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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12 - 17 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because just the term “Computer readable medium” is not enough to overcome a BRI that includes signal per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colla et al. (made of reference in ids: WO-2024108261-A1).
Regarding claim 1, COLLA teaches A method for redacting visual content in a content capture (Para, 177,210, 232:teaches redacting sensitive information within an application window and detecting/ redacting sensitive content before it is shared or captured), the method comprising: receiving a command to generate the content capture (Para, 238, 150-152: the screen capture manager responds when screen sharing/ capture begins, and the reference discusses screen capture software that captures images of a display or application window), wherein: the content capture depicts a desktop environment including a plurality of application windows (Para, 195, 200, 205: the presenter display includes multiple application windows, and the screen capture manages application windows on the desktop environment), wherein the plurality of application windows include a private application window (Para, 146-149, 236-237: The user can selectively control whether a window is shared or hidden using menu controls and capture settings, thereby designating certain windows as private/non capturable); and an application window includes a respective display of visual content within the application window (Para, 203 and 210: the application windows display content, and the window capture controller queries application content for analysis and protection); in response to the command, retrieving the respective displays of visual content of the plurality of application windows within the desktop environment by querying the plurality of application windows (Para, 210, 225, 200: the window capture controller queries the application for content and queries the application for its main window. The screen Capture Manager manages multiple application windows); in response to detecting a content privacy setting applied to the private application window (Para, 146-149, 160, 221-222: The user interface controls allow a user to set the capture state of a window, and setWindowDisplayAffinity is used to establish capture restrictions for specific application windows), redacting the respective display of visual content within the private application window.(Para, 169-172, 177, 210,232: teaches blocking captured content, replacing captured images, redacting sensitive information, detecting sensitive content, and redacting identified sensitive locations within the application window); and compositing the visual content retrieved from the plurality of application windows including the redacted visual content to generate the content capture (Para, 196-199, 223-225: the attendee/captured view is generated using replacement images, black rectangles, or replacement windows in place of protected content, resulting in a composed capture that includes redacted visual content.).
Regarding claim 2, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the private application window is associated with a visual indicator communicating a status of the content privacy setting (Para, 28, 52-55, 173-175: teaches a visual indicator associated with an application window, such as an icon, text, border color, title bar identifier).
Regarding claim 3, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein an icon within a taskbar of the desktop environment associated with the private application window is associated with a visual indicator communicating a status of the content privacy setting ( Para, 194-195, 202: teaches an application window having an associated application icon within a desktop environment that incudes desktop icons and a taskbar. Para, 28, 147-149 and 173-177: further teaches visual indicators that indicate whether content capture/sharing is enabled, disabled, or protected).
Regarding claim 4, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the content privacy setting is enabled by default for a category of software application (Para, 233-236: discloses that newly detected or existing application windows are automatically configured with a default protected state by injecting the window capture controller and instructing it to hide the application window from screen sharing. Para, 157-159, 179-180: further teaches the protection is applied to categories of applications such as office applications, browsers, document viewers, and other software application classes).
Regarding claim 5, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the content privacy setting is togglable via a context menu option within the private application window ( Para, 214-215: teaches adding share and hide menu items to an application system context menu. Para, 217-222: when the user selects one of these menu options, the window capture controller changes whether the application window can be shared or captured).
Regarding claim 6, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the content privacy setting is togglable via a user interface element that is activated in response to a user opening the private application window ( Para, 26-27 and 146-147: teaches UI controls that allow a user to toggle whether an application window is shareable or protected. Para, 214 and 217: when the user activates or opens the application window, the window capture controller responds to the activation event and inserts the share and hide menu items into the application interface enabling the user to toggle the privacy setting).
Regarding claim 7, COLLA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the content privacy setting is enabled by placing an icon associated with the private application window in a designated area within the desktop environment (Para, 194-195: discloses application window that have associated application icons within a desktop environment containing desktop icons and a taskbar. Para, 205 and 238: the privacy/sharing state of the application window is controlled through desktop-based interfaces that present application windows for selection and sharing management ).
Regarding claim 12, Colla teaches A system for redacting visual content in a content capture, the system comprising: a processing system; and a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon that, when executed by the processing system, causes the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a command to generate the content capture, (Para, 238, 150-152: the screen capture manager responds when screen sharing/ capture begins, and the reference discusses screen capture software that captures images of a display or application window), wherein: the content capture depicts a desktop environment including a plurality of application windows (Para, 195, 200, 205: the presenter display includes multiple application windows, and the screen capture manages application windows on the desktop environment), wherein the plurality of application windows include a private application window (Para, 146-149, 236-237: The user can selectively control whether a window is shared or hidden using menu controls and capture settings, thereby designating certain windows as private/non capturable); and an application window includes a respective display of visual content within the application window (Para, 203 and 210: the application windows display content, and the window capture controller queries application content for analysis and protection); in response to the command, retrieving the respective displays of visual content of the plurality of application windows within the desktop environment by querying the plurality of application windows (Para, 210, 225, 200: the window capture controller queries the application for content and queries the application for its main window. The screen Capture Manager manages multiple application windows); in response to detecting a content privacy setting applied to the private application window (Para, 146-149, 160, 221-222: The user interface controls allow a user to set the capture state of a window, and setWindowDisplayAffinity is used to establish capture restrictions for specific application windows), redacting the respective display of visual content within the private application window.(Para, 169-172, 177, 210,232: teaches blocking captured content, replacing captured images, redacting sensitive information, detecting sensitive content, and redacting identified sensitive locations within the application window); and compositing the visual content retrieved from the plurality of application windows including the redacted visual content to generate the content capture (Para, 196-199, 223-225: the attendee/captured view is generated using replacement images, black rectangles, or replacement windows in place of protected content, resulting in a composed capture that includes redacted visual content.).
Regarding claim 13, it falls under the same rejection as claim 2 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 14, it falls under the same rejection as claim 5 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 15, it falls under the same rejection as claim 7 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 19 Colla teaches A computer-readable storage medium for redacting visual content in a content capture, the computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon, computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a system, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a command to generate the content capture (Para, 238, 150-152: the screen capture manager responds when screen sharing/ capture begins, and the reference discusses screen capture software that captures images of a display or application window), wherein: the content capture depicts a desktop environment including a plurality of application windows (Para, 195, 200, 205: the presenter display includes multiple application windows, and the screen capture manages application windows on the desktop environment), wherein the plurality of application windows include a private application window (Para, 146-149, 236-237: The user can selectively control whether a window is shared or hidden using menu controls and capture settings, thereby designating certain windows as private/non capturable); and an application window includes a respective display of visual content within the application window (Para, 203 and 210: the application windows display content, and the window capture controller queries application content for analysis and protection); in response to the command, retrieving the respective displays of visual content of the plurality of application windows within the desktop environment by querying the plurality of application windows (Para, 210, 225, 200: the window capture controller queries the application for content and queries the application for its main window. The screen Capture Manager manages multiple application windows); in response to detecting a content privacy setting applied to the private application window (Para, 146-149, 160, 221-222: The user interface controls allow a user to set the capture state of a window, and setWindowDisplayAffinity is used to establish capture restrictions for specific application windows), redacting the respective display of visual content within the private application window.(Para, 169-172, 177, 210,232: teaches blocking captured content, replacing captured images, redacting sensitive information, detecting sensitive content, and redacting identified sensitive locations within the application window); and compositing the visual content retrieved from the plurality of application windows including the redacted visual content to generate the content capture (Para, 196-199, 223-225: the attendee/captured view is generated using replacement images, black rectangles, or replacement windows in place of protected content, resulting in a composed capture that includes redacted visual content.).
Regarding claim 20, it falls under the same rejection as claim 2 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colla et al. (made of reference in ids: WO-2024108261-A1) in view of Salameh (US-20230083161-A1) .
Regarding claim 8, Colla teaches The method of claim 1, the method further comprises additionally redacting additional visual content in response to receiving an activation of another content privacy setting associated with another one of the plurality of application windows following generation of the content capture ( Para. 56, 177, 210, and 232: teaches the window capture controller uses a sensitive content detector to detect sensitive content and redact the sensitive contents in the application window. Para, 237-238, 219 and 221: teaches the presenter can select windows to hide/share, and the system responds by changing the capture state of the selected window. Para. 178,195, 205 and 237: the system manages multiple application windows independently and allows the presenter to choose which windows are shared or hidden. Para.233-234, 211 and 239: teaches screen sharing is already occurring and the system subsequently detects windows and changes/redaction behavior).
Colla fails to teach the concept of wherein the content capture is stored in an input cache prior to consumption by an artificial intelligence model. Salameh teaches the concept of wherein the content capture is stored in an input cache prior to consumption by an artificial intelligence model ( Claim 17, teaches the storage medium/memory stores captured content storing model input data and providing model input data compatible with a machine learning model It would have been obvious to store the captured content as model input data before machine learning analysis to facilitate efficient AI processing of the captured content).
Regarding claim 16, it falls under the same rejection as claim 8 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colla et al. (made of reference in ids: WO-2024108261-A1) in view of Siddique (US-20220408157-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Colla teaches The method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the content privacy setting is an operating system-level digital rights management utility.
Siddique teaches wherein the content privacy setting is an operating system-level digital rights management utility (Para. 76, and 92: teaches a DRM-based protection of content through a rights management network. It would have been obvious to incorporate the DRM-based content protection technique of Siddique into the privacy-controlled application window sharing system of Colla in order to provide additional protection against unauthorized access, redistribution, and capture of protected content.).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colla et al. (made of reference in ids: WO-2024108261-A1) in view of Reeves (US-20200166968-A1).
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 1, wherein: the respective display of visual content within the application window is defined by a render buffer; retrieving the respective display of visual content of the application window comprises querying the render buffer; and redacting the respective display of visual content within the private application window comprises modifying the render buffer for the private application window.
Reeves teaches the respective display of visual content within the application window is defined by a render buffer( Para. 155, 157 and 167: teaches the OS and display framework utilize one or more frame buffers 548 for rendering application windows and user interfaces); retrieving the respective display of visual content of the application window comprises querying the render buffer; and redacting the respective display of visual content within the private application window comprises modifying the render buffer for the private application window. ( Para.269: processor 504 checks display configuration in the frame buffers 548 to determine displayed windows and Para 270: the display buffer is changed to reflect migration of displays/windows. It would have been obvious to use render-buffer based management of application window content taught by Reeves in the privacy system of Colla in order to efficiently retrieve and modify displayed visual content for redaction before the content is exposed to other processes or users.)
Regarding claim 17, it falls under the same rejection as claim 10 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colla et al. (made of reference in ids: WO-2024108261-A1) in view of Reeves (US-20200166968-A1) in further view of Wong (US-20260158397-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Colla in view of Reeves teaches the method of claim 10, wherein modifying the render buffer for the private application window to redact the respective display of visual content but fails to teach comprises emptying the render buffer.
Wong teaches the concept of emptying the render buffer (Para. 41: teaches the render buffer is cleared before every use and the system may clear the render targets . It would have been obvious to modify the render buffer of the private application window by clearing its contents in order to remove previously rendered visual content and prevent disclosure of information that should no longer be displayed)
Regarding claim 18, it falls under the same rejection as claim 11 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh (US-20210182439-A1): discloses context-aware protection of sensitive information by selectively obfuscating, redacting, overlaying or collapsing application windows.
Skinner et al (US-20200042837-A1): discloses detecting confidential information within images and screenshots, identifying application windows associated with the information and selectively redacting content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Xiao WU can be reached on (571) 272-7761. 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.
/LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights