Yallen discloses: determining that the restriction policy includes instructions for watermarking the digital media associated with the captured target; and causing embedding of the watermark on the digital media associated with the target after its capture based on the instructions from the restriction policy (“In some embodiments, as part of the token generation process, tokenization module 210 may generate a watermark (e.g., visible or non-visible watermark) that is unique to the social media post corresponding to token 212. In this manner, if another user attempts to screenshot or otherwise attempt to claim authorship or ownership of the social media post, the watermark can be used to indicate authenticity of the social media post” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Yallen in order to apply a watermark that is unique to the social media post.
Regarding claim 8, Wang-Angell-Yallen disclose the system of claim 7.
Wang discloses: wherein the watermarking includes metadata relating to whether the electronic device performed the predetermined action described in the restriction policy (“Updating metadata associated with the content to convey that the content is protected may include updating the metadata to cause a protected mode screen to be established when the content is accessed and the protected mode screen to be designated as a sub-element of a parent secure text element. The protected mode screen may include a mode in which contents displayed through an electronic display of a user device are prevented from being captured through a screenshot or screen recording. The parent secure text element may include a text field that is prevented from being captured through a screenshot or screen recording” [0007]; “Metadata update module 312 may be configured to update metadata associated with the content to convey that the content is protected. The metadata may be stored by the social media platform. The metadata associated with the content may include information related to the content and separate from the content. The metadata may be embedded in the content” [0039] [Examiner notes that the embedding of metadata is related to the performing of a predetermined action (protected mode screen in this case) as describes in the restriction policy]).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 2018/0109570 A1 to Kowal et al. (hereinafter, “Kowal”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Wang-Angell discloses the system of claims 1/14.
Wang further discloses: receiving an upload of the digital media associated with the target on a social media platform (“The social networking system can enable a user to upload or create pictures, videos, documents, songs, or other content items, and can enable a user to create and schedule events” [0022]).
Wang-Angell do not disclose: determining whether the digital media associated with the target to be shared is embedded with a watermark; and in response to determining that the digital media associated with the target to be shared includes the watermark: analyzing whether the watermark is associated with the restriction policy; and determining whether restrictions from the restriction policy have been applied prior to allowing the sharing of the digital media associated with the target on the social media platform.
However, Kowal discloses: determining whether the digital media associated with the target to be shared is embedded with a watermark; and in response to determining that the digital media associated with the target to be shared includes the watermark: analyzing whether the watermark is associated with the restriction policy (“Each version of the restricted document includes a watermark that identifies the presenter device as well as the respective attendee device. The restricted document 540 sent to attendee device 130 as part of shared content 530 includes a watermark 550. Watermark 550 indicates that the content was shared by the presenter device 120 and was viewed at the attendee device 130. The restricted document 542 sent to the attendee device 132 as part of the shared content 532 includes a watermark 552. Watermark 552 indicates that the content was shared by the presenter device 120 and was viewed at the attendee device 132. The watermarks 550 and 552 may also include additional information, such as IP addresses of the presenter device 120 and/or the attendee devices 130 or 132, an indication of the location of the presenter device 120 and/or the attendee devices 130 or 132, and/or the date and/or time that the restricted document 520 was initially shared” [0039] [Examiner notes that the metadata is the restriction policy in itself as these fields encode the restrictions (who can access, from where, and when)]); and
determining whether restrictions from the restriction policy have been applied prior to allowing the sharing of the digital media associated with the target on the social media platform. (“Since the online conference system requires each participant of the online conference session to log in, the meeting server 110 can use the login credentials to generate the watermarks. The meeting server 110 may also use attributes of the attendee devices 130, 132, and 134 to prevent restricted content from being viewed at all. For instance, a sales person could mistakenly join an engineering online conference session. When someone from the engineering team shares content, that person would be able to classify the document for watermarking as well as specify viewing restrictions. The viewing restrictions may be based on user groups by designating that the document can be viewed only by users that belong to the engineering user group. In this instance, the sales person does not belong to the engineering user group, and the content would not be shared with that user's device” [0036] [Examiner notes that this text reads upon the claim limitation as it makes sure the rules are enforced before the content is shared (only allowed users can view) and if the user/device is not in the allowed group, content is blocked from being shared to that device]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Kowal in order to apply and enforce restriction policies based on the watermark.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Wang-Angell-Kowal disclose the system of claims 9/19.
Wang-Angell do not disclose: determining that restrictions from the restriction policy have not been applied to the digital media associated with the target attempted to be shared on the social media platform; applying the restrictions from the restriction policy in response to determining that restrictions from the restriction policy have not been applied to the target attempted to be shared on the social media platform; and allowing sharing of the digital media associated with the target on the social media platform after the restrictions from the restriction policy have been applied to the target.
However, Kowal discloses: determining that restrictions from the restriction policy have not been applied to the digital media associated with the target attempted to be shared on the social media platform; applying the restrictions from the restriction policy in response to determining that restrictions from the restriction policy have not been applied to the target attempted to be shared on the social media platform; and allowing sharing of the digital media associated with the target on the social media platform after the restrictions from the restriction policy have been applied to the target (“In another example, the online conference session may be recorded for later playback. A user may request a recording from the meeting server 110, or a separate recording server (not shown). If the online conference session includes shared content subject to distribution restrictions, the meeting server 110 inserts a watermark as described herein. However, the watermark would be rendered into the recording of the online conference session before the user can access the recording. The watermark is rendered on a per-user, per-request basis and includes identifiers for the presenter who shared the content as well as the user who is requesting the recording of the online conference session. If the recording of the online conference session does not contain any shared content that is marked for controlled distribution, then the meeting server 110 does not incur the overhead in generating and inserting the watermark” [0035] [Examiner notes that this system checks whether the watermark is already applied. The text says, "before the user can access the recording" showing that sharing and accessing is blocking until the watermark is applied]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Kowal in order to apply and enforce restriction policies based on the watermark in order to share in an allowed manner.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4318292 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of US 2009/0208054 A1 to Angell et al. (hereinafter, “Angell”) in further view of US 2019/0236278 A1 to Martinez et al. (hereinafter, “Martinez”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang-Angell disclose the system of claim 12.
Wang-Angell does not disclose: issuing a cryptographic key that is to be used for uploading the restriction pattern to the platform.
However, Martinez discloses: issuing a cryptographic key that is to be used for uploading the restriction pattern to the platform (“As such, key exchange keys may be provided for an authorized entity to enable that authorized entity to add/modify/delete the policy actions of the present disclosure” [0023]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang-Angell with the added structure of Martinez in order to apply and enforce restriction policies only when the user has access to add/modify/delete the policies.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU whose telephone number is (703)756-1761. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. 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.
/SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights