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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to application filed on 10/03/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 10 and 20 are in independent form.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a browser module in claims 1, 10 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim limitation “1, 10 and 20” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US PG Pub 2015/0371613) published on December 24, 2015 in view of Narahara et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0306807) published on June 14, 2018 in further view of Dubhashi (US PG Pub 2010/0212016) Published on August 19, 2010.
As per claim 1, 10 and 20, Patel teaches A method comprising: receiving, using a computing device, a video from an application server, wherein the video includes an image frame representing a first color(Para[0112] discloses content can be streamed from server and content includes video, as taught by Patel), and wherein the video is associated with a digital rights management technology(fig 13 Para[0126] shows video associated drm, as taught by Patel) and a resolution of one pixel by one pixel(Para[0330] discloses high resolution still images and video as well as their display on a 4-inch screen with 1136×640 resolution that delivers 326 pixels-per-inch (ppi), as taught by Patel);
outputting, using the computing device, the video of the HTML element to a pixel of a display screen associated with the computing device(Para[0139] fig 21-30 displaying content on a display, as taught by Patel);
detecting, using the browser module, that the pixel is presenting the first color(Para[009-0016] discloses pixel with first color, as taught by Patel),
Patel does not explicitly teach
forming, using a browser module of the computing device, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element including the video received from the application server;
detecting, using the browser module, that the pixel is presenting the first color, wherein the detection represents that the digital rights management technology is disabled on the computing device; and transmitting, using the computing device, a notification based on the detection to the application server.
On the other hand, Narahara teaches forming, using a browser module of the computing device, a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) element including the video received from the application server(Para[0062] the browser module 58e analyzes this content and performs necessary processing. Here, the content transmitted from the server 31 is, for example, information that is described in hypertext markup language (HTML), and includes video information such as still pictures and programs (software) referred to as "scripts" for various processing, as taught by Narahara);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Patel invention with the teaching of Narahara because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing the viewer to use the program guide display to browse available
VOD while continuing to view the selected television program in the background of the program guide
display.
The combination of Patel and Narahara does not explicitly teach wherein the detection represents that the digital rights management technology is disabled on the computing device; and transmitting, using the computing device, a notification based on the detection to the application server.
On the other hand, Dubahshi teaches wherein the detection represents that the digital rights management technology is disabled on the computing device; and transmitting, using the computing device, a notification based on the detection to the application server(Para[0051] the DRM agent can disable playback and/or recording of content that is un-trusted. The DRM agent can also output a notification or overlay to restrict viewing of the content and/or inform a viewer regarding the un-trusted state of the content, as taught by Dubahshi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Patel and Narahara invention with the teaching of Dubahshi because doing so
would provide more security to the for the content by alerting the end user.
As per claim 2 and 12, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches wherein detecting, using the browser module, that the pixel is presenting the first color comprises: detecting, using an application programming interface of the browser module, that the pixel is presenting the first color(Para[009-0016] discloses pixel with first color, as taught by Patel).
As per claim 4 and 14, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches further comprising: monitoring, using the browser module, a color presented by the pixel(Para[009-0016], as taught by Patel).
As per claim 6 and 16, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches further
comprising: recording, using the computing device and in response to the detection, the first color being presented by the pixel(Para[009-0016] discloses pixel with first color, as taught by Patel).
As per claim 7 and 17, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches wherein outputting, using the computing device, the video to the pixel of the display screen associated with the computing device comprises: outputting, using an operating system of the computing device, the video to the pixel of the display screen associated with the computing device(Para[0112-0116][0139], as taught by Patel).
As per claim 8 and 18, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches wherein the video includes only one image frame(Para[0139-141], as taught by Patel).
As per claim 9 and 19, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches wherein the video is configured to play in a loop on the display screen(Para[0139-141], as taught by Patel).
As per claim 11, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi teaches wherein detecting, using the computing device, that the pixel is presenting the first color comprises: detecting, using a browser module of the computing device, that the pixel is presenting the first color(Para[009-0016], as taught by Patel).
6. Claims 3, 5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US PG Pub 2015/0371613) published on December 24, 2015 in view of Narahara et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0306807) published on June 14, 2018 in further view of Dubhashi (US PG Pub 2010/0212016) Published on August 19, 2010 in further view of Chaudhri(US PG Pub 2015/0365306) published on December 17, 2015.
As per claim 3 and 13, the combination of Patel, Narahara and Dubahshi does not teach further comprising: outputting, using the browser module of the computing device, at least a portion of a webpage including a region representing a second color, wherein the video is configured to be overlaid on the second color of the region on the display screen.
On the other hand, Chaudhri teaches further comprising: outputting, using the browser module of the computing device, at least a portion of a webpage including a region representing a second color, wherein the video is configured to be overlaid on the second color of the region on the display screen(Para[0385][0445][0794] fig 33-39 discloses webpage(application) being displayed and content being displayed by overlap the application window, as taught by Chaudhri) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Patel and Narahara and Dubahshi invention with the teaching of Chaudhri because
doing so would result in increased efficiency by allowing users of device 100 to select affordances for use
in a multitasking mode (e.g., a mode in which more than one application is displayed and active on touch
screen 112 at the same time).
As per claim 5 and 15, the combination of Patel, Narahara, Chaudhri and Dubahshi teaches
further comprising: detecting a position of a cursor presented on the display screen, the position being proximate to a position of the pixel(Para[0496-0497], as taught by Chaudhri); and
monitoring, using the browser module, a color presented by the pixel in response to detecting the position of the cursor presented on the display screen(Para[0496-0497] discloses while the cursor is over a particular user interface element (e.g., a button, window, slider or other user interface element), the particular user interface element is adjusted in accordance with the detected input, as taught by Chaudhri).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chudy(US PG Pub 2010/0162410) discloses a transparent overlay window can be created over a target window rendering DRM protected content. Thereafter, permissions associated with the DRM protected content can be identified. Finally, user interface events such as keyboard or mouse events can be intercepted in the transparent overlay window. Consequently, DRM permissions for the intercepted events can be consulted and, if the user interface event is allowed based upon the DRM permissions, then the event can be proxied through to an event handler for the target window.
7. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
8. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point Of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Sunday, September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights