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
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/760,804 entitled Focused Image Grabbing, which was filed on Mar. 16, 2022, which is a national stage entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US20/51908, entitled Focused Image Grabbing, which was filed on Sep. 22, 2020 and claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/903,892, entitled Data Reduction and Privacy Governance using Focused Image Grabbing, which was filed on Sep. 22, 2019. The disclosures of the prior applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 10/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 10/09/2024. In the application, claims 1-20 dated 02/19/2025 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12141273B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and patented claim recite similar subject matter as disclosed below:
Instant Application # 18/910,709
US Patent No. US12141273B2
1. A computer-based method comprising:
monitoring user activities at an endpoint device on a computer network;
determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents a potential threat to network security;
creating an alert of the potential threat; and
providing the alert with a redacted version of a screenshot from the endpoint device,
wherein one or more open windows are obscured in the redacted version of the screenshot from the endpoint device,
wherein providing the redacted version of the screenshot comprises:
receiving metadata describing characteristics of the one or more open windows from an operating system of the endpoint device;
receiving an unredacted screenshot from the endpoint device; and
obscuring the one or more open windows by creating one or more visual covers based on the metadata describing the characteristics of each of the one or more open windows and placing each of the one or more visual covers over a corresponding one of the one or more open windows.
1. A computer-based method comprising:
monitoring user activities at an endpoint device on a computer network;
determining if one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents a potential threat to network security;
classifying each open window from a screen of the endpoint device, at a time of the user activity, according to whether that window is likely to contain private or confidential user information;
creating an alert of the potential threat; and
providing the alert, along with a redacted version of a screenshot from a screen of the endpoint device,
wherein the redacted version of the screenshot is a version of the screenshot where each of the open windows from the screen of the endpoint device that has been classified as likely containing private or confidential user information is obscured or removed from view.
2. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising classifying each of the open windows according to whether that window, at a time of the one of the user activities, is likely to contain private or confidential user information.
Claim 1 – Limitation # 2 - classifying each open window from a screen of the endpoint device, at a time of the user activity, according to whether that window is likely to contain private or confidential user information
3. The computer-based method of claim 2, wherein the redacted version of the screenshot is a version where each of the open windows that has been classified as likely containing private or confidential user information is obscured from view.
Claim 1 – Limitation # 5 - providing the alert, along with a redacted version of a screenshot from a screen of the endpoint device, wherein the redacted version of the screenshot is a version of the screenshot where each of the open windows from the screen of the endpoint device that has been classified as likely containing private or confidential user information is obscured or removed from view
4. The computer-based method of claim 2, wherein classifying each of the open windows comprises:
comparing window parameters for each of the open windows against a list of parameters for classifying windows as likely to contain private or confidential user information.
2. The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein classifying each of the open windows comprises:
comparing window parameters for each window against a list of parameters for including or excluding a window.
5. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
enabling a human administrator to view the alert with the redacted version of the screenshot.
3. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
enabling a human administrator to view the alert with the redacted version of the screenshot.
6. The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents the potential threat to network security comprises:
assessing data regarding that user activity collected by a computer-based endpoint agent deployed at the associated endpoint device.
4. The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein determining if one of the user activities presents a potential threat to network security comprises:
assessing data regarding the user activity collected by a computer-based endpoint agent deployed at the associated endpoint device.
7. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising, for each of the user activities at the endpoint device:
receiving, at a computer-based endpoint agent on the endpoint device, an indication of that user activity; and
collecting data about that user activity from the operating system of the endpoint device with the computer-based endpoint agent, wherein determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents the potential threat to network security comprises assessing the collected data.
7. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at a computer-based endpoint agent on the endpoint device, an indication of the user activity; and
collecting data about the indicated user activity from the operating system of the endpoint device with the computer-based endpoint agent,
wherein determining if one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents a potential threat to network security comprises assessing the collected data.
8. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
making the alert, with the redacted version of the screenshot, available in electronic form to a human administrator.
8. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
making the alert, with the redacted version of the screenshot, available in electronic form to a human administrator.
9. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, with the alert, a redacted version of one or more other screenshots from the endpoint device, wherein the redacted version of the one or more other screenshots are from a time of one or more other user activities at the endpoint device that happened before and/or after the user activity that was determined to present the potential threat to network security.
9. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, with the alert, a redacted version of one or more other screenshots from the endpoint device, wherein the one or more other redacted screenshots show a redacted version of the screen of the endpoint device during one or more other user activities before and/or after the alert-related user activity.
10. A computer-based method comprising:
monitoring user activities at an endpoint device on a computer network;
determining that one of the user activities presents a potential threat to network security;
classifying each window in a screenshot from the endpoint device, taken at a time of the one of the user activities, according to whether that window is likely to contain private information; and
creating an alert of the potential threat, wherein the alert includes a redacted version of the screenshot where the windows in the screenshot that have been classified is likely to contain private information are obscured by one or more visual covers.
1. A computer-based method comprising:
monitoring user activities at an endpoint device on a computer network;
determining if one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents a potential threat to network security;
classifying each open window from a screen of the endpoint device, at a time of the user activity, according to whether that window is likely to contain private or confidential user information;
creating an alert of the potential threat; and
providing the alert, along with a redacted version of a screenshot from a screen of the endpoint device, wherein the redacted version of the screenshot is a version of the screenshot where each of the open windows from the screen of the endpoint device that has been classified as likely containing private or confidential user information is obscured or removed from view.
The table above shows that claim 1 of an instant application recite similar limitations in a broader concept as a computer platform claim presented in the patent publication, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary person skills in the art to build a system or a computer program product, provided with corresponding method.
Remaining Independent and dependent claims in the instant application recite similar subject matter as mentioned in the patented claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are anticipated by the claims in US Patent no. US12141273B2.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schran et al., (US20050086255A1) in view of Skinner et al., (US10347293B1).
Regarding claim 1, Schran discloses:
A computer-based method comprising:
monitoring user activities at an endpoint device on a computer network ([0008] Supervising, monitoring, and controlling user computer activity is described herein. A client monitoring application operating on a client device records and monitors user activity performed thereon);
determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents a potential threat to network security ([0010] In another innovative implementation, the human supervisor is able to request notification when a particular activity is performed on the client device. For instance, the human supervisor can request that an alert message be sent to the human supervisor if certain subjects, such as, but not limited to, sex, drugs, violence, infidelity, hate language, and other subjects designated by the human supervisor are performed (e.g., viewed, created, transmitted, or received) on the client device. The alert message may be generated in accordance with when an activity is performed);
creating an alert of the potential threat ([0010] The alert message may be generated in accordance with when an activity is performed, when a certain duration of an activity performed is reached, or other parameters designated by the human supervisor; [0065] In another scenario, the alert message may notify the human supervisor via e-mail, if the user of the client device has attempted to play computer games for more than two hours in one day and include the name of the games played); and
providing the alert with [0013] monitoring and recording of user activity performed on the computer includes capturing screen shots of real-time user activity performed on the client device. These captured screen shots include screen shots generated by applications or devices that transmit and receive information in an encrypted format).
Schran fails to disclose:
the screenshot being a redacted version, wherein one or more open windows are obscured in the redacted version of the screenshot from the endpoint device, wherein providing the redacted version of the screenshot comprises: receiving metadata describing characteristics of the one or more open windows from an operating system of the endpoint device; receiving an unredacted screenshot from the endpoint device; and obscuring the one or more open windows by creating one or more visual covers based on the metadata describing the characteristics of each of the one or more open windows and placing each of the one or more visual covers over a corresponding one of the one or more open windows.
However, Skinner discloses:
the screenshot being a redacted version (Col. 5, Line # 61 – Col. 6, Line # 1; In some embodiments, captured images or video may be redacted to form versions without confidential information. Forming a new version, modifying, redacting, or otherwise obfuscating may be performed by modifying values in memory encoding an existing version, for instance, changing bytes in a data structure in memory at addresses storing the existing version or by creating a new copy with the changed values; Col. 12, Line # 12-27; Some embodiments may include an obfuscator 44 configured to redact or otherwise obfuscate depictions of text classified as confidential in bitmap images. In some embodiments, the obfuscator may modify pixel values in memory of a single copy of the bitmap image, or some embodiments may form a new copy of the bitmap image in which a subset of the pixel values are modified to obfuscate some of the text classified as confidential or otherwise transform images representing text. In some embodiments, the obfuscator 44 may determine which text is classified in a way that accords with a particular transformation to the image and then apply that transformation),
wherein one or more open windows are obscured in the redacted version of the screenshot from the endpoint device (Col. 5, line 61 – col. 6, line 1; In some embodiments, captured images or video may be redacted to form versions without confidential information. Forming a new version, modifying, redacting, or otherwise obfuscating may be performed by modifying values in memory encoding an existing version, for instance, changing bytes in a data structure in memory at addresses storing the existing version or by creating a new copy with the changed values; Col. 12, lines 12-27; Some embodiments may include an obfuscator 44 configured to redact or otherwise obfuscate depictions of text classified as confidential in bitmap images. In some embodiments, the obfuscator may modify pixel values in memory of a single copy of the bitmap image, or some embodiments may form a new copy of the bitmap image in which a subset of the pixel values are modified to obfuscate some of the text classified as confidential or otherwise transform images representing text. In some embodiments, the obfuscator 44 may determine which text is classified in a way that accords with a particular transformation to the image and then apply that transformation),
wherein providing the redacted version of the screenshot comprises:
receiving metadata describing characteristics of the one or more open windows from an operating system of the endpoint device (Col. 5, Line # 61 – Col. 6, Line # 1; In some embodiments, captured images or video may be redacted to form versions without confidential information. Forming a new version, modifying, redacting, or otherwise obfuscating may be performed by modifying values in memory encoding an existing version, for instance, changing bytes in a data structure in memory at addresses storing the existing version or by creating a new copy with the changed values. Reference to a “bitmap image” or “frame” singular includes reference to the various versions along a processing pipeline, including where the different versions exist as different copies with different processing or other transformations applied thereto or where a single copy has a subset of its values changed through such processing or transformation; Col. 12, Line # 12-27; Some embodiments may include an obfuscator 44 configured to redact or otherwise obfuscate depictions of text classified as confidential in bitmap images. In some embodiments, the obfuscator may modify pixel values in memory of a single copy of the bitmap image, or some embodiments may form a new copy of the bitmap image in which a subset of the pixel values are modified to obfuscate some of the text classified as confidential or otherwise transform images representing text. In some embodiments, the obfuscator 44 may determine which text is classified in a way that accords with a particular transformation to the image and then apply that transformation);
receiving an unredacted screenshot from the endpoint device (Col. 5, line 61 – col. 6, line 1; In some embodiments, captured images or video may be redacted to form versions without confidential information. Forming a new version, modifying, redacting, or otherwise obfuscating may be performed by modifying values in memory encoding an existing version, for instance, changing bytes in a data structure in memory at addresses storing the existing version or by creating a new copy with the changed values); and
obscuring the one or more open windows by creating one or more visual covers based on the metadata describing the characteristics of each of the one or more open windows and placing each of the one or more visual covers over a corresponding one of the one or more open windows (Col. 12, Line # 12-27; Some embodiments may include an obfuscator 44 configured to redact or otherwise obfuscate depictions of text classified as confidential in bitmap images. In some embodiments, the obfuscator may modify pixel values in memory of a single copy of the bitmap image, or some embodiments may form a new copy of the bitmap image in which a subset of the pixel values are modified to obfuscate some of the text classified as confidential or otherwise transform images representing text. In some embodiments, the obfuscator 44 may determine which text is classified in a way that accords with a particular transformation to the image and then apply that transformation).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schran to incorporate the redacting of confidential information from captured image, and window-specific screenshots as disclosed by Skinner, in order mitigate leaking of confidential information (Skinner, col. 12, lines 40-42), and provide more efficient resource utilization by only capture windows that triggers the alert rules.
Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, it is a computer system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising classifying each of the open windows according to whether that window, at a time of the one of the user activities, is likely to contain private or confidential user information (Schran: [0071] & [0073]).
Regarding claim 19, it is a computer system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 2, wherein the redacted version of the screenshot is a version where each of the open windows that has been classified as likely containing private or confidential user information is obscured from view (Schran: [0071] & [0073]).
Regarding claim 20, it is a computer system claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 2, wherein classifying each of the open windows comprises:
comparing window parameters for each of the open windows against a list of parameters for classifying windows as likely to contain private or confidential user information (Schran: [0071] & [0073]).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
enabling a human administrator to view the alert with the redacted version of the screenshot (Schran: [0010], [0071], [0073] & Skinner: Col. 11, line 61 – Col. 6, line 1, and, Col. 12, lines 12-27).
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents the potential threat to network security comprises:
assessing data regarding that user activity collected by a computer-based endpoint agent deployed at the associated endpoint device (Schran: [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising, for each of the user activities at the endpoint device:
receiving, at a computer-based endpoint agent on the endpoint device, an indication of that user activity; and collecting data about that user activity from the operating system of the endpoint device with the computer-based endpoint agent, wherein determining that one of the user activities at the endpoint device presents the potential threat to network security comprises assessing the collected data (Schran: [0009]).
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
making the alert, with the redacted version of the screenshot, available in electronic form to a human administrator (Schran: [0010], [0013], [0071] & [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 8 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejections.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, with the alert, a redacted version of one or more other screenshots from the endpoint device, wherein the redacted version of the one or more other screenshots are from a time of one or more other user activities at the endpoint device that happened before and/or after the user activity that was determined to present the potential threat to network security (Schran: [0013] & [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 10, further comprising:
providing the redacted version of the screenshot, wherein providing the redacted version of the screenshot comprises:
receiving metadata describing characteristics of the windows from an operating system of the endpoint device; and obscuring the windows in the screenshot that have been classified as likely to contain private information by sizing and placing the one or more visual covers based on the metadata describing the characteristics of the windows (Skinner, col. 5, line 61 – col. 6, line 1, and, col. 12, lines 12-27).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Schran and Skinner discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 10, further comprising: providing, with the alert, a redacted version of one or more other screenshots from the endpoint device, wherein the redacted version of the one or more other screenshots are from a time of one or more other user activities that occurred at the endpoint device before and/or after the user activity that was determined to present the potential threat to network security (Schran: [0010, 0071, 0073] & Skinner: col. 5, line 61 – col. 6, line 1, and, col. 12, lines 12-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491