FINAL 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 .
Amendment A, received on 4 August 2026, has been entered into record. In this amendment, claims 17 have been amended, claims 4 have been canceled, and claim 23 has been added.
Claims 1-3, 4-13, and 16-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the objection to the drawings, the applicant has submitted replacement sheets, and the examiner hereby withdraws the objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner notes that Mohamed teaches performing a screen scrape of a phishing website and using keyword analysis to collect sensitive/personal information and conclude whether the phishing webpage logs into a registered company (i.e. performs character recognition on a screenshot and determines whether they correspond with logging into a registered company) (0024, lines 6-27).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1 June 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 August 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10-13, 18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed (US 2020/0412762 A1) in view of Damen (US Patent 10,635,574 B1).
As to claims 1 and 22, Mohamed discloses a system and method for protecting users from phishing attempts, the system and method having:
engaging, by a computing device, in text-based validation of a user interface presented on a display of the computing device, wherein engaging in the text-based validation of the user interface includes (0024, lines 3-27):
(i) capturing a screenshot of the display when the user interface is presented on the display (0024, lines 3-27),
(ii) transmitting a validation request providing the captured screenshot (0024, lines 3-10), and
(iii) receiving, in response to the validation request, a validation response based at least in part on (a) character recognition of text depicted by the screenshot and (b) a determination of whether the character-recognized text corresponds with an associated action (0024, lines 6-27); and
using, by the computing device, the validation response as a basis to control whether to allow the computing device to take the associated action in response to user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display (0025, lines 1-9).
Mohamed fails to specifically disclose:
transmitting to a server;
receiving from the server.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed, as taught by Damen.
Damen discloses a system and method for screenshot testing of applications on windows desktop environments, the system and method having:
transmitting to a server;
receiving from the server (Figure 1).
Given the teaching of Damen, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed with the teachings of Damen by communicating with a server. Damen recites motivation by disclosing that servers are used to run the reporting engine in order to provide security for multiple desktops (col. 4, lines 7-10; Figure 1). It is obvious that the teachings of Damen would have improved the teachings of Mohamed by using servers in order to provide security for multiple desktops.
As to claim 13, Mohamed discloses:
a display (0055, line 9);
a communication interface (0055, lines 4-5);
a processing unit (0055, lines 22-24);
non-transitory data storage (0056, lines 1-3); and
program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processing unit to cause the computing device to (0056, lines 4-7):
engage in text-based validation of a user interface presented on the display, wherein engaging in the text-based validation of the user interface includes (i) capturing a screenshot of the display when the user interface is presented on the display (0024, lines 3-27), (ii) transmitting, through the communication interface, a validation request providing the captured screenshot (0024, lines 3-10), and (iii) receiving, in response to the validation request, a validation response based at least on (a) character recognition of text depicted by the screenshot and (b) a determination of whether the character-recognized text corresponds with an associated action (0024, lines 6-27); and
use the received validation response as a basis to control whether to allow the computing device to take the associated action in response to user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display (0025, lines 1-9).
Mohamed fails to specifically disclose:
to a server,
from the server.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed, as taught by Damen.
Damen discloses:
transmitting to a server;
receiving from the server (Figure 1).
Given the teaching of Damen, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed with the teachings of Damen by communicating with a server. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 22 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Damen to the teachings of Mohamed.
As to claim 18, Mohamed discloses:
wherein the user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display comprises at least one of (i) entry through a touch-screen interface of the display, (ii) pressing of a button on the computing device, or (iii) biometric input (0025, lines 9-13; 0026, lines 6-9; 0055, lines 4-10).
As to claims 6 and 20, Mohamed discloses:
wherein the validation response is based on a determination that the only text depicted by the screenshot is an expected set of text corresponding with the associated action (0028, lines 3-9).
As to claims 8 and 21, Mohamed discloses:
wherein the expected set of text comprises dynamic text (0026, lines 9-12).
As to claim 10, Mohamed discloses:
wherein using the received validation response as a basis to control whether to allow the computing device to take the associated action in response to user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display is based on whether the validation response is affirmative (0032, lines 8-18).
As to claim 11, Mohamed discloses:
wherein using the received validation response as a basis to control whether to allow the computing device to take the associated action in response to user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display comprises using the received validation response to control whether or not to allow receipt of the user input when the user interface is presented on the display (0033, lines 1-6).
As to claim 12, Mohamed discloses:
wherein the associated action comprises sharing of secure data (0014, lines 8-9; 0032, lines 15-18).
As to claim 23, Mohamed discloses:
wherein the validation response comprises a negative validation response based on a determination that the character-recognized text does not correspond with the associated action (0033, lines 1-6), and
wherein using the validation response as a basis to control whether to allow the computing device to take the associated action comprises not allowing the computing device to take the associated action in response to the user input (0033, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed in view of Damen as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Walker (US 2020/0134222 A1).
As to claims 2 and 16, Mohamed in view of Damen fails to specifically disclose:
wherein transmitting to the server the validation request providing the captured screenshot comprises encrypting the captured screenshot and transmitting the encrypted captured screenshot to the server.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed in view of Damen, as taught by Walker.
Walker discloses a system and method for protecting screenshots of applications executing in protected workspace container provided in a mobile device, the system and method having:
wherein transmitting to the server the validation request providing the captured screenshot comprises encrypting the captured screenshot and transmitting the encrypted captured screenshot to the server (0008, lines 2-8).
Given the teaching of Walker, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen with the teachings of Walker by encrypting the screenshot. Walker recites motivation by disclosing that encrypting the screenshot prevents the stored screenshot from being accessed outside the protected container (0008). It is obvious that the teachings of Walker would have improved the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen by encrypting the screenshot in order to prevent the screenshot from being accessed and provide protection.
As to claims 5 and 19, Mohamed in view of Damen fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the screenshot is a full screenshot of the display.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed in view of Damen, as taught by Walker.
Walker discloses:
wherein the screenshot is a full screenshot of the display (0004, lines 4-7).
Given the teaching of Walker, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen with the teachings of Walker by using a full screenshot. Please refer to the motivation recited above as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Walker to the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen.
As to claim 9, Mohamed in view of Damen fails to specifically disclose:
wherein capturing the screenshot is controlled by a secure-world subsystem of the computing device.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed in view of Damen, as taught by Walker.
Walker discloses:
wherein capturing the screenshot is controlled by a secure-world subsystem of the computing device (Abstract, lines 3-6).
Given the teaching of Walker, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen with the teachings of Walker by using a secure-world subsystem. Please refer to the motivation recited above as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Walker to the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen.
Claim(s) 3, 7, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed in view of Damen as applied to claims 1, 6, and 13 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2020/0081615 A1 and Lu hereinafter).
As to claims 3 and 17, Mohamed in view of Damen fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display comprises user biometrics data.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed in view of Damen, as taught by Lu.
Lu discloses a system and method for screenshot based TUI process for in-app purchase authentication, the system and method having:
wherein the user input into the computing device when the user interface is presented on the display comprises user biometrics data (0037, lines 8-10).
Given the teaching of Lu, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen with the teachings of Lu by using biometrics data. Lu recites motivation by disclosing that using biometrics such as a fingerprint for authentication increases security (0037). It is obvious that the teachings of Lu would have improved the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen by using biometrics data in order to increase security.
As to claim 7, Mohamed in view of Damen fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the validation response is based further on at least size or display coordinates of the expected set of text.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Mohamed in view of Damen, as taught by Lu.
Lu discloses:
wherein the validation response is based further on at least size or display coordinates of the expected set of text (0058, lines 1-5).
Given the teaching of Lu, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen with the teachings of Lu by using size of display coordinates of text. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 3 and 17 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Lu to the teachings of Mohamed in view of Damen.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizoguchi (US 2021/0240958 A1) discloses a system and method for encoding and decoding.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH SU whose telephone number is (571)270-3835. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
