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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 14-20 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are new pending claims.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 14-23 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/26/2026 have been considered.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, these are persuasive and after reconsideration based on the amendments, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11 and 15-17 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks to the rejection under 112(b), these are persuasive in view of the claim amendments and canceled claims, therefore the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks to the rejection under 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, these are persuasive as “caching … the first DRM-protected media in data storage” and “retrieving the first DRM-protected media … from data storage” is a practical integration, therefore 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks to Brown and Lin failing to address all aspects of amended claim 1, 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.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks to Koivisto, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on combining Chudy, Brown, and Koivisto, have been considered but are not persuasive as ¶45-51 of U.S. Prov. No. 63/587,891 does not discuss any specific requirements of DRM technology. DRM technology operates in a broad manner to protect certain content from being accessed which is supported by priority application U.S. Prov. No. 63/587,891. DRM protection includes anything that prevents screenshots, screenshares or similar unauthorized access to content ¶38: “When a user (e.g., user 105) attempts to view sensitive information, the application may utilize a DRM-protected video or image to overlay on top of the content, effectively blocking screenshots and screen shares. The protected video or image may trigger DRM protections in devices, preventing the data from being screenshotted or shared across a wide range of devices.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chudy et al. (United States Patent Publication No. 2010/0162410), hereinafter Chudy in view of Auger (United States Patent Publication No. 2015/0067891) in view of Bartha et al. (United States Patent No. 11,356,580 – provided by Applicant’s IDS), hereinafter Bartha.
Regarding claim 1, a method for reducing compute in digital rights management (“DRM”) protection (Chudy: “Embodiments of the present invention provide a method, system and computer program product for protecting digital content through visual proxy transparency control.”), the method comprising:
But Chudy fails to explicitly teach obtaining, via an application server, a request to load a first content element; upon obtaining the request to load the first content element, retrieving first DRM-protected media via the application server from a data storage,
However, Auger teaches obtaining, via an application server, a request to load a first content element (Auger ¶41: “The connection module 180 of the network device 120 receives the request and may transmit the request for digital content (e.g., from the client device) to the processor 190 for processing.”); upon obtaining the request to load the first content element, retrieving first DRM-protected media via the application server from a data storage (Auger ¶41: “The content review module 200 is configured to retrieve the digital content requested by the user. The content review module 200 is further configured to associate the DRM with the requested digital content. In some cases, the DRM may be stored in the memory module 220.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy in view of Auger to allow for DRM enforcement even when a computing device is offline (Auger ¶35: “Individuals may further limit or block the computing devices network connection in an attempt reduce data costs or in an attempt to circumvent DRM. As such, the embodiments of the systems and methods detailed herein are intended to allow the enforcement of DRM without requiring the computing device to access a network to enforce the DRM (e.g., the digital rights associated therewith).”).
Chudy further teaches the first DRM-protected media having been generated by: generating, via the application server, first media, wherein the first media is substantially transparent (Chudy ¶20: “create a transparent overlay window 275 over the target window 270, intercept in the transparent overlay window 275 a user interface event for the DRM protected content”), is a first single frame[-looped video], and is generated based on a first set of dimensions of the first content element (Chudy ¶20: “create a transparent overlay window 275 over the target window 270, intercept in the transparent overlay window 275 a user interface event for the DRM protected content”), and wherein the first content element is associated with sensitive information (Chudy ¶5: “A number of access control technologies including digital rights management (DRM) technology can protect digital content. For example, content owners utilizing DRM technology can encrypt digital content to prevent users from copying or gaining unauthorized access to the protected content.”);
Examiner Note: creating an overlay to cover an element implicitly teaches generating the media based on the dimensions of the element
modifying, via the application server, the first media such that the first single frame[-looped video] includes DRM technology to generate the first DRM-protected media (Chudy ¶17: “the visual proxy transparency control module 120 can intercept in the transparent overlay window 150, a user interface event 140, such as a keyboard or mouse event, directed to the target window 160. If DRM permissions 130 associated with the DRM protected content 110 do not allow access to the DRM protected content, then the visual proxy transparency control module 120 can quash the intercepted user interface event 140.”); and
caching, via the application server, the first DRM-protected media in the data storage (Auger ¶44: “the third party server 240 may be a publication server and may store DRM in relation to digital content.”);
upon retrieving the first DRM-protected media, generating a first DRM-protected content element based on the first content element and the first DRM-protected media via the application server (Chudy ¶19: “The system can include a host computing platform 215 Supporting the operation of a content server 210. The host computing platform 215 also can host the execution of a DRM application 220 rendering DRM protected content 230 and corresponding DRM permissions 225 to a client system 250 over a data communications network 240. The client system 250 can host an operating system 255 executing a content viewer 260. The content viewer 260 can display DRM protected content 230 in a target window 270 having a transparent overlay window 275 overlapping the target window 270 fully or partially.”); and
causing a graphical user interface ("GUI") to output the first DRM-protected content element such that the first DRM-protected media is overlaid on the first DRM-protected content element via the application server (Chudy ¶19: “The content viewer 260 can display DRM protected content 230 in a target window 270 having a transparent overlay window 275 overlapping the target window 270 fully or partially.”).
Chudy and Auger fail to explicitly teach first single frame-looped video.
However, Bartha teaches first single frame-looped video (Bartha Col. 5 lines 57-59: “the transmitted video data may include a single frame that may be looped during display of the document.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy and Auger in view of Bartha to use a video that can include multiple DRM schemes allowing for increased flexibility (Bartha Col. 4 Lines 60-63: “a single video data file may simultaneously include security encoding for multiple DRM schemes, for example including multiple portions each having a different DRM compliance.”).
Claims 11 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
In addition, Chudy teaches claim 11’s A system, the system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor operatively connected to the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations for reducing compute in digital rights management ("DRM") protection, the operations including (Chudy ¶25: “A data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code will include at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus. The memory elements can include local memory employed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, and cache memories which provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.”)
Regarding claim 3, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first media has been generated by: determining the first set of dimensions associated with the first content element; and generating the first media based on the first set of dimensions (Chudy ¶20: “create a transparent overlay window 275 over the target window 270, intercept in the transparent overlay window 275 a user interface event for the DRM protected content”).
Examiner Note: creating an overlay to cover an element implicitly teaches generating the media based on the determined dimensions of the element
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
upon detecting an indication of digital extraction, modifying the first DRM-protected content element such that the first DRM-protected media is modified to be substantially opaque; and
causing the modified first DRM-protected content element to be output via the GUI such that the modified first DRM-protected media is displayed (Chudy ¶18: “As such, based on DRM permissions 130 forbidding access to a user, the user can be visually blocked from accessing DRM protected content 110 through the strategic placement of the transparent overlay window 150. Optionally, in one aspect of the embodiment, based on DRM permissions 130, specified sections in the transparent overlay window 150 can be designated as opaque areas 180 or sheer areas 170 visually blocking access to the DRM protected content 110.”).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, via the application server, a request to load a [second] content element (Auger ¶41: “The connection module 180 of the network device 120 receives the request and may transmit the request for digital content (e.g., from the client device) to the processor 190 for processing.”); and upon obtaining the request to load the [second] content element, retrieving [second] DRM-protected media via the application server from the data storage (Auger ¶41: “The content review module 200 is configured to retrieve the digital content requested by the user. The content review module 200 is further configured to associate the DRM with the requested digital content. In some cases, the DRM may be stored in the memory module 220.”).
The same motivation to modify with Auger, as in claim 1, applies.
Chudy, Auger, and Bartha do not explicitly teach a second content element and a second DRM-protected media.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha to repeat their steps for a second content element and a second DRM-protected media as it is obvious to repeat steps.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the method of claim 7, wherein the [second] DRM-protected media has been generated by: generating, via the application server, [second] media, wherein the [second] media is substantially transparent (Chudy ¶20: “create a transparent overlay window 275 over the target window 270, intercept in the transparent overlay window 275 a user interface event for the DRM protected content”), is a [second] single frame-looped video (Bartha Col. 5 lines 57-59: “the transmitted video data may include a single frame that may be looped during display of the document.”), and is generated based on a [fourth] set of dimensions of the [second] content element (Chudy ¶20: “create a transparent overlay window 275 over the target window 270, intercept in the transparent overlay window 275 a user interface event for the DRM protected content”), and wherein the [second] content element is associated with sensitive information (Chudy ¶5: “A number of access control technologies including digital rights management (DRM) technology can protect digital content. For example, content owners utilizing DRM technology can encrypt digital content to prevent users from copying or gaining unauthorized access to the protected content.”); modifying, via the application server, the [second] media such that the [second] single frame-looped video (As taught by Bartha) includes the DRM technology to generate the [second] DRM-protected media (Chudy ¶17: “the visual proxy transparency control module 120 can intercept in the transparent overlay window 150, a user interface event 140, such as a keyboard or mouse event, directed to the target window 160. If DRM permissions 130 associated with the DRM protected content 110 do not allow access to the DRM protected content, then the visual proxy transparency control module 120 can quash the intercepted user interface event 140.”); and
caching, via the application server the [second] DRM-protected media in the data storage (Auger ¶44: “the third party server 240 may be a publication server and may store DRM in relation to digital content.”)
The same motivation to modify with Auger and Bartha, as in claim 1, applies.
Chudy, Auger, and Bartha do not explicitly teach a second content element second DRM-protected media, second media, a second single-frame looped video, and a fourth set of dimensions.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha to repeat their steps for a second content element second DRM-protected media, second media, a second single-frame looped video, and a fourth set of dimensions as it is obvious to repeat steps.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the method of claim 8, further comprising:
upon retrieving the first DRM-protected media, generating a [second] DRM-protected content element based on the [second] content element and the [second] DRM-protected media via the application server (Chudy ¶19: “The system can include a host computing platform 215 Supporting the operation of a content server 210. The host computing platform 215 also can host the execution of a DRM application 220 rendering DRM protected content 230 and corresponding DRM permissions 225 to a client system 250 over a data communications network 240. The client system 250 can host an operating system 255 executing a content viewer 260. The content viewer 260 can display DRM protected content 230 in a target window 270 having a transparent overlay window 275 overlapping the target window 270 fully or partially.”)
Chudy, Auger, and Bartha do not explicitly teach a second DRM-protected content element, second content element, and second DRM-protected media.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha to repeat their steps in for a second DRM-protected content element, second content element, and second DRM-protected media as it is obvious to repeat steps.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 9 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the method of claim 9, further comprising:
causing the GUI to output the first DRM-protected content element such that the first DRM-protected media is overlaid on the first DRM-protected content element (Chudy ¶19: “The content viewer 260 can display DRM protected content 230 in a target window 270 having a transparent overlay window 275 overlapping the target window 270 fully or partially.”) and the [second] DRM-protected content element such that the [second] DRM-protected media is overlaid on the [second] DRM-protected content element via the application server (Chudy ¶19: “The content viewer 260 can display DRM protected content 230 in a target window 270 having a transparent overlay window 275 overlapping the target window 270 fully or partially.”)
Chudy, Auger, and Bartha do not explicitly teach a second DRM-protected content element, and second DRM-protected media.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha to repeat their steps for a second DRM-protected content element and second DRM-protected media as it is obvious to repeat steps.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 10 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claims 1 and 7-10 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4-5, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chudy in view of Auger in view of Bartha in view of Koivisto et al. (United States Patent Publication No. 2007/0124700), hereinafter Koivisto.
Regarding claim 4, Chudy, Auger and Bartha teach the method of claim 3, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the first media has been further generated by:
determining a second set of dimensions associated with the first media; and
comparing the first set of dimensions and the second set of dimensions to determine a third set of dimensions to be associated with the first DRM-protected media.
However, Koivisto teaches wherein the first media has been further generated by:
determining a second set of dimensions associated with the first media; and
comparing the first set of dimensions and the second set of dimensions to determine a third set of dimensions to be associated with the first DRM-protected media (Koivisto ¶29: “For instance, the analysing module 202 may be configured to determine the size of an available content item portion. In an embodiment, the icon generation module 200, in the embodiment of FIG. 2 the selection module 204, is configured to compare the size of an available content item portion to a predetermined minimum size required for the icon. The icon generation module 200 is configured to select the content item portion for icon generation if the size of the content item portion exceeds the predetermined minimum size.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto as are all within the same field of endeavor of displaying content for a user and are thus combinable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto to have greater accuracy of generating media with respect to the sensitive content element within the requested media for better protection (Koivisto ¶36: “This embodiment further enables to pre- pare the icon such that the visually meaningful areas in the selected portion of the content item can be better identified.”).
Regarding claim 5, Chudy, Auger and Bartha teach the method of claim 4, but fail to teach wherein the first media has been further generated by:
determining whether the second set of dimensions exceeds the first set of dimensions; and
upon determining the second set of dimensions exceeds the first set of dimensions, generating the first DRM-protected media based on at least the third set of dimensions via the application server.
However, Koivisto teaches wherein the first media has been further generated by:
determining whether the second set of dimensions exceeds the first set of dimensions; and
upon determining the second set of dimensions exceeds the first set of dimensions, generating the first DRM-protected media based on at least the third set of dimensions via the application server (Koivisto ¶29: “For instance, the analysing module 202 may be configured to determine the size of an available content item portion. In an embodiment, the icon generation module 200, in the embodiment of FIG. 2 the selection module 204, is configured to compare the size of an available content item portion to a predetermined minimum size required for the icon. The icon generation module 200 is configured to select the content item portion for icon generation if the size of the content item portion exceeds the predetermined minimum size.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto as are all within the same field of endeavor of displaying content for a user and are thus combinable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto to have greater accuracy of generating media with respect to the sensitive content element within the requested media for better protection (Koivisto ¶36: “This embodiment further enables to pre- pare the icon such that the visually meaningful areas in the selected portion of the content item can be better identified.”).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claims 3-5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the system of claim 14, [wherein the third set of dimensions of] the first single frame-looped video (As taught by Bartha in claim 1) [matches or exceeds the first set of dimensions of the content element].
The same motivation to modify with Bartha, as in claim 1, applies
Chudy, Auger, and Bartha fail to teach wherein the third set of dimensions of the first single frame-looped video matches or exceeds the first set of dimensions of the content element.
However, Koivisto teaches wherein the third set of dimensions of the first single frame[-looped video] matches or exceeds the first set of dimensions of the content element (Koivisto ¶29: “For instance, the analyzing module 202 may be configured to determine the size of an available content item portion. In an embodiment, the icon generation module 200, in the embodiment of FIG. 2 the selection module 204, is configured to compare the size of an available content item portion to a predetermined minimum size required for the icon. The icon generation module 200 is configured to select the content item portion for icon generation if the size of the content item portion exceeds the predetermined minimum size.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto as are all within the same field of endeavor of displaying content for a user and are thus combinable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Koivisto to have greater accuracy of generating media with respect to the sensitive content element within the requested media for better protection (Koivisto ¶36: “This embodiment further enables to pre- pare the icon such that the visually meaningful areas in the selected portion of the content item can be better identified.”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chudy in view of Auger in view of Bartha in view of Loeb et al. (United States Patent Publication No. 2017/0249394 – provided by Applicant’s IDS), hereinafter Loeb.
Regarding claim 23, Chudy, Auger, and Bartha teach the system of claim 18, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the first DRM-protected content element is a first Hypertext Markup Language ("HTML") element and the second DRM-protected content element is a second HTML element.
However, Loeb teaches wherein the first DRM-protected content element is a first Hypertext Markup Language ("HTML") element (Loeb ¶90: “Embodiments for a privacy setting and verification method to identify HTML elements and provide a GUI to set privacy levels and groups for each identified element will now be described. Based on the privacy setting, a rule-based filter may be used to modify the privacy tagged HTML elements to generate a version of sharable pages.”)
and the second DRM-protected content element is a second HTML element (Loeb ¶90: “Embodiments for a privacy setting and verification method to identify HTML elements and provide a GUI to set privacy levels and groups for each identified element will now be described. Based on the privacy setting, a rule-based filter may be used to modify the privacy tagged HTML elements to generate a version of sharable pages.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chudy, Auger, and Bartha in view of Loeb to have the content element be a HTML element to increase security by enabling privacy tags for content elements (Loeb ¶61: “When using co-browsing tools, which allow users to share browsing information with technical support users or other users, privacy protection methods may be employed to protect personal data. For example, privacy tags may be added to HTML elements that may contain personal data; web server page designs may be modified; or privacy protection application programming interface (API) scripts for webpage developers may be inserted to filter personal data elements.”).
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 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 ALEC ANKRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15am-3:15pm.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/A.C.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights