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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claim 3 has been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submitted Amendments to the Specification have overcome the drawing objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 13, 2026. Accordingly, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 3 – 7 with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 -9, 12 - 14 and 17 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ramamurthy (US 2021/0312080 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 11,947,702 B2) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
Applicant argues on page 4 with regards to claim 1 and claim 17 that “the Office Action does not identify any teaching or suggestion in either Ramamurthy or Agrawal of determining relevance or relatedness between picture-in- picture content and other portions of the visual content. Page five of the Office Action only alleges the references teach determining whether presented content is sensitive. Determining whether presented content is sensitive has nothing to do with determining whether the content is relevant to other content being simultaneously presented”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not further describe, define or limit the term “relevant” or “irrelevant”. It should be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on pages 4 and 5 that “the alleged "relevance" described in Ramamurthy is nothing more than relevance of an application or data field to a type of data capture event based on sensitivity. This has absolutely nothing to do with determining the relevance of picture-in-picture content to other concurrently presented portions of visual content”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., concurrently presented portions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues on page 5 that “The present specification confirms this distinction. The application describes presenting "picture-in-picture (PIP) content atop the visual content" in paragraph [0056] and then describes an example in which "the PIP content, which in this case is the movie 506, is unrelated to the primary content of the videoconference 505" in paragraph [0061]. The same paragraph explains that, in response to user input to capture a screenshot, the device precludes depiction of the PIP content and instead replaces it with underlying visual content of the videoconference”. Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant further argues on page 5 that “These passages show that the claimed relevance inquiry concerns the relationship between a picture-in-picture content stream/window and other visual content being captured, not whether data fields or applications are sensitive”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., relationship between) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require that the content is relevant or irrelevant to other portions of the visual content. The claims do not further describe, define or limit the term “relevant” or “irrelevant”. As clearly described in Fig. 3 and Par. [0049]-[0055] of Ramamurthy, different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events, and at Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields. In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Agrawal is relied upon for teaching this limitation in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Col. 5:51-63, Col. 6:25-55. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues on page 5 that “Agrawal does not disclose detecting a picture-in-picture content stream or window atop primary visual content, nor does it disclose determining whether such picture-in-picture content is relevant to other portions of the visual content before conditionally precluding its depiction”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As clearly described in Fig. 3 and Par. [0049]-[0055] of Ramamurthy, different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events, and at Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields. In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Agrawal is relied upon for teaching this limitation in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Col. 5:51-63, Col. 6:25-55. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues on page 5 that “Agrawal's bank alert is a notification UI element that may display during screen recording and may contain personal information. It is not a video picture-in-picture content stream, such as the movie, video call, or other PIP window described in the present specification”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, Agrawal clearly teaches in Col. 3:5-18 that “on a wireless device (e.g., a smartphone for communication), it is quite likely that a user will receive some type of a notification that displays on the display screen of the device during a screen recording session, such as a pop-up notification that indicates an alarm, having received a text message or a new email message, a notification of an incoming video call or phone call, or any other type of a banner notice of a received communication. The notification that displays automatically on the display screen of the device will then be recorded as part of the screen recording session, and will be shared publicly when the recording is posted to any number of the social media platforms. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues on page 6 that “Ramamurthy likewise does not teach detecting picture-in-picture content, much less picture-in-picture content comprising video content. Ramamurthy identifies sensitive applications or sensitive data fields and obfuscates them during data capture events”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., comprising video content) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 1 and 17 merely require that the content be visual content, not video content as argued above.
Applicant further argues on page 6 that “Nor has the Office articulated a sufficient rationale for modifying Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal to arrive at the claimed invention. The proposed combination therefore depends on relabeling Ramamurthy's sensitive data and Agrawal's notification banner as the claimed PIP relevance framework. Such relabeling does not provide the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning under KSR and MPEP § 2143”. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the claims to not further describe, define or limit the term “relevant” or “irrelevant”. Again, it should be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As clearly described in Fig. 3 and Par. [0049]-[0055] of Ramamurthy, different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events, and at Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields. In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Agrawal is relied upon for teaching this limitation in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Col. 5:51-63, Col. 6:25-55. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues on page 6 that “Because neither Ramamurthy nor Agrawal teaches or suggests at least the claimed relevance or relatedness determination between picture-in-picture content and other portions of the visual content, the combination fails to teach independent claims 1 and 17 and corresponding device claim 12 as further limited by claim 14”. Examiner respectively disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., relevance or relatedness) are not recited in the rejected claim 12. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim merely requires that the depiction of content is precluded. The claim is void of any terms that require that the content to be “relevant” or “related” to anything. While Claim 14 does recite “content is unrelated to the visual content”, the claims to not further describe, define or limit the term “unrelated”. Again, it should be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As clearly described in Fig. 3 and Par. [0049]-[0055] of Ramamurthy, each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Agrawal is relied upon for teaching this limitation in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Col. 5:51-63, Col. 6:25-55. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed.
Therefore, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations as claimed in claims 1 and 17, since the claims do not further describe, define or limit the terms “relevant” or “irrelevant” or even “unrelated”. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 -9, 12 - 14 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2021/0312080 A1) referred to as Ramamurthy hereinafter, and in view of Agrawal et al. (US 11,947,702 B2) referred to as Agrawal hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Ramamurthy teaches a method in an electronic device (Par. [0049] the process 300 depicted in FIG. 3 may be performed by a client device such as client device 200 of FIG. 2), the method comprising:
receiving (Par. [0050] Step 302, Detect event, where the event may be detected via an event listener), by a user interface while visual content is being presented the user interface (Par. [0018] A “data capture event” is any event that may result in a record of data values (i.e. visual content) associated with at least one mobile application being created. For example, a screen capture event may be a type of data capture event in which a screenshot is taken of a current view (i.e. while visual content being presented) of a mobile application's graphical user interface), user input initiating a screenshot operation (Par. [0021] An “event listener” is a procedure or function in a computer program that waits for an event to occur. For example, an event listener may be configured to detect a screen capture event by detecting that a screen capture button (i.e. user input) has been pressed (i.e. initiating) by a user (i.e. screenshot operation));
determining (Par. [0051] Step 304, identify relevant application data), by one or more processors operable with the user interface (Par. [0039], the obfuscation module 216 may comprise code that, when executed in conjunction with the processors 204, causes the client device 200 to conceal, empty, or otherwise obfuscate data displayed with respect to certain mobile applications 212 and/or data fields associated with those mobile applications), whether content is being presented with the visual content (Par. [0041], the obfuscation module 216 may be configured to identify a mobile application (i.e. content) currently running in the foreground of the client device 200);
where the content is being presented with the visual content, determining, by the one or more processors, whether the content is relevant to other portions of the visual content (Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events); and
where the content is irrelevant to the other portions of the visual content, precluding (Par. [0054] Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data), by the one or more processors, depiction of the content from a screenshot resulting from the screenshot operation (Par. [0054], this may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields (i.e. precluding content). In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, (i.e. precluding) the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content.
However, Agrawal teaches determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 12:7-51 FIG. 5, personal content managed during device screen recording, determines that personal content 136 associated with the user of the wireless device 102 is captured as part of the digital image content 114 during the screen recording session 128).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the other portions of the visual content exclude the content (Par. [0028] the system will mask the sensitive data (i.e. exclude content) that appears in the last-seen screen (i.e. therefore, other portions exclude content). Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications (i.e. other portion of visual content) may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches wherein the other portions of the visual content exclude the picture-in-picture content (Col. 5:37-45 user interface displayed for user interaction and viewing, such as the user interface 112 of a gaming application shown on the display screen 108. The display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 can display a user interface that is associated with any of the device applications 110. Generally, a user interface, or any other type of video, image, graphics, and the like is digital image content 114 (i.e. other portion 114 excludes content 130 (picture-in-picture)) that is displayable on the display screen 108 of the wireless device). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the screenshot comprises a video recording (Par. [0054] in the event that the data capture event is a video recording event, sensitive data in the data fields will continue to be obfuscated even as the user scrolls through the GUI).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches the picture-in-picture content (Fig. 1, a media content recording system to capture a recording of the digital image content 114 (to include the notifications 118) (picture-in-picture)) comprises video content (Col. 3:5-13, on a wireless device (e.g., a smartphone for communication), it is quite likely that a user will receive some type of a notification that displays on the display screen of the device during a screen recording session, such as a pop-up notification that indicates an alarm, having received a text message or a new email message, a notification of an incoming video call (i.e. video content) or phone call, or any other type of a banner notice of a received communication).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content to be video content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 3. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach precluding audio. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach precluding audio associated with the picture-in-picture content from being included with the video recording.
However, Agrawal further teaches further comprising precluding audio (Fig. 1, Col. 6:47-58, the user may have the wireless device 102 set to audibly read out notifications that are received by the device, such as the audible announcement 132 of the “bank alert” notification, which is read out and picked-up as external audio content 126 by the microphone 124 of the device, where the notification 130 that displays automatically on the display screen 108 of the device, as well as the audible announcement 132 of the notification) associated with the picture-in-picture content (Fig. 4 Col. 11:25-Col.12:6, a shareable screen recording is generated so as to mute (i.e. preclude) an audio output of the audio data during playback of the shareable screen recording), from being included with the video recording (Col. 6:35-36, the screen recording session 128 can capture any one or more of the digital image content 114).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying the picture-in-picture content includes audio as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to prevent revealing the personal content (See Agrawal, Col. 11:64).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches the precluding the depiction of the content comprises removing the content from the screenshot (Par. [0052], for each of the identified relevant mobile application and/or data fields, an appropriate form of obfuscation to be applied. In some cases, it may be appropriate to nullify or remove data from a data field). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content comprises removing the picture-in-picture content from the screenshot (Col. 9:34-41 the notification 130 (i.e. picture-in-picture content) that was captured with the screen recording session 128 and generated as part of the shareable screen recording 144 is obscured with an overlay 206. Any other technique may be implemented, such as blurring, editing, removing, and the like so as not to reveal the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording 144 when viewed by others). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the precluding the depiction of the content comprises obfuscating the content within the screenshot (Par. [0052], for each of the identified relevant mobile application and/or data fields, an appropriate form of obfuscation to be applied). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches wherein the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content comprises obfuscating the picture-in-picture content within the screenshot (Col. 3:59-63 The content control module can obscure (i.e. obfuscate) the personal content captured as part of the digital image content to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 7, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the precluding the depiction of the content comprises replacing the picture-in-picture content with other content atop which the content is overlayed (Par. [0032], the obfuscator 118 may depict a block or other object over (i.e., in front of) (i.e. atop) the data field 110. The obfuscator 118 may determine a field color of the data field (e.g., using color sampling techniques) and may generate a block of the same size, shape, and color of the data field 110. In this way, the obfuscator 118 may generate altered data fields 120 (i.e. other content) in which no sensitive data is visible). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches wherein the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content comprises replacing the picture-in-picture content with other content atop which the picture-in-picture content is overlayed (Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames (i.e. other content) of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated. Also, Col. 9:34-41, the notification 130 that was captured with the screen recording session 128 and generated as part of the shareable screen recording 144 is obscured with an overlay 206 (i.e. atop). Any other technique may be implemented, such as blurring, editing (i.e. other content), removing, and the like so as not to reveal the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording 144 when viewed by others). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 8, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content comprises omitting screenshot capture of the picture-in-picture content (Par. [0030] the event listener 116 may determine if the lifecycle event is one which will result in the mobile application 104 being moved from the foreground 112 to the background 114 (i.e. omitting capture of content) of the client device, which typically results in a screenshot of the current state of the mobile application being captured). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content (Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over (i.e. omitted) the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 9, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach precluding audio. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content occurs only when the picture-in-picture content has audio content associated therewith.
However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content occurs only when the picture-in-picture content has audio content associated therewith (Fig. 4, Col. 11:25 – Col. 12:6, At 402, external audio content is detected with a microphone of a wireless device, the external audio content being processed as audio data with an audio module of the wireless device. For example, the microphone 124 of the wireless device 102 detects the external audio content 126, which is captured and processed as part of the audio data 122 by the audio module 120 of the device).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying the picture-in-picture content includes audio as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to prevent revealing the personal content (See Agrawal, Col. 11:64).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramamurthy teaches an electronic device (Par. [0049] FIG. 3 may be performed by a client device such as client device 200 of FIG. 2), comprising:
a user interface (Par. [0018], a screen capture event may be a type of data capture event in which a screenshot is taken of a current view of a mobile application's graphical user interface); and
one or more processors operable with the user interface (Par. [0039], the obfuscation module 216 may comprise code that, when executed in conjunction with the processors 204, causes the client device 200 to conceal, empty, or otherwise obfuscate data displayed with respect to certain mobile applications 212 and/or data fields associated with those mobile applications);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in response to receipt of user input by the user interface initiating a screenshot operation (Par. [0021] An “event listener” is a procedure or function in a computer program that waits for an event to occur. For example, an event listener may be configured to detect a screen capture event by detecting that a screen capture button (i.e. user input) has been pressed (i.e. initiating) by a user (i.e. screenshot operation)) while visual content is being presented on the user interface with content (Par. [0018] A “data capture event” is any event that may result in a record of data values (i.e. visual content) associated with at least one mobile application being created. For example, a screen capture event may be a type of data capture event in which a screenshot is taken of a current view (i.e. while visual content being presented) of a mobile application's graphical user interface) overlayed atop the visual content (Par. [0041], the obfuscation module 216 may be configured to identify a mobile application (i.e. content) currently running in the foreground (i.e. atop) of the client device 200), preclude depiction of the content in one or more screenshots resulting from the screenshot operation by instead depicting portions of the visual content beneath (Par. [0030] the event listener 116 may determine if the lifecycle event is one which will result in the mobile application 104 being moved from the foreground 112 to the background 114 (i.e. preclude depiction of content) of the client device, which typically results in a screenshot of the current state of the mobile application being captured) which the content is overlayed at locations where the content is overlayed (Par. [0033] The lifecycle event is then carried out by the operating system 108. The operating system captures a screenshot 122 of the foreground 112 of the client device at step 4 (e.g., when the mobile application 104 is moved into the background 114), which may be accessible to other applications. Because the screenshot 122 includes the altered data fields 120, other applications are not able to obtain sensitive data from the screenshot 122 of the mobile application 104).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content (Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over (i.e. omitted) the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 12. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach omit audio content. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach omit audio content associated with the picture-in-picture content from inclusion with the one or more screenshots.
However, Agrawal further teaches omit audio content (Fig. 1, Col. 6:47-58, the user may have the wireless device 102 set to audibly read out notifications that are received by the device, such as the audible announcement 132 of the “bank alert” notification, which is read out and picked-up as external audio content 126 by the microphone 124 of the device, where the notification 130 that displays automatically on the display screen 108 of the device, as well as the audible announcement 132 of the notification) associated with the picture-in-picture content (Fig. 4 Col. 11:25-Col.12:6, a shareable screen recording is generated so as to mute (i.e. omit) an audio output of the audio data during playback of the shareable screen recording), from inclusion with the one or more screenshots (Col. 6:35-36, the screen recording session 128 can capture any one or more of the digital image content 114).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying the picture-in-picture content includes audio as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to prevent revealing the personal content (See Agrawal, Col. 11:64).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 12. Ramamurthy further teaches the one or more processors only preclude depiction of the content in one or more screenshots (Par. [0054] Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data; this may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields (i.e. precluding content). In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, (i.e. precluding) the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application) when the content is unrelated to the visual content (Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content.
However, Agrawal teaches determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 12:7-51 FIG. 5, personal content managed during device screen recording, determines that personal content 136 associated with the user of the wireless device 102 is captured as part of the digital image content 114 during the screen recording session 128).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 17, Ramamurthy teaches a method in an electronic device (Par. [0049] the process 300 depicted in FIG. 3 may be performed by a client device such as client device 200 of FIG. 2), the method comprising:
presenting, by a user interface, visual content on a display of the electronic device (Par. [0018] A “data capture event” is any event that may result in a record of data values (associated with at least one mobile application being created. For example, a screen capture event may be a type of data capture event in which a screenshot is taken of a current view (i.e. visual content being presented) of a mobile application's graphical user interface (i.e. display of device) Par. [0022], a display device capable of displaying information to a user);
also presenting, by the user interface, content atop the visual content (Par. [0041], the obfuscation module 216 may be configured to identify a mobile application (i.e. content) currently running in the foreground (i.e. atop) of the client device 200);
receiving, by the user interface (Par. [0050] Step 302, Detect event, where the event may be detected via an event listener), user input requesting screenshot capture of an area of the display Par. [0021] An “event listener” is a procedure or function in a computer program that waits for an event to occur. For example, an event listener may be configured to detect a screen capture event by detecting that a screen capture button (i.e. user input) has been pressed (i.e. initiating) by a user (i.e. screenshot operation)) spanning both the visual content and the content (Abstract, The system may identify all data fields from the last-seen screen for the software application which are marked as sensitive and then obfuscate those data fields. The system can mask the sensitive data that appears in the last-seen screen, such that any snapshot taken during this time, all the sensitive fields will be obfuscated); and
precluding, by one or more processors operable with the user interface, depictions of the content from screenshots (Par. [0028], the system will mask the sensitive data that appears in the last-seen screen. For any snapshot taken by OS during this time, all the sensitive fields will be obfuscated) resulting from the screenshot capture when the content is unrelated to the visual content (Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events. Par. [0054] Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content.
However, Agrawal teaches determining whether picture-in-picture content is being presented with the visual content (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 12:7-51 FIG. 5, personal content managed during device screen recording, determines that personal content 136 associated with the user of the wireless device 102 is captured as part of the digital image content 114 during the screen recording session 128).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 17. Ramamurthy further teaches the picture-in-picture content is unrelated to the visual content (Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events. Par. [0054] Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach audio associated with content. Therefore, Ramamurthy fails to explicitly teach the picture-in-picture content is unrelated to the visual content when the picture-in-picture content has audio associated therewith.
However, Agrawal further teaches the picture-in-picture content is unrelated to the visual content when the picture-in-picture content has audio associated therewith (Fig. 4, Col. 11:25 – Col. 12:6, At 402, external audio content is detected with a microphone of a wireless device, the external audio content being processed as audio data with an audio module of the wireless device. For example, the microphone 124 of the wireless device 102 detects the external audio content 126, which is captured and processed as part of the audio data 122 by the audio module 120 of the device. At 406, a shareable screen recording is generated so as to mute an audio output of the audio data during playback of the shareable screen recording to prevent revealing the personal content).
References Ramamurthy and Agrawal are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during screen recording on electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying the picture-in-picture content includes audio as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to prevent revealing the personal content (See Agrawal, Col. 11:64).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 17. Ramamurthy further teaches the precluding the depictions of the content comprises replacing the content with portions of the visual content over which the content is positioned overlayed (Par. [0032], the obfuscator 118 may depict a block or other object over (i.e., in front of) (i.e. over) the data field 110. The obfuscator 118 may determine a field color of the data field (e.g., using color sampling techniques) and may generate a block of the same size, shape, and color of the data field 110. In this way, the obfuscator 118 may generate altered data fields 120 in which no sensitive data is visible). Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content. However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content comprises replacing the picture-in-picture content with portions of the visual content over which the picture-in-picture content is positioned overlayed (Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames (i.e. portion of visual content) of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated. Also, Col. 9:34-41, the notification 130 that was captured with the screen recording session 128 and generated as part of the shareable screen recording 144 is obscured with an overlay 206 (i.e. over). Any other technique may be implemented, such as blurring, editing (i.e. other content), removing, and the like so as not to reveal the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording 144 when viewed by others). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 17. Ramamurthy further teaches the visual content comprises at least first content portions overlayed atop at least second content portions (Par. [0032], the obfuscator 118 may depict a block or other object over (i.e., in front of) (i.e. overlayed atop) the data field 110. The obfuscator 118 may determine a field color of the data field (e.g., using color sampling techniques) and may generate a block of the same size, shape, and color of the data field 110. In this way, the obfuscator 118 may generate altered data fields 120 (i.e. first content portion) in which no sensitive data is visible). Agrawal further teaches the visual content comprises at least first content portions overlayed atop at least second content portions (Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames (i.e. first content portion =) of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over the personal content 136 (i.e. second content portions), giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated. Also, Col. 9:34-41, the notification 130 that was captured with the screen recording session 128 and generated as part of the shareable screen recording 144 is obscured with an overlay 206 (i.e. over). Any other technique may be implemented, such as blurring, editing (i.e. other content), removing, and the like so as not to reveal the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording 144 when viewed by others). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2021/0312080 A1), in view of Agrawal (US 11,947,702 B2), and in further view of Cohen et al. (US 10,613,726 B2) referred to as Cohen hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 10, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 1. Ramamurthy further teaches further comprising receiving, input defining a boundary around the content (Par. [0032], the obfuscator 118 may identify the locations of the identified data fields 110 within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the mobile application 104. In other words, the obfuscator 118 may determine the location in which the data fields are depicted on a display of the client device 102. The obfuscator 118 may depict a block (i.e. boundary or other object over (i.e., in front of) the data field 110. In some embodiments, the obfuscator 118 may determine a field color of the data field (e.g., using color sampling techniques) and may generate a block of the same size, shape, and color of the data field 110 (i.e. precluding all top level). In this way, the obfuscator 118 may generate altered data fields 120 in which no sensitive data is visible), wherein the precluding the depiction of the content comprises precluding the depiction of all top level content within the boundary (Par. [0024] An “obstruction layer” may be any virtual object used to obfuscate a piece of data. An obstruction layer may comprise one or more opaque areas to be displayed upon a display screen over the sensitive data. An obstruction layer may be generated by identifying the location, size, and shape of sensitive data and generating a blocking object (i.e. boundary) of the determined size and shape at the determined location).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content.
However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content (Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over (i.e. omitted) the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated).
It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
In addition, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal does not specifically teach user selection of content. Therefore, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal fails to explicitly teach receiving, by the user interface, other user input defining a boundary around the content, precluding the depiction of the content.
However, Cohen teaches receiving, by the user interface, other user input (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Col. 27:43-55 User interface 500 receives a multi-modal user input (i.e. other user input), including speech indicated by representation 504 (e.g., “No, you've selected the dog's head, too. This is the fire hydrant”) and also a selection with a tool in user interface 500. The user selects indicator 512, (e.g., by pointing with a mouse and clicking a mouse button (i.e. other user input)), which is denoted by a hand representation 514. The user also moves the indicator 512 to adjust content that it indicates (e.g., by holding a mouse button down and moving or adjusting indicator 512). Adjustment of indicator 512 is shown in FIG. 5 by arrow 516, such that the user may adjust indicator 512 to include the fire hydrant without including the dog's head) defining a boundary around the content (Col. 27:32-34 Indicator 512 can be any suitable indicator, such as a lasso, circle (i.e. boundary around), shading, pattern, mask, overlay, arrow, proximate text, and the like), precluding the depiction of the content (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Abstract removing and replacing objects in an image).
References Ramamurthy, Agrawal and Cohen are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during image capture. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Cohen in the inventions of Ramamurthy and Agrawal. This modification would allow an object in an image to be edited quickly and accurately by identifying the object with little effort on the user's behalf (See Cohen, Col. 27:65-67).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 14. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein the one or more processors deem the content to be unrelated to the visual content (Par. [0051], each mobile application may be associated with a particular level of sensitivity, such that different mobile applications may be determined to be relevant to different types of data capturing events. Par. [0054] Step 312 obfuscate relevant application data. This may involve determining which data fields associated with a mobile application are populated with data which is currently depicted on the screen of the display and obfuscating those data fields (i.e. precluding content). In some embodiments, this may involve displaying a number of obstruction layers in front of, or over, (i.e. precluding) the mobile application itself or each relevant data field associated with that mobile application).
Ramamurthy does not specifically teach picture-in-picture content.
However, Agrawal further teaches the precluding the depiction of the picture-in-picture content (Col. 6:39-42 a notification 118 may display on the display screen 108 of the wireless device 102 during the screen recording session 128, such as the “bank alert” notification 130 shown as a received banner (i.e. picture-in-picture) notification. Col. 8:53-58, portions or sections of previous and/or subsequent digital frames of the digital image content can be utilized to mask over (i.e. omitted) the personal content 136, giving the visual appearance of no interruption to the screen recording session 128 from which the shareable screen recording 144 is generated).
It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Agrawal in the invention of Ramamurthy in order to obscure the personal content captured as part of the digital image content and to prevent a visual display of the personal content during playback of the shareable screen recording (See Agrawal, Col. 3:60-63).
In addition, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal does not specifically teach user selection of content. Therefore, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal fails to explicitly teach when other user input received by the user interface defines a boundary around the content.
However, Cohen teaches when other user input received by the user interface defines a boundary around the content (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Col. 27:32-55 Indicator 512 can be any suitable indicator, such as a lasso, circle (i.e. boundary around), shading, pattern, mask, overlay, arrow, proximate text, and the like User interface 500 receives a multi-modal user input (i.e. other user input), including speech indicated by representation 504 (e.g., “No, you've selected the dog's head, too. This is the fire hydrant”) and also a selection with a tool in user interface 500. The user selects indicator 512, (e.g., by pointing with a mouse and clicking a mouse button (i.e. other user input)), which is denoted by a hand representation 514. The user also moves the indicator 512 to adjust content that it indicates (e.g., by holding a mouse button down and moving or adjusting indicator 512). Adjustment of indicator 512 is shown in FIG. 5 by arrow 516, such that the user may adjust indicator 512 to include the fire hydrant without including the dog's head).
References Ramamurthy, Agrawal and Cohen are considered to be analogous art because they relate to content management during image capture. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying picture-in-picture content as suggested by Cohen in the inventions of Ramamurthy and Agrawal. This modification would allow an object in an image to be edited quickly and accurately by identifying the object with little effort on the user's behalf (See Cohen, Col. 27:65-67).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2021/0312080 A1), in view of Agrawal (US 11,947,702 B2), and in further view of Silver et al. (US 2014/0195675 A1) referred to as Silver hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 16, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal teaches Claim 12. Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal does not specifically videoconference content and movie content. Therefore, Ramamurthy in view of Agrawal fails to explicitly teach the visual content comprises a videoconference and the picture-in-picture content comprises a movie.
However, Silver teaches the visual content (Par. [0159] FIGS. 12A-12E display screens 209a of multiple types of computing devices, for example, laptops 1002, tablets 1001, smart phones 308a, televisions (TVs) 308b, personal digital assistants 308c, etc. or simultaneously receiving multiple content data streams 207 of multiple content formats in configurable windows 1201 on their respective display screens 209a via the graphical user interface (GUI) 1003) comprises a videoconference (Par. [0161], The interactive content distribution platform 1012 further enables simultaneous multiple live personal or group chatting and conferencing, texting, blogging, emailing, social networking, gaming, web surfing, video on demand (VOD), etc.) and the picture-in-picture content comprises a movie (Par. [0161] The interactive content distribution platform 1012 provides live high definition streaming, live cable, movies, any digital video or data, with enhanced user functionality, including simultaneous multiple picture-in-picture (PIP), and moveable, expandable, shrinkable, floating, interchangeable and/or shape changeable configurable windows 1201 on one website 401 exemplarily illustrated in Fig. 12A – Fig. 12E).
References Ramamurthy, Agrawal and Silver are considered to be analogous art because they relate to graphical user interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying video conference content and movie content on graphical user interfaces as suggested by Silver in the inventions of Ramamurthy and Agrawal. This modification would enable simultaneous multiple live personal or group chatting and conferencing, texting, blogging, emailing, social networking, gaming, web surfing, video on demand (VOD), etc., and provides privacy of sharing any digital content data stream and digital video recorder (DVR) functionality to any broadband enabled computing device (See Silver, Par. [0161]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 specifically defines the picture-in-picture content, wherein the picture-in-picture content comprises first picture-in-picture content and second picture-in-picture content, wherein the boundary is situated only about the first picture-in-picture content that is not readily taught or suggested by the prior art uncovered during search or made of record.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights