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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority to the following provisional applications has been acknowledged by the examiner: 63/665,485 (6/28/2024) and 63/683,063 (8/14/2024). However, Applicant’s claim to provisional application No. 63/587,891 (10/4/2023) is not acknowledged because the written description and drawings of the provisional application do not adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the instant application. For instance, provisional application No. 63/587,891 does not support “outputting, using an operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video of the HTML element to a display screen associated with the computing device; determining, using the computing device, whether the outputted video is being played on the display screen; and transmitting, using the operating system of the computing device, the determination to the content decryption module” as in instant independent claims 1 and 11; “outputting, using an operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video of the HTML element to a display screen associated with the computing device; determining, using the computing device, whether the outputted video is being played on the display screen; and transmitting, using the operating system of the computing device, the determination to the content decryption module” as in instant independent claim 20.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “outputting, using the operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video of the HTML element to the display screen associated with the computing device comprises: presenting, using the operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video on the display screen, wherein the decrypted video includes a transparent image frame, and wherein the method further includes: presenting, using the operating system of the computing device, the content element on the display screen, wherein the decrypted video being presented is overlaid on the content element presented on the display screen” as in claims 9 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartha (US 11,356,580 B1) in view of Dorwin (US 8,891,765 B1) and Galligan (US 8,792,643 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bartha discloses: A method comprising: receiving, using a browser module of a computing device (web browser in Bartha), a decrypted video from a content decryption module (e.g., decryption module as in Col. 7, Ll. 58-60 of Bartha), wherein the decrypted video is associated with a content element (document content in Bartha) and a digital rights management technology (DRM protection as in Col. 7, Ll. 54-55 of Bartha);
Refer to at least Col. 3, Ll. 48-61, Col. 4, Ll. 63-Col. 5, Ll. 6, and Col. 6, Ll. 1-26 of Bartha with respect to receiving an encrypted video associated with the document and decrypting the video using, e.g., Widevine for its content decryption module.
outputting the decrypted video of the HTML element to a display screen associated with the computing device;
Refer to at least 402 in FIG. 4, Col. 5, Ll. 48-61, Col. 6, Ll. 13-26, and Col. 6, Ll. 64-Col. 7, Ll. 3 of Bartha with respect to playing and displaying the video.
determining whether the outputted video is being played on the display screen; and
Refer to at least the abstract, FIG. 4, Col. 7, Ll. 25-45, and Col. 7, Ll. 55-Col. 8, Ll. 14 of Bartha with respect to detecting a screen capture or screen sharing event and determining whether to stop decoding the video.
transmitting the determination to the content decryption module.
Refer to at least Col. 7, Ll. 39-42 and Col. 8, Ll. 1-14 of Bartha with respect to the decryption module determining whether to stop or resume decryption/decoding responsive to the screen capture or screen sharing taking place.
While Bartha implements EME, and HTML5 DRM schemes such as Widevine, it does not specify: forming, using the browser module of the computing device, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element including the decrypted video. Additionally, Bartha does not specify performing the steps of “outputting,” “determining,” and “transmitting” using an operating system of the computing device. However, Bartha in view of Dorwin discloses: forming, using the browser module of the computing device, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element including the decrypted video;
Refer to at least Col. 7, Ll. 42-43, Col. 10, Ll. 1-5, Col. 13, Ll. 5-10&26-31, and Col. 14, Ll. 42-59 of Dorwin with respect to a browser utilizing HTML5 media elements for playing back decrypted video content.
performing the steps of “outputting,” “determining,” and “transmitting” using [a media stack strongly connected to the operating system] of the computing device.
Refer to at least Col. 9, Ll. 9-20 of Dorwin with respect to a media stack of client device being strongly connected to its operating system.
Refer to at least the abstract, FIG. 6-7, Col. 8., Ll. 54-62, Col. 10, Ll. 35-56, and Col. 13, Ll. 55-10 of Dorwin with respect to the media stack being operable to communicate with a CDM, render the video content, and perform this processing one frame at a time. The media stack when to decrypt and decode, when to render, and when to generate a license request.
The teachings of Dorwin likewise concern HTML5 DRM protection tools for protected playback, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Bartha to use HTML media elements and implement to DRM scheme of Dorwin as it concerns the media stack and CDM because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art (i.e., HTML functionality for playing videos; particular DRM schemes for HTML5 content protection) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e., using video playing functionality for playing videos; using a particular DRM scheme out of multiple schemes such as in Col. 6, Ll. 9-12 of Bartha), and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time (i.e., playing protected content with a browser using a particular DRM scheme).
Bartha-Dorwin does not specify: performing the steps of “outputting,” “determining,” and “transmitting” using an operating system of the computing device. However, Bartha-Dorwin in view of Galligan discloses: performing the steps of “outputting,” “determining,” and “transmitting” using an operating system of the computing device.
Refer to at least Col. 3, Ll. 20-40 of Galligan with respect to a media stack being a component of a client’s operating system.
The teachings of Galligan likewise concern a media stack and decrypting encrypted media, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Bartha-Dorwin to implement using a media stack being a component of a client’s operating system because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time (i.e., the cited portion of Galligan concerning various substitutions).
Regarding claim 2, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting, using the operating system of the computing device, the determination to the content decryption module comprises: transmitting, using a secure display path of the operating system of the computing device, the determination to the content decryption module.
Refer to at least FIG. 6 of Dorwin with respect to a secure path between the media stack and CDM for communicating video playback commands and information.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claim 4, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the content element includes sensitive data.
Refer to at least Col. 3, Ll. 27-41 of Bartha with respect to the document having content that should be kept secure.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the citations).
Regarding claim 6, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the determination includes a determination that the outputted video is not playing on the display screen, and wherein the method further comprises: outputting, using the computing device, a notification to the display screen, wherein the notification is associated with the determination that the outputted video is not playing on the display screen.
Refer to at least Col. 7, Ll. 46-51 of Bartha with respect to reporting to a user responsive to the video being stopped from decryption/decoding and correct playback.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the determination that the outputted video is not playing on the display screen represents that the display screen is being screenshared or screenshotted.
Refer to at least the abstract and Col. 7, Ll. 25-Col. 8, Ll. 14 of Bartha with respect to preventing correct video playback responsive to detecting a screen capture / screen sharing event.
Regarding claim 9, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein outputting, using the operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video of the HTML element to the display screen associated with the computing device comprises: presenting, using the operating system of the computing device, the decrypted video on the display screen, wherein the decrypted video includes a transparent image frame, and wherein the method further includes: presenting, using the operating system of the computing device, the content element on the display screen, wherein the decrypted video being presented is overlaid on the content element presented on the display screen.
Refer to at least the abstract, FIG. 4, Col. 5, Ll. 57-61, and Col. 4, Ll. 32-38 of Bartha with respect to displaying the decrypted video overlaid on the document contents.
Regarding independent claim 11, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 12-18, they are substantially similar to claims 2-18 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 20, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above (it recites similar subject matter and claim language, but concerns “a computing device” in place of “a browser module of a computing device” as in claim 1), and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan as applied to claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Patel (US 2015/0371613 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan discloses: wherein outputting, using the operating system of the computing device (media stack and OS as in the rejection of claim 1 above), the decrypted video of the HTML element to the display screen associated with the computing device comprises: presenting, using the operating system of the computing device (media stack and OS as in the rejection of claim 1 above), the decrypted video on the display screen,
Refer to at least the abstract and FIG. 4 of Bartha with respect to presenting the decrypted video on a display.
Refer to at least Col. 7, Ll. 42-43, Col. 10, Ll. 1-5, Col. 13, Ll. 5-10&26-31, and Col. 14, Ll. 42-59 of Dorwin with respect to a browser utilizing HTML5 media elements for playing back decrypted video content.
Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan does not disclose: wherein the decrypted video includes an image frame depicting the content element. However, Bartha-Dorwin-Galligan in view of Patel discloses: wherein the decrypted video includes an image frame depicting the content element.
Refer to at least [0088] of Patel with respect to digital content including video data.
Refer to at least [00372], FIG. 26, FIG. 32, FIG. 34, and FIG. 56A-D of Patel with respect to obscuring content within video frames.
The teachings of Patel likewise concern DRM for protecting digital content and preventing unauthorized screen captures, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Bartha-Dorwin-Gallagin to implement DRM for securing video content elements because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, and to further to allow overlaying secure documents; to allow for watermarking the background video.
Regarding claim 19, it is substantially similar to claim 10 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/ALI SHAYANFAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432