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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to communication: response to preliminary amendment filed on 06/10/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-24 are currently pending in this application.
The IDS filed on 01/09/2026 has been accepted.
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 and 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed toward software. As seen in claim 1 and its dependent claims, the claim is directed toward a controller that is installable into a software application. The controller is thus software, and software, per se, is unpatentable. Claim 13, which seems to be another independent claim , is directed toward a computer environment. As seen below in the 112 rejection below, the environment is unclear and it is interpreted to be software, and is thus rejected similarly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 24 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 13, the claim recites “a computer environment incorporating the window capture controller of claim 1.” It is unclear what this computer environment is composed of. For purposes of examination, this environment will be interpreted as a software environment.
As per claim 15, it is unclear what claim the claim is dependent on. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 7-10, 16, and 24 contains multiple trademark/trade names (for example, Zoon, Teams, Slack, Webex, GoTo Meeting, Goole Meet, TeamViewer, Snagit, ScreenPresso, Snipping Tool, Snip & Sketch, Camtasia, Loom, Captivate, Windows, MacOS, etc). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe types of programs or commands and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As per claims 10, 18, and 24, the claims recite specific commands directed to particular systems and programs. However, such commands only work in particular systems, and such commands are changing constantly. Thus, it is unclear what the applicants are trying to claim and thus the claims are indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-14, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anasta US Patent Application Publication 2023/0087884 (Anasta), in view of Cheng et al. US Patent No. 9,965,648 (Cheng).
As per claim 1, Anasta teaches a window capture controller, installable into a computer environment (paragraph 12 with information management application, installable onto a user device); wherein when said window capture controller is injected, it remains resident and it remains receptive to commands to selectively control whether said window can be captured or not by further screen capture software (paragraph 28 with screenshot function on computer separate from information management application; see paragraphs 27-32 with information management application monitoring and controlling screenshot functions); wherein said window capture controller and said further screen capture software operate independently from each other (see paragraph 28 with screenshot capture separate from information management controller); and wherein said operating system operates independently from said screen capture software (paragraph 28 wherein screenshot may be from another application installed on device, such as a screenshot application).
Although Anasta teaches an independent window capture controller, Anasta does not explicitly teach that the window capture controller is installable into an independent software application. Installing programs into independent software applications is notoriously well known in the art and would have been obvious, if not a mere design choice. However, for a more explicit teaching, see Cheng (col. 4 lines 15-20 and throughout wherein the masking application is a plug-in of the browser). Cheng further teaches that said independent software application displaying a window; said independent software application is independent from said window capture controller (col. 10 line 20-50, wherein the window capture is a plug-in), said independent software application executing inside process space allocated by an operating system of said computer environment into said independent software application (col. 4 lines 4-14, with operating system on system, wherein applications are loaded and run on top of operating system to provide functions;), wherein when said window capture controller is injected into said independent software application, it remains resident in said independent software application and it remains receptive to commands to selectively control whether said software independent application’s window can be captured or not (col. 10 line 20-50 with masking application operating as a plug-in with browser to allow screenshots after obfuscation).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Anasta with Cheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by automatically masking different types of sensitive user information (col. 2 lines 45-50).
As per claim 3, the Anasta combination teaches wherein said window capture controller includes a user interface control inserted into user interface of said independent software application (Cheng col. 10 liens 20-50 with masking application interface which user can activate on the browser).
As per claim 4, the Anasta combination teaches wherein said user interface control is a slider switch, a push button, a checkbox, a menu item, or a toggle switch, a pre-designated combination of keyboard keys or some other control, which allows the computer user to set the state of said window capture controller (Cheng col. 10 lines 20-50 with toggle).
As per claim 5, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said user interface control provides a visual indicator, such as an icon or text or oborder colour or other graphical indicator, to the computer user to visualize the state of said window capture controller (obvious over Cheng; see col. 10 lines 20-50 with togger on and off).
As per claim 8, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said further screen capture software is a screen capture application, such as Snagit, ScreenPresso, Snipping Tool, Snip & Sketch, or other software that allows a computer user to capture an image of a display of said computer or said window (Anasta pargraph 16 with screenshot may be a screenshot application of user device).
As per claim 10, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller controls capturing of said software application window by another process by using the SetWindowDisplayAffinity() Windows API, or the setting the ‘sharingTYpe’ property of MacOS NSWindow, or some other mechanism which sets the capture attributes of an application window (see Anasta paragraph 16 with screenshot function may be that of a screenshot application).
As per claim 11, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller operates in the process space allocated to said independent software application (see Cheng col. 10 lien 20-50 with module as a plug-in to browser).
As per claim 12, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller is integral to said operating system (Cheng col. 4 lines 4-14 wherein applications are loaded on top of operating system to provide functions).
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above. See throughout Anasta with a computing environment.
As per claim 14, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller detects changes in the content displayed in said software application window (Anasta abstract and throughout with detecting sensitive information on GUI).
As per claim 19, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller checks the attributes of a content in said software application and adjusts its state to stop capture of said window when one or more said attribute smeet predetermined conditions (Anasta abstract and throughout with detecting sensitive information and obfuscates/masks data).
As per claim 20, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein a content attribute is the security classification, or a security classification qualifier, or caveat, such as a releasability indicator caveat, or an eyes-only caveat, or a codeword caveat or a special handling caveat, or some other attribute which indicates the handling requirements of said content (abstract and throughout with identifying sensitive information).
As per claim 21, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller, when capture is blocked, blocks the image of said software application windows on the computer environment (paragraph 35 with masking information such as masking, removing, replacing image of window).
As per claim 22, it would have been obvious over the Anasta combination wherein said window capture controller, when capture is blocked, replaces the capturable image of said software application window with another image (obvious over Anasta; see paragraph 35 wherein data to be blocked can be replaced or altered).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Anasta combination as applied above, and further in view of Balasubramanian et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0050983 (Balas).
As per claim 6, the Anasta combination teaches the state of the window capture controller, but does not explicitly teach providing an audio indicator, such as a beep or a series of beeps, to the computer user to recognize the state of said window capture controller. However, providing audio feedback to inform a user is notoriously well known in the art and would have been obvious. For example, see Balas (paragraph 205 with providing audio feedback).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Anasta combination with Balas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide additional awareness to a user by drawing attention (paragraph 205)..
As per claim 15, the Anasta combination teaches wherein said window capture controller detects changes in a content displayed in a window by monitoring the content (see throughout Anasta with monitoring sensitive words; for example, see paragraph 24; see further paragraph 25-26 with identifying sensitive information based on context such as a session of the application, based on user accessing or interacting with set of information, etc). Although Anasta does not explicitly teach a title, this would have been obvious. However, for a further showing of obviousness of words and contexts in titles, see Balu (Figure 24 and apragarphs 203-24 wherein system detects changes/sensitive information in widows; windows/texts may have different titles and labels which can be labeld as sensitive;)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Anasta combination with Balas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to help secure sensitive information from being exposed (paragraph 201)
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Anasta combination as applied above, and further in view of Nash et al. US Patent No. 10,904,223 (Nash).
As per claim 7, the Anasta combination does not explicitly teach wherein said further screen capture software is a screen sharing application, such as Zoon, Teams, Slack, Webex, GoTo Meeting, Google Meet, TeamViewer, or other software that allows a computer user to share a display of said comptuer’s window with other people online. However, utilizing screen sharing applications is well known in the art. For example, see Nash (abstract and throughout with screen sharing and preventing private information to be captured).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30)
As per claim 9, the Anasta combination does not explicitly teach wherein said further screen capture application is a screen recording application, such as Camtasia, Loom, Captivate, or other software that allows a computer user to record a display of said computer or said window. However, this would have been obvious. For example, See Nash (col. 2 lines 10-28 with screen capturing video)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30)
As per claim 15, the Anasta combination teaches wherein said window capture controller detects changes in a content displayed in a window by monitoring the content (see throughout Anasta with monitoring sensitive words; for example, see paragraph 24; see further paragraph 25-26 with identifying sensitive information based on context such as a session of the application, based on user accessing or interacting with set of information, etc). Although Anasta does not explicitly teach a title, this would have been obvious. However, for a further showing of obviousness of detecting information based on different windows and titles, see Nash (col. 3 lines 10-30 with detecting the type of window being displayed and detecting information from there).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30).
As per claim 16, the Anasta combination does not explicitly teach wherein changes to a displayed content are trigged by user ations, such as closing an exting document and opening a new document in Microsoft Word, or changing the tab in a browser. However, detecting changes in displayed content triggered by user actions is well known in the art. For example, see Nash col. 3 lines 10-50 with detecting components of a video game, which are triggered by a user’s actions).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30).
As per claim 17, the Anasta combination does not explicitly teach wherein said window capture controller monitors changes to a title of said window by regularly retrieving said title and comparing with the previously retrieved value. However, this would have been obvious (see Nash col. 3 lines 10-50 with detecting changes based on different types of windows/screens of a video, and detecting the type of screen that is being displayed; obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize previous values to determine any changes; see also col. 5 lines 33-50 with using historical information).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30).
As per claim 18, the Anasta combination does not explicitlyt each wherein said command capture controller monitors changes to a title of said software application window by monitoring messages posted to a process of said software application and detecting the WM_SETTEXT message, or some other message which commands the operating system to set the title. However, detecting changes by monitoring a process is well known in the art. For example, see Nash (col. 3 lines 30-50 wherein system monitors the game being played with metadata or other information, so as to provide what information is being displayed, such as different screens or information).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nash with the Anasta combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing private information to be displayed (col. 1 lines 5-30).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Anasta combination as applied above, and further in view of Stack Overflow’s “How to exclude certain window from screen capture in Win32 API?” (Stack Overflow), (published June 17, 2022).
As per claim 23, the Anasta combination does not explictilyt each wherein said window capture controller replaces capturable image by setting said software application window to be transparent to capture by other processes, and creatin ga capturable window behind the software application window, ehreint eh capturable window cotains the required replacement image. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Stack overflow (page 1 with excluding window of particular application from being captured; see page 2 which makes window transparent and shows what is in background; see also page 3 with setting window display affinity and excluding from capture ).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Anasta combination with Stack Overflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to exclude particular windows being captured.
As per claim 24, the Anasta combination does not explicitly teach wherein said capture controller sets said software application to be transparent to capture by other processes by using the SetWindowDisplayAffinity()Windows command with the affinity value set to WDA_EXLUDEFROMCAPTURE. However, this is well known in the art. For example, see Stack Overflow (pages 1-3).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Anasta combination with Stack Overflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to exclude particular windows being captured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-37393739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights