DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims in Consideration
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2024, 10/11/2024, 12/20/2024, & 11/20/2025 were filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al. (US 10332200 B1, published: 6/25/2019), in view of Thiyagarajan et al. (US 20150278534 A1, published: 10/1/2015).
Claim 1: Fournier teaches a system comprising: a tabletop display (the dual-use display screen may be oriented horizontally on a table [Fournier, 3:25-26); and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors (Central Processing Unit 802 [Fournier, FIG. 8]) coupled to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (System Memory 608 [Fournier, FIG. 8]) that, when executed, cause the processing circuit to: cause an image comprising first information and second information to be displayed on a tabletop display (a portion 402 of a document may be displayed in section 206 of the dual-use display screen 106 and a portion 404 of the document may be displayed in section 208 of the dual-use display screen 106. The sample text A shown as the portion 402 of FIG. 4 is actually rotated 180 degrees and oriented towards the banker 202 [Fournier 5:62-67, FIG. 4]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated in FIG. 4, a first information 402 is displayed in 1 direction to a banker, and a second information 404 is displayed in a second direction to a customer).
Fournier does not teach receive a security trigger; and cause the first information to be obscured on the tabletop display based on receiving the security trigger.
However, Thiyagarajan teaches receive a security trigger; and cause the first information to be obscured on the tabletop display based on receiving the security trigger (as illustrated in FIG. 1B, the UI content 110 of the computing device 100 has been determined to comprise sensitive information. For example, the UI content 110 may prompt the user for a username with a username prompt 170 via a username text box 172 and for a password with a password prompt 174 via a password text box 176. In some embodiments, the portion of the screen sharing image 160 that comprises the sensitive information may be obfuscated. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1B, the username prompt 170, the username text box 172, the password prompt 174, and the password text box 176 are obfuscated within the obfuscation area 182 [Thiyagarajan, 0053, FIG. 1B]. At least a portion of UI content may be tagged content, which may be associated with a sensitive indicator tag or a security flag [Thiyagarajan, 0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the smart table display device invention of Fournier, to include the hiding of sensitive matter of the device when displayed on the smart table feature of Thiyagarajan.
One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a dual user of a split table display can share displayed information with others, without having to reveal sensitive information to those other people.
Claims 8 and 15, having similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2: The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, teaches the system of claim 1. Thiyagarajan further teaches wherein the first information is sensitive information (at least a portion of UI content may be tagged content, which may be associated with a sensitive indicator tag or a security flag [Thiyagarajan, 0063]).
Claims 9 and 16, having similar elements to claim 2, are likewise rejected.
Claim 5: The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, teaches the system of claim 1. Thiyagarajan further teaches wherein the second information comprises non-sensitive customer information, and wherein the non-sensitive customer information is displayed on the tabletop display when the first information is obscured (as illustrated in FIG. 1B, the UI content 110 of the computing device 100 has been determined to comprise sensitive information. For example, the UI content 110 may prompt the user for a username with a username prompt 170 via a username text box 172 and for a password with a password prompt 174 via a password text box 176. In some embodiments, the portion of the screen sharing image 160 that comprises the sensitive information may be obfuscated. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1B, the username prompt 170, the username text box 172, the password prompt 174, and the password text box 176 are obfuscated within the obfuscation area 182 [Thiyagarajan, 0053, FIG. 1B]).
Claims 12 and 19, having similar elements to claim 5, are likewise rejected.
Claim 6: The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, teaches the system of claim 1. Thiyagarajan further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuit to cause the first information and the second information to be obscured on the tabletop display based on the security trigger being indicative of a second level security concern (as illustrated in FIG. 1B, the UI content 110 of the computing device 100 has been determined to comprise sensitive information. For example, the UI content 110 may prompt the user for a username with a username prompt 170 via a username text box 172 and for a password with a password prompt 174 via a password text box 176. In some embodiments, the portion of the screen sharing image 160 that comprises the sensitive information may be obfuscated. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1B, the username prompt 170, the username text box 172, the password prompt 174, and the password text box 176 are obfuscated within the obfuscation area 182 [Thiyagarajan, 0053, FIG. 1B]).
Claim 13, having similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim 7: The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, teaches the system of claim 1. Fournier further teaches wherein the first information is not obscured on a customer device associated with a customer when the first information is obscured on the tabletop display (in the example display scenario 200, the banker's side 206 of the dual-use display screen 106 is blank and the customer's side 208 of the dual-use display screen 106 displays advertisements 210 [Fournier, 4:55-58, FIG. 2]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claims 14 and 20, having similar elements to claim 7, are likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al. (US 10332200 B1, published: 6/25/2019) and Thiyagarajan et al. (US 20150278534 A1, published: 10/1/2015), and in further view of Botz et al. (US 20020070964 A1, published: 6/13/2002).
Claim 3: The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Fournier and Thiyagarajan, does not teach wherein the security trigger is indicative of a first level security concern from among the first level security concern and a second level security concern.
However, Botz teaches wherein the security trigger is indicative of a first level security concern from among the first level security concern and a second level security concern (it should be understood that whether one, two, three, four, or more characters are displayed in an unmasked form at a time may be a function of level of security. For example, a more secure site may only allow a single character to be displayed in an undisguised form at a time in comparison to a site allowing more than a single character to be displayed. Such a portion may be two or more characters, and may be the entire password 17. If more than one character is to be undisguised for display, then program 30 proceeds to a pre-password check 25A, which is described in more detail with reference to FIG. 3. [Botz, 0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the smart table display device invention of the combination of Fournier, and Thiyagarajan, to include the hiding of sensitive matter of the device when displayed on the smart table when a third-party is nearby, feature of Botz.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to detect the circumstances of a third-party viewing potentially sensitive information, and, based on said detection, to hide that information when sharing with others on a larger external display. Such would assist in keeping a user's sensitive information secret.
Claims 10 and 17, having similar elements to claim 3, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights