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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Referring to the Published Application US 2026/00100589, descriptions for the Drawings FIG. 1 and 3 provided in paragraphs [0019 & 0021] have been repeated in paragraphs [0033] and [0056], without any additional information. These duplicate paragraphs must be removed.
Referring to the Published Application US 2026/00100589, paragraph [0013] should be corrected for a typo, “wet document” with “web document”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a “An unauthorized copying content disabling device” asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The independent claims 1, 3 and 6, do not incorporate “disable unauthorized copying of data” or “unauthorized content copying neutralization” within each of the independent claims’ limitations. There is no support in the Specification to disclose how these are achieved. The instant specifications merely states “content unauthorized copying disabling system/method” or many versions of “device for disabling the unauthorized copying of the content”, in multiple paragraphs without binding or expanding on the actual action of “disabling” or “neutralization of” unauthorized of copying of data. Furthermore, “appending”, “inserting” or “dividing word segment” by itself do not disable or neutralize the unauthorized copying of content. The function and/or initiation of disabling or neutralizing the “printing, copying, scanning or snagging” of content is missing (not disclosed) in the instant Specification.
Paragraph [0067] states that “the present disclosure may disable unauthorized copying of data on other operating systems in addition to the Windows programs.”, however that does not describe, inform or support “how such disabling” function is carried out or any such limitation is claimed in the original claims set (filed on 5/12/2025). Specification not clear on “not copying”, “not being able to print” or not being able to “select parts of” the displayed content on the web browser. Thus, the Applicants have not clearly set forth the “disabling or neutralizing” device in the Specification that satisfies the utility requirement.
Dependent claims 2 and 5 further develops the independent claim 1 with limitations to append the content composed of text, however do not clarify the “how an unauthorized copying content disabling or neutralizing” is achieved. Consequently, the dependent claims 2 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, claims 1-3 and 5-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a “An unauthorized copying content disabling device” asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without disclosing the actual action of “disabling” or “neutralization of” unauthorized of copying of data”, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Dependent claims 2 and 5 further develops the independent claim 1 with limitations to append the content composed of text, however do not clarify the “how an unauthorized copying content disabling or neutralizing” is achieved.
Claims 1 -3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “displaying content of text on a web browser to the user terminal”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “disabling” or “neutralization of” unauthorized of copying of data. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to the actual action of “disabling” or “neutralization of” unauthorized of copying of data” the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The function and/or initiation of disabling or neutralizing the “printing, copying, scanning or snagging” of content is missing (not disclosed) in the instant Specification.
Examiner Notes: SCOPE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION IS UNCLEAR, and does not establish clear steps to deny, avoid and prohibit printing or copying, and/or accessing the “authorized” content. As the scope and clarity need to be established, Examiner has considered to read on the claimed limitations within the scope of “content of text [format] to be displayed on a web browser to the user terminal”, for the prior art rejection purposes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, the limitation “generate a code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of “0” on a user terminal” is claimed in line 12 and (repeated) in 23, without expanding any significant result/rationale.
As per Claim 3, the limitation “generate a code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of “0” on a user terminal” is claimed in line 13 and (repeated) in 20, without expanding any significant result/rationale.
As per Claims 1, 3 and 6, recites “select one or more of a prefix, suffix, or random word from the text database in accordance with the determined language type”, however the limitation does not expand or provide what such selection would encompass, and the limitation does not provide any use for such selection of “prefix, suffix, or random word” from the text database.
As per Claim 6, the limitations “wherein the device comprising:
a memory configured to store word segments divided for each text of the content;
one or more processors connected to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are
configured to: divide received text into word segments and store the word segments in the memory; append a specific character to each divided word segment;”, have been repeated in lines 13 – 19, with no further enhancement or additional features from the previous recitations from lines 4 – 7. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming as their invention.
As per Claim 2, the recited limitation, “wherein the specific character includes at least one of a prefix, a suffix, and a random word” does not clarify if the specific character selected from the database is at least one of a prefix, a suffix, and a random word.
As per Claim 5, the recited limitations, “analyze a text type of each divided word segment; and append the specific character to each divided word segment based on the text type” do not provide clarification on the specific character selected from the database is at least one of a prefix, a suffix, and a random word.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verschoor et al. (US Patent 9,258,136).
As per Claim 1, Verschoor teaches “a memory configured to store divided word segments for each text of the content; and one or more processors connected to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: divide received text into word segments and store the word segments in the memory; append a specific character to each divided word segment (Summary; Fig.1 #124, #122, #114 and associated text; Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
generate a code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of '0'
on a user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26); and
transmit a program written in a program language including the code to the user
terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
a dictionary database including various languages and numbers (Column 4 lines 61 – 67); and a text database including at least one of a prefix, a suffix, or a random word, wherein the content constitutes data visible to the naked eye in a web document on the user terminal (Column 2 line 1 – 4; ; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of '0' on a user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26); transmit, to a web server, the program written in the program language including the code and to be executed on the user terminal (Column 5 lines 56-65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
determine the language type of the text of the content using the dictionary database;
and select one or more of a prefix, suffix, or random word from the text database in accordance with the determined language type (Column 5 lines 56 – 65), and
wherein the web server is configured to transmit the program written in the program language displayed on the browser to the user terminal (Column 4 lines 60 – 65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53)”.
As per Claim 3, Verschoor teaches “a memory configured to store divided word segments for each text of the content; one or more processors connected to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: divide received text into word segments and store the word segments in the memory; append a specific character to each divided word segment (Summary; Fig.1 #124, #122, #114 and associated text; Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
generate a code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of '0' on a user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26); and
transmit a program written in a program language including the code to the user terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53),
wherein the content constitutes data visible to the naked eye in a web document on the user terminal, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: generate code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of '0' on a user terminal (Column 4 lines 23 – 29; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
transmit, to a web server, the program written in the program language including
the code and to be executed on the user terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
determine the language type of the text of the content using the dictionary database;
and select one or more of a prefix, suffix, or random word from the text database in
accordance with the determined language type (Column 5 lines 56 – 65),
wherein the web server is configured to transmit the program written in the program
language displayed on the browser to the user terminal, and the content is an electronic document in a format selected from at least one of Excel, Word, PowerPoint, portable document format (PDF), and Hangul (Column 4 lines 60 – 65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53)”
As per Claim 6, Verschoor teaches “dividing, by one or more processors, received text of the content into word segments and storing the word segments; appending, by the one or more processors, a specific character to each divided word segment (Summary; Fig.1 #124, #122, #114 and associated text; Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
generating, by the one or more processors, a code for outputting the specific character to have a character size of '0' on a user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, a program written in a program language
including the code to the user terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53),
wherein the device comprising: a memory configured to store word segments divided for each text of the content; one or more processors connected to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: divide received text into word segments and store the word segments in the memory; append a specific character to each divided word segment (Summary; Fig.1 #124, #122, #114 and associated text; Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
generate code for outputting the specific character with a character size of '0' on the
user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26);
transmit a program written in a programming language, including the code, to the
user terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
generate code for outputting the specific character with a character size of '0' in the
browser on the user terminal (Column 4 lines 23-26);
transmit, to a web server, the program written in the programming language including the code for execution on the user terminal (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
determine the language type of the text of the content using the dictionary database;
and select one or more of a prefix, suffix, or random word from the text database in
accordance with the determined language type (Column 5 lines 56 – 65);
a web server configured to transmit the program written in the programming language displayed on the browser to the user terminal (Column 4 lines 60 – 65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53);
a dictionary database including various languages and numbers; and a text database including at least one of a prefix, a suffix, or a random word, wherein the content constitutes data visible to the naked eye in a web document on the user terminal (Column 4 lines 60 – 65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53)”
As per Claim 2, Verschoor teaches “wherein the specific character includes at least one of a prefix, a suffix, and a random word” (Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53).
As per Claim 5, Verschoor teaches “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: analyze a text type of each divided word segment; and append the specific character to each divided word segment based on the text type (Column 4 lines 60 – 65; Column 7 line 58 – Column 8 line 48 and Column 9 lines 11 – 53)” .
Examiner has cited portions and particular paragraphs (or, columns and line numbers) from the prior art applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Applicant is advised to review the prior art to incorporate all the prior art to incorporate all of the embodiments disclosed, background information provided in the reference, along with the related art description, in formulating a response to this office action. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing response, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art additionally discloses certain parts of the claim features (See PTO 892, Notice of References cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAMILA PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7AM - 2PM EST.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/PRAMILA PARTHASARATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409