DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/03/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 10/04/2023 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/03/2024 are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed for this application. The Examination is conducted without any Prior Art search help from the Applicant. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose from section 2100 of the MPEP: 37 C.F.R. 1.56; Duty to disclose information material to patentability. A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “the determination that the input data represents unexpected input data”. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and It is not clear whether there are different “unexpected input data” in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to for the same informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Brockmann (US 2017/0005790) in view of Villanueva (US 2024/0104188).
Regarding claim 1, Brockmann teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A method comprising: receiving, using a browser module of a computing device, a video from an application server, wherein the video is associated with a content element and a digital rights management technology; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052]-[0056], Fig. 4, showing a message flow between an application server 401, set up client 402, and license server 403 for authenticating the client to access encrypted media/secure content such as video streams. Which are protected by DRM (i.e., associated …). A video is a form of content and encrypted which a DRM controls access based on the policies).
forming, using the browser module, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element including the video received from the application server; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052]-[0056], Fig. 4, providing an encrypted HTML5 stream or other encrypted streams to the browser. The HTML5 stream originates from the server).
playing, using a video player of the computing device, the video of the HTML element on a display screen associated with the computing device; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0046], [0057], Fig. 4, the server provides an encrypted HTML5 stream. A parser parses the stream, and then provided to the media stack. The video is rendered and played by a player on the device).
receiving, using the computing device, input data; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0046], [0051]-[0055], receiving input data for security and authorization).
transmitting, using the computing device, the input data to the application server; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0046], [0051], [0054]-[0055], user/input data is sent upstream).
receiving, using the computing device, [a determination] that the input data represents unexpected input data, from the application server; (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052], the system assumes a hack or unauthorized access (i.e., unexpected input data)).
in response to receiving [the determination], causing, using the video player, the video of the HTML element to stop playing on the display screen. (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052], based on that assumption, content provisioning is halted, and the transmission of the video/audio stream is stopped (i.e., to stop playing on the display screen)).
Brockmann, discloses causing the video to stop playing when a hack or unauthorized access occurs, but it does not explicitly disclose:
Receiving a determination …,
However, Villanueva in the Same field of endeavor discloses:
Receiving a determination …, (Villanueva, Paras. [0108], [0330], discloses preventing unauthorized access to sensitive data or operations (video sharing), when the system receives information from the user (device), and determines whether the data matches the expected data (profile)).
Villanueva is combinable with Brockmann, because both are from the same field of controlling access to sensitive data and operations. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to determine whether the received data is unexpected, as taught by Villanueva with Brockmann’s method in order to improve computing device performance during a screen sharing experience.
As per claims 11 and 20, claims 11 and 20 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The system of claim 11, wherein the unexpected input data represents data associated with a user unauthorized to access, (Villanueva, Paras. [0108], [0153], [0186], [0227], [0232], [0246]-[0248], [0253], [0259], [0262]-[0263], [0330], discloses preventing unauthorized access to sensitive content. The unexpected data represents performing unexpected gesture by the user (mismatch with the predefined gesture/ live-check criteria are not satisfied)).
view the video on the display screen. (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052], the system detects a hack or unauthorized access (i.e., unexpected input data), and stops transmitting the video stream (content provisioning halts)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 12, claim 12 encompass same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claims 12 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Villanueva teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the input data represents at least one of: movement of a mouse associated with the computing device; movement of a cursor displayed on the display screen; a position of the cursor displayed on the display screen; an amount of time during which the video has been playing on the computing device; an amount of time during which an eye of a user associated with the computing device has been directed at the display screen; an amount of time during which the eye of the user has been directed at the video on the display screen; movement of the eye of the user associated with the computing device; or a position on the display screen of a finger or stylus, associated with the user, and in contact with the display screen. (Villanueva, Paras. [0108], [0153], [0186], [0227], [0232], [0248], [0262]-[0263], [0330], discloses receiving input data such as mouse movement, mouse button press (clicks), cursor movement, keyboard presses, touch gestures, stylus input, and eye movement).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 13, claim 13 encompass same or similar scope as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Villanueva teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the input data represents unexpected input data represents a determination output from a machine learning model. (Villanueva, Paras. [0108], [0153], [0186], [0218], [0246]-[0248], [0253], [0259], [0262]-[0263], [0330], discloses that the machine learning model outputs a determination of whether the predefined gesture (expected behavior) does match/mismatch (does/doesn’t satisfy criteria). [0218], “the determination of whether or not the user has performed the instructed gesture (e.g., whether or not the instructed gesture has been detected) is made based on a machine learning model”)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompass same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Brockmann teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein causing, using the video player, the video of the HTML element to stop playing on the display screen comprises: causing, using the video player and an operating system of the computing device, the video of the HTML element to stop playing on the display screen. (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052], based on that assumption, content provisioning is halted, and the transmission of the video/audio stream is stopped (i.e., to stop playing on the display screen)).
As per claim 15, claim 15 encompass same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Villanueva teaches the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video player is configured to track at least one of a position of a cursor displayed on the display screen or a position of a finger or stylus in contact with the display screen. (Villanueva, Paras. [0053]-[0054], discloses a stylus as a contact source. A contact is a finger contact or a stylus contact, and the system measures force or pressure, contact area, changes, and resistance changes. The system tracks the stylus by detecting presence of contact area on a touch-sensitive surface).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Brockmann teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video includes an image frame representing the content element, and wherein the content element represents sensitive information. (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052]-[0056], a video stream made up of video elementary stream (ES) data which are encoded video frames (images), and those frames are the sensitive content).
As per claim 17, claim 17 encompass same or similar scope as claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 8.
Claims 7, 10, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Brockmann (US 2017/0005790) in view of Villanueva (US 2024/0104188), and further in view of Grossman (US 2019/0182549).
Regarding claim 7, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Grossman in the same field of endeavor teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video is configured to play on the display screen when the display screen is not being screenshared or screenshotted. (Grossman, Paras. [0013]-[0017], [0037]-[0039], and Figs. 2-3, at block 250, The digital content is protected from a screen capture operation executed on the user device based on the content-protected format of the digital content. And Fig. 3, is a flow diagram illustrating a method 300 of configuring screenshot-proof display (preventing screen capture)).
Grossman is combinable with Brockmann and Villanueva, because all are from the same field of controlling access to sensitive data. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to play the content on the screen when the sensitive content is not being screenshotted, as taught by Grossman with Brockmann-Villanueva’s method in order to protect the user from accidental data leakage.
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompass same or similar scope as claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Brockmann and Grossman teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video includes a transparent image frame and the content element represents sensitive information, (Brockmann, Paras. [0042]-[0043], [0052]-[0056], a video stream made up of video elementary stream (ES) data which are encoded video frames (images), and those frames are the sensitive content).
and wherein the method further comprises: outputting, using an operating system of the computing device, the content element to the display screen, wherein the video is configured to be overlaid on the content element on the display screen. (Grossman, Paras. [0013]-[0017], [0037]-[0039], [0060]-[0061], and Figs. 2-3, “If the display at the time of screen capture includes the digital content in a layer overlaid on other content, the screen capture image may include the content that is directly below the digital content layer”).
Grossman is combinable with Brockmann and Villanueva, because all are from the same field of controlling access to sensitive data. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to play the video on the screen to cover the content layer, as taught by Grossman with Brockmann-Villanueva’s method in order to selectively obscure the content.
As per claim 19, claim 19 encompass same or similar scope as claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 10.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Brockmann (US 2017/0005790) in view of Villanueva (US 2024/0104188), and further in view of Jordan (US 2022/0021938).
Regarding claim 9, Brockmann and Villanueva teach the limitations of claim 1. Jordan in the same field of endeavor teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video is configured to be played in a loop on the display screen. (Jordan, Paras. [0047], [0061], [0085], The multiple video clips … are initially played in conjunction, each in a continuous loop (looping playback)).
Jordan is combinable with Brockmann and Villanueva, because all are from the same field of content handling. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to play the content on the screen in a loop, as taught by Jordan with Brockmann-Villanueva’s method in order to improve continuity of content handling.
As per claim 18, claim 18 encompass same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Jose (US 2022/0309183) discloses masking sensitive information during screen sharing.
Lecuyer (US 2022/0327227) discloses a model of detecting phishing webpage content while sharing information of individual.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438