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 .
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,126 in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,126 in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003) anticipates claims 1 - 20.
AN: 19/005673
US 11,869,126
a method comprising:
A method comprising:
capturing, during a video conferencing session, a display area of a providing device;
during a video conferencing session between a first device and a plurality of receiving devices, capturing a first display of the first device for screen sharing, the first display comprising a window on the first device, a file on the first device, an application on the first device, or an entire screen of the first device;
determining that one or more images or one or more characters of the display area is restricted;
determining, using stored data identifying restricted images or characters, that the one or more images or one or more characters is restricted for display;
based at least in part on the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters of the display area is restricted:
in response to the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters is restricted for display:
causing display of a user interface depicting an option to obscure at least a portion of the first display;
receiving via the user interface a selection of a first receiving device of the plurality of receiving devices; and
augmenting the image of the first display to obscure the one or more images or one or more characters; and
transmitting, to a first receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is obscured;
transmitting, to a second receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is unobscured; and
storing, in a data structure, the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured for the first receiving device;
transmitting the augmented first display to the first receiving device of the plurality of receiving devices, and
transmitting the unaugmented first display to a second receiving device of the plurality of receiving devices to a first device of the plurality of receiving devices, and transmitting the unaugmented first display to a second device of the plurality of devices.
determining, using stored data identifying restricted images or characters, that the one or more images or one or more characters is restricted for display;
receiving a query for an obscured image or word; and
performing character or image recognition of the first display to identify one or more images or one or more characters in the first display;
based at least in part on the received query, providing a list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured.
AN: 19/005673
1
11
2
12
3
13
4
14
5
15
6
16
7
17
8
18
9
19
10
20
US 11,869,126
1, 4
10, 13
8
17
4, 8
13, 17
1
10
3
12
7
16
2
11
7
16
5
14
6
15
System of US 11,869,126 does not expressly disclose based at least in part on the received query, providing a list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured. Nair discloses obfuscating a portion of a stream of visual media that is sent by a Sink to one or more Sink(s) during a screen-sharing session (paragraph 47), wherein a blacklist and a whitelist of applications are used by the GFx driver for obfuscation (paragraphs 54, 56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify System of US 11,869,126 to addition of tagging sensitive text and image information is to also creating a list of sensitive text and image information to blacklist.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,573 in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,573 in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003) anticipates claims 1 - 20.
AN: 19/005673
US 12,223,573
a method comprising:
A method comprising:
capturing, during a video conferencing session, a display area of a providing device;
capturing, during a video conferencing session, a display area of a providing device;
determining that one or more images or one or more characters of the display area is restricted;
determining that one or more images or one or more characters of the display area is restricted;
based at least in part on the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters of the display area is restricted:
in response to the determining that the one or the more images or the one or more characters of the display area is restricted:
generating for display a user interface depicting an option to obscure at least a portion of the display area;
receiving a selection of a first receiving device; and
transmitting, to a first receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is obscured;
transmitting, to a second receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is unobscured; and
storing, in a data structure, the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured for the first receiving device;
transmitting, to the first receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters are obscured; and
transmitting, to a second receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters are unobscured.
(Claim 4) accessing stored data corresponding to the one or more images or the one or more characters to determine that the one or more images or the one or more characters is restricted;
receiving a query for an obscured image or word; and
(Claim 4) accessing stored data corresponding to the one or more images or the one or more characters to determine that the one or more images or the one or more characters is restricted;
based at least in part on the received query, providing a list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured.
AN: 19/005673
1
11
2
12
3
13
4
14
5
15
6
16
7
17
8
18
9
19
10
20
US 12,223,573
1, 4
10, 13
8
17
4, 8
13, 17
1
10
3
12
7
16
2
11
7
16
5
14
6
15
System of US 12,223,573 does not expressly disclose based at least in part on the received query, providing a list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured. Nair discloses obfuscating a portion of a stream of visual media that is sent by a Sink to one or more Sink(s) during a screen-sharing session (paragraph 47), wherein a blacklist and a whitelist of applications are used by the GFx driver for obfuscation (paragraphs 54, 56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify System of US 12,223,573 to addition of tagging sensitive text and image information is to also creating a list of sensitive text and image information to blacklist.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6, 11 – 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 2022/0309183) in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jose teaches a method (Figures 3 – 5) comprising:
capturing, during a video conferencing session, a display area of a providing device (paragraph 34: computing device 120 associated with the user may be configured to make images displayed on a connected monitor visible to one or more users through a modem electronic technique (e.g., screen sharing) in a web-conference or a screen activity recording, wherein the sensitive information will be hidden from the unauthorized viewing users);
determining that one or more images or one or more characters of the display area is restricted (paragraph 32: Server 125 operates to execute at least a part of a computer program for automatically masking sensitive information during screen sharing);
based at least in part on the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters of the display area is restricted (paragraph 33: Example webpages may secure the various elements using authentication and authorization techniques configured to convey sensitive information):
transmitting, to a first receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is obscured (paragraph 34: computing device 120 associated with the user may be configured to make images displayed on a connected monitor visible to one or more users through a modem electronic technique (e.g., screen sharing) in a web-conference or a screen activity recording, wherein the sensitive information will be hidden from the unauthorized viewing user);
transmitting, to a second receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is unobscured (paragraph 34: the web server may be configured to keep the visibility of the various elements (e.g., "sensitive_text_ visible") limited to the intended user only (i.e., the user who had requested the webpage and had been able to pass all the authentication measures)); and
storing, in a data structure, the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured for the first receiving device (paragraph 37: the one or more processors may be configured to receive instructions from the user or from a software program to tag sensitive information that may be displayed within webpage browser 222 of computing device 120);
receiving a query for an obscured image or word (paragraph 42: prior to detecting the first event, the one or more processors may be configured for identifying the sensitive data images to be displayed in the webpage browser and embedding a sensitive data tag in the webpage browser configured to enclose the sensitive data images).
Jose does not expressly disclose based at least in part on the received query, providing a list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured. Nair discloses obfuscating a portion of a stream of visual media that is sent by a Sink to one or more Sink(s) during a screen-sharing session (paragraph 47), wherein a blacklist and a whitelist of applications are used by the GFx driver for obfuscation (paragraphs 54, 56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to addition of tagging sensitive text and image information is to also creating a list of sensitive text and image information to blacklist. One would be motivated to do so because this would help automate the tagging of the sensitive text and image information in addition to easier search sensitive text and image in the blacklist to be compared to a list of items displayed in the video stream/web sharing.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Jose teaches based at least in part on the transmitting, to the second receiving device, the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters are unobscured (paragraph 34: the web server may be configured to keep the visibility of the various elements (e.g., "sensitive_text_ visible") limited to the intended user only (i.e., the user who had requested the webpage and had been able to pass all the authentication measures)):
storing, in the data structure, the one or more images or the one or more characters that was unobscured for the second receiving device (paragraph 37: the one or more processors may be configured to receive instructions from the user or from a software program to tag sensitive information that may be displayed within webpage browser 222 of computing device 120);
receiving a query for an unobscured image or word (paragraph 42: prior to detecting the first event, the one or more processors may be configured for identifying the sensitive data images to be displayed in the webpage browser and embedding a sensitive data tag in the webpage browser configured to enclose the sensitive data images).
Jose does not expressly disclose based at least in part on the received query, providing a second list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was unobscured, however Jose does disclose an authorized user to view sensitive information (paragraph 34). Nair discloses obfuscating a portion of a stream of visual media that is sent by a Sink to one or more Sink(s) during a screen-sharing session (paragraph 47), wherein a blacklist and a whitelist of applications are used by the GFx driver for obfuscation (paragraphs 54, 56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to addition of tagging sensitive text and image information is to also creating a list of sensitive text and image information for a blacklist. One would be motivated to do so because this would be easier to search sensitive text and image in the blacklist to be compared to a list of items displayed in the video stream/web sharing for properly handling the view of the sensitive information.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Jose’s and Nair’s systems teaches wherein the list identifies the first receiving device as being associated with the list of the one or more images or the one or more characters that was obscured, and the second list identifies the second receiving device as being associated with the one or more images or the one or more characters that was unobscured (Nair, paragraph 54: blacklist that are deemed to be sensitive information; Jose, paragraph 34: authorized user can view the sensitive information, while unauthorized user cannot view the sensitive information. Examiner notes the [first] list and the second list would be identical).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Jose teaches generating for display a user interface depicting an option to override a restriction to sharing of the one or more images or the one or more characters (paragraph 33: the one or more processors may be configured to receive user authentication information to authorize the user based on the user identity provided via biometric data or based on other user credentials provided via user identification information); and
receiving, from a user interface associated with the providing device, a selection of the second receiving device (paragraph 34: the one or more processors may be configured to determine if the user has the appropriate permission to access the server to view or access the various elements displayed on webpage browser 222),
wherein the transmitting, to the second receiving device the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is unobscured is performed based on the selection of the second receiving device (paragraph 34: the web server may be configured to keep the visibility of the various elements (e.g., "sensitive_text_ visible") limited to the intended user only (i.e., the user who had requested the webpage and had been able to pass all the authentication measures)).
Regarding claims 11 – 13 and 16, claims 11 - 13 and 16are similar in scope as to claims 1 - 3 and 6, thus the rejections for claims 1 - 3 and 6 hereinabove are applicable to claims 11 - 13 and 16. Jose teaches a system (Figure 6) comprising: communication circuitry (Figure 6: Communication Unit 610; I/O Interface(s) 612); and processing circuitry (Figure 6: Processor(s) 604).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 2022/0309183) in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003) and Qian et al. (US 11,165,755).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Qian discloses, which Jose does not disclose, generating for display a user interface depicting an option to obscure at least a portion of the display area (column 20, lines 47 – 61 and Figure 7: privacy protection policy checkbox 702 includes checkboxes for enabling the options to select "Slack new message pop-up box", "Outlook new e-mail pop-up box", "favorite bar of browser", and "folder contents" as sensitive information); and
receiving, from a user interface associated with the providing device (column 17, lines 22 – 52: conference client application 602 may provide a user interface to enable a user, such as the participant, to configure policy configuration 604), a selection of the first receiving device (column 20, lines 47 – 61: the checkboxes for "Slack new message pop-up box", "Outlook new e-mail pop-up box", and "favorite bar of browser" are clicked, for example, using a suitable pointing device, to enable the options),
wherein the transmitting, to the first receiving device the display area such that the one or more images or the one or more characters is obscured is performed based on the selection of the first receiving device (column 20, lines 62 – column 21, line 8: enabling an option in privacy protection policy checkbox 702 may cause a display of a list box or other suitable input control element listing the forms of obfuscation (e.g., apply a mosaic, apply a black-out box, apply a transformation, add artifacts, and redact) that can be applied to shield the sensitive information). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to incorporate a user interface for a user to select specific elements that may appear in a video conference sharing session and to obfuscate user selected elements. One would be motivated to do so because this allows users to specify sensitive information elements to share and to obfuscate, which provides protection to user’s desired sensitive information (column 3, lines 42 – 53).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Jose does not expressly disclose wherein the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters of the display area is restricted comprises: detecting a change to the display area between a previous image of the display area transmitted by the providing device and a current image of the display area transmitted by the providing device. Qian discloses a message pop-up appearing on the screen is obfuscated by applying a mosaic over the message pop-up box based on a privacy protection policy during a video sharing conference (column 17, lines 22 – 52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to apply obfuscation over message pop-up box during video sharing conference utilizing a privacy protection policy. One would be motivated to do so because this will help automatically protect sensitive information of a user that is beyond the display control of the user.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Jose does not expressly disclose teaches wherein previously stored data identifies images of interface elements in which restricted characters are likely to appear, and wherein the determining that the one or more images or the one or more characters is restricted comprises: determining that a portion of the display area matches one of the identified images of interface elements and that the portion of the display area includes characters. Qian discloses trained model 610 is configured to recognize what is being shown and whether any sensitive information is present or otherwise contained in a video frame, such as using image recognition with machine learning (column 20, line 1 – 29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to utilize machine learning models that can match a list of sensitive words or image to elements of sensitive information that are obscured to other clients in a video sharing/web conferencing. One would be motivated to do so because this would help correctly identify various versions of potential sensitive words or images to protect personal information of the presenter.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Jose does not expressly disclose wherein previously stored data comprises a plurality of different images, and wherein the determining that the one or more images or one or more characters is restricted comprises: determining, using a machine learning system, that a portion of the display area matched with one or more images of the plurality of different images. Qian discloses trained model 610 is configured to recognize what is being shown and whether any sensitive information is present or otherwise contained in a video frame, such as using image recognition with machine learning (column 20, line 1 – 29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to utilize machine learning models that can match a list of sensitive words or image to elements of sensitive information that are obscured to other clients in a video sharing/web conferencing. One would be motivated to do so because this would help correctly identify various versions of potential sensitive words or images to protect personal information of the presenter.
Regarding claims 14, 17, 19, and 20, claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 are similar in scope as to claims 4, 7, 9, and 10, thus the rejections for claims 4, 7, 9, and 10 hereinabove are applicable to claims 14, 17, 19, and 20.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 2022/0309153) in view Nair (US 2018/0053003) and Qian et al. (US 11,165,755) and Deenadayal (US 2018/0336373).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Jose does not expressly disclose generating for display at the user interface, an option to change a size or shape of the portion of the display area to be obscured. Deenadayal discloses A user can manipulate the selection tool 412 to select a rectangular area, and additional selection tools that can be manipulated to select triangles, hexagons, stars, or other shapes can also be provided for screen sharing (paragraph 64 and Figures 4A, 4B).It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to allow a user to define and modify a shape and size of a sharing area, thus also non-sharing area. One would be motivated to do so because a user may want to use screen sharing to discuss the content while protecting sensitive information from being inadvertently shared on screen (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope as to claim 5, thus the rejection for claim 5 hereinabove is applicable to claim 15.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 2022/0309183) in view of Nair (US 2018/0053003) and Pogorelik (US 2019/0042871).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Jose teaches accessing a user profile corresponding to the second receiving device (paragraph 33: the one or more processors may be configured to receive user authentication information to authorize the user based on the user identity provided via biometric data or based on other user credentials provided via user identification information);
identifying restrictions for the second receiving device based on the user profile, wherein the restrictions for the second receiving device do not include restrictions of the one or more images or the one or more characters (paragraph 34: the web server may be configured to keep the visibility of the various elements (e.g., "sensitive_text_ visible") limited to the intended user only (i.e., the user who had requested the webpage and had been able to pass all the authentication measures)).
Jose does not expressly disclose performing content encoding of an image of the display area without the one or more images or the one or more characters being obscured; and transmitting an encoded image to the second receiving device. Pogorelik discloses a black list database that recognize objects that are reflected (paragraph 44) and to remove the reflected object from the image (paragraphs 47 and 48), wherein the final image/video of the removed reflected object is compressed and encoded for transmission (paragraphs 54 and 55) for every images or frames of a video sequence (paragraphs 65 and 66), such as for videoconference (paragraph 123). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Jose's system to compress and encode images/frames of a video after modifying the images/frames to obscure/remove certain texts/images. One would be motivated to do so because this would help speed up transmission of video data by utilizing less bandwidth data.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is similar in scope as to claim 8, thus the rejection for claim 8 hereinabove is applicable to claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights