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
This action is responsive to amendment filed April 9, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/9/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on Waldon in view of Shank, as presented below.
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 for example: Lines 5-7 recite “… output via the first GUI such that the DRM protected field is visually indistinguishable from an input element of HTML associated with the media content”, and lines 11-12 recite “… output via the first GUI such that the appended DRM protected media is visually distinguishable from the DRM protected input field of the first GUI”.
However, these limitations are unclear:
The phrase “… from an input element of HTML associated…” appears to be an incomplete phrase and does not make sense;
If the DRM protected input field is indistinguishable with the media content, then it appears that the input field and the media content are one and the same, and it thus renders the claim incoherent;
It is unclear what items are being compared in order to establish if something is visually indistinguishable or distinguishable; and
If appended DRM protected media is distinguishable from DRM protected input field, then it is unclear how the DRM protected input field is distinguishable from the media content, since the DRM protected media is part of the media content.
Dependent claims 2-11 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claims 12-20 are slight variations of claims 1-11 and are rejected based upon the same rationale.
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 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.
Claims 1,3,10-12,14,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldon et al (US Patent 11562099) in view of Shank et al (US Publication 20220358234).
In reference to claim 1, Weldon teaches a method for generating a digital rights management ("DRM")-protected input field of a media content, the method comprising:
receiving, via a first graphical user interface ("GUI"), at least one user input associated with a DRM-protected input field, wherein the DRM-protected input field has been caused to be output via the GUI and is substantially hidden from view; (see at least column 7 line 45 – column 8 line 15, which teaches a user entering sensitive information into protected input fields which are output via the GUI and hidden from view from other users)
based on the at least one user input, appending at least one DRM-protected media element to the DRM-protected input field via a browser module; (see at least column 8 lines 36-49, which teaches sanitizing the input with an element via a browser module) and
causing to output, via the first GUI, the DRM-protected input field with the appended DRM-protected media such that the appended DRM-protected media is substantially visible via the first GUI (see at least column 8 lines 50-64, which teaches causing to output protected and sanitized content via the GUI and which is visible).
Weldon fails to explicitly teach output via the first GUI such that the DRM protected field is visually indistinguishable from an input element of HTML associated with the media content; and output via the first GUI such that the appended DRM protected media is visually distinguishable from the DRM protected input field of the first GUI. However, Shank teaches masking sensitive information while sharing HTML elements in a screensharing session. Shank discloses protecting output via a browser GUI where output HTML elements are displayed (indistinguishable) when sharing is paused, and where output HTML elements are masked (and made visually distinguishable) during sharing (see Shank, at least ¶s 6 & 38-44). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Weldon based on the teachings of Shank for the purpose of modifying the sensitive portions of a page that a user does not want to be made visible during a screensharing session.
In reference to claim 3, Weldon teaches generating the HTML page with the input fields and outputting the protected sensitive information (see at least column 7 lines 6-30 and column 10 lines 8-30).
In reference to claim 10, Weldon teaches generating a sanitize alert to a user via the GUI (see at least column 8 lines 28-50).
In reference to claim 11, Weldon teaches generating a sanitized content alert shared with another user/provider (see at least column 8 lines 18-27 and column 12 lines 20-35).
Claims 12,14,19,20 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 2,4-9,13,15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldon et al (US Patent 11562099) in view of Shank et al (US Publication 20220358234) in view of Coleman et al (US Publication 20120036452) in further view of Simasher et al (“Converting Form Elements (inputs) to divs”, StackOverflow.com, 2011).
In reference to claim 2, Weldon fails to explicitly teach detecting, via an application server, an input element of a HyperText Markup Language ("HTML") associated with the media content; and replacing, via the application server, the input element in the HTML with an element to generate the DRM-protected input field. However, Coleman teaches detecting via an intermediate server an input element of HTML content and replacing it with protected content (see Coleman, at least Abstract & ¶s 40,50,51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Weldon based on the teachings of Coleman for the purpose of facilitating the protection of sensitive information in a screen that is shared with other users.
Weldon fails to explicitly teach replacing the input element in the HTML with a div element. However, Simasher converting the input elements of an HTML page to divs (see Simasher, comment portions by Richard Dalton). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Weldon based on the teachings of Simasher for the purpose of modifying the rendering of sensitive portions of a page.
In reference to claim 4, Weldon teaches utilizing CSS for generating the protected input fields (see at least column 10 lines 20-40).
In reference to claim 5, Weldon teaches generating the protected content based on keystroke input and caching the webpage based on a DOM (see at least column 7 lines 45-67 and column 11 lines 14-40).
In reference to claim 6, Weldon teaches retrieving the protected content and sanitizing it (see at least column 9 lines 30-60 and column 11 lines 14-40).
In reference to claim 7, Weldon teaches determining a tree order of the protected content and user input, and determining if it matches a sanitize value (see at least column 11 line 32 – column 12 line 19).
In reference to claim 8, Weldon teaches converting the protected content to a particular text string (see at least column 8 lines 50-64).
In reference to claim 9, Weldon teaches determining that the value does not match and the sanitize value is off (see at least column 11 line 32 – column 12 line 19).
Claims 13,15-18 are slight variations of the rejected claims 2,4-9 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights