DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed December 4, 2025. Claims 14-33 and 35-37 are pending in this case. Claims 1-13 were canceled via Preliminary Amendment filed December 6, 2021. Claim 34 was previously canceled. Claims 14-15, 20- 22, 25, 28-33, and 35-37, are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
We note, firstly, no arguments presented with the current amendment.
We find, upon further consideration of the references, that the current amendment does not serve to overcome the cited prior art.
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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-20, 22-28, 30-33, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peart et al (US 2003/0069924) in view of Shannon (US 5,799,147) and further in view of Beck (US 2007/0050449).
Regarding claims 14, 22, and 30 –
Peart discloses a system, comprising:
a server side web server comprising a processor (par 32 “application servers”) configured to:
receive a request via a client side user interface in a web browser, wherein the request is from a client user of a web application for exiting a target desktop application hosted on a server side hosting server, wherein the target desktop application and the web application are converged for use of the target desktop application using the client side user interface in the web browser; (par 40, 43 “application-related information for each hosted application includes but is not limited to the address of the server hosting that application, the application name, the users or groups of users who are authorized to use that application, the data types supported by the application, any file types associated with the supported data types, any file types associated with the application”, 50 “request 42 by the client node 10 for a particular application program” 51, 60, 88, and 90, also par 5 “user . . . enters the queries through a user interface” ; par 57, 63 (“the server 32 merges the information received from the server 34 with the information received from the server 36 into one data stream for transmission to the client node 20”, 74, 101) also par 40, 43, 50, 57, 63, 65-68, 74, 101, 180)
Shannon teaches, as Peart does not, and in analogous art, determining, by the server side hosting server, that one or more files in a set of files in a directory for the client user on the server side hosting server are modified as a result of interaction with the target desktop application; (col 5 ln 35-45 “maintaining a data file, said data file reflecting a complete logical disk map of the client disk at the time of the last update, and creating a new logical disk map at the next scheduled time of the updating . . . comparing the new disk map to the disk map, and if any of the attributes of a file have changed, the file is listed as modified and will be transmitted to the remote server computer”)
in response to the determining that the one or more files on the server side hosting server are modified, replicating the one or more files determined to be modified from the server side hosting server to a location on the server side web server; (col 5 ln 35-48 “the method of the invention comprises maintaining a data file, said data file reflecting a complete logical disk map of the client disk at the time of the last update, and creating a new logical disk map at the next scheduled time of the updating. The method includes comparing the new disk map to the disk map, and if any of the attributes of a file have changed, the file is listed as modified and will be transmitted to the remote server computer disk image. Attributes relating to the physical drive are not used. The method provides for deleting any file on the disk map that is not on the new disk map, creating a file of files to be deleted for transmitting to the server computer, to be used for removing so designated files from the server computer logical disk image”)
determining whether the request for exiting the target desktop application hosted on the server side hosting server carries a backup application parameter; (col 5 ln 34-47 “ . . . next scheduled time of the updating. The method includes comparing the new disk map to the disk map, and if any of the attributes of a file have changed, the file is listed as modified”; col 6 ln 10-14 “all operating systems having a minimum set of the attributes as part of their file directory structure”).
in response to a determination that the request for exiting the target desktop application hosted on the server side hosting server carries the backup application parameter:
receiving an image of the server side hosting server from the desktop application; (col 3 ln 5-15 “copying a client computer logical disk image, including the logical disk map from the client computer disk, to the disk of the server computer”) and
storing the image of the server side hosting server. (col 3 ln 5-15 “copying a client computer logical disk image, including the logical disk map from the client computer disk, to the disk of the server computer”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart and Shannon, in order to have greater control over file modifications.
Beck discloses, in analogous art, and as Peart does not, in response to receiving the request via the client side user interface for exiting the target desktop application hosted on the server side hosting server, cause a start of a target desktop application exit process, comprising stopping and exiting the target desktop application on the server side hosting server; (par 25 “presence of the session identification represents the termination of the first Web application 114, with its session identification and state information saved in, for example, server 110. If there is no session identification present, first Web application 114 is still in a suspended state running within the client 140. If first Web application 114 is still in a suspended state running within client 140, client 140 can resume directly to previously stored URL (step 530); par 20, 34-35 and claim 4, “suspending the operation of the first Web application by removing from a memory associated with the first Web application some of the contents of the memory”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Peart in view of Shannon with Beck in order to enable in response to the completion of the desktop application interaction, stopping and exiting the target desktop application. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable an application to interchange with its child process via a communication channel.
Regarding claim 15 –
Shannon teaches wherein the image of the server side hosting server received from the desktop application represents a state of convergence of the target desktop application and the web application. (col 3 ln 5-15 “ . . . a client computer logical disk image, including the logical disk map from the client computer disk, to the disk of the server computer”; col 5 ln 34-47 “The method includes comparing the new disk map to the disk map, and if any of the attributes of a file have changed, the file is listed as modified”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart and Shannon, in order to have greater control over file modifications.
Regarding claims 16 and 24 –
Peart teaches that the processor is further configured prepare and provision a desktop application environment after installing the target desktop application. (par 10, 128, 131-133)
Regarding claim 17 –
Peart discloses wherein the set of files is for use with the target desktop application. (par 75-77, 34, 65-66, 71)
Regarding claims 18 and 26 –
Peart discloses that the processor is further configured to converge the target desktop application and the web application comprising displaying a graphical user interface of the target application in the web browser. (par 57, 63, 74, 101)
Regarding claims 19 and 27 –
Peart discloses that converging the target desktop application and the web application comprises integrating the displaying of the graphical user interface of the target application and a web application interface in the web browser. (par 57, 63, 74, 101)
Regarding claims 20 and 28 –
Peart discloses synchronizing files of the target desktop application and the server side web server during a target desktop application interaction. (par 83, 110, 121-122, 139 (“the specified mapping is also replicated or synchronized against the mappings specified on other server nodes”))
Regarding claim 23 –
Peart teaches that the processor is further configured to install the target desktop application. (par 10, 128, 131-133)
Regarding claims 25 and 33–
Peart discloses prior to receiving the request for exiting the target desktop application:
receiving a request, by the server side web server and via the client side user interface, to process at least one file of the server side web server; (par 40,43)
Shannon discloses, as Peart dos not specifically disclose, determining one or more available desktop applications; (col 5 ln35-45)
in response to receiving the request to process the at least one file, searching for one or more existing hosting servers hosting a desktop application, of the one or more available desktop applications, configured to perform one or more tasks associated with processing the at least one file of the server side web server; (col 5 ln 34-47)
if the server side hosting server hosting the target desktop application is found by the searching to be an existing hosting server hosting a desktop application configured to perform the one or more tasks; (col 5 ln 34-47)
replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server; (col 5 ln 35-48 ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart and Shannon, in order to have greater control over file modifications.
Beck discloses after replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server, starting the target desktop application with the replicated at least one file; (par 25) and
if an existing hosting server hosting a desktop application configured to perform the one or more tasks is not found by the searching; identifying the server side hosting server as a new hosting server that is not hosting a desktop application configured to perform the one or more tasks; (par 20)
after identifying the server side hosting server as a new hosting server that is not hosting a desktop application configured to perform the one or more tasks(par 26):
allocating the server side hosting server for the client side user interface in association with the request to process the at least one file; (par 26)
providing the target desktop application to the server side hosting server; (par 26-27) and
replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server; (par 26) and
after replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server, starting the target desktop application with the replicated at least one file. (26-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Peart in view of Shannon with Beck in order to enable in response to the completion of the desktop application interaction, stopping and exiting the target desktop application. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable an application to interchange with its child process via a communication channel.
Regarding claim 31 –
Peart discloses prior to receiving the request for exiting the target desktop application:
receiving a request, by the server side web server and via the client side user interface, to process at least one file of the server side web server; (par 40,43)
Shannon discloses, as Peart dos not specifically disclose, determining one or more available desktop applications; (col 5 ln35-45)
in response to receiving the request to process the at least one file, searching for one or more existing hosting servers hosting a desktop application, of the one or more available desktop applications, configured to perform one or more tasks associated with processing the at least one file of the server side web server; (col 5 ln 34-47)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart and Shannon, in order to have greater control over file modifications.
Regarding claim 33 -
Shannon discloses in response to the server side hosting server hosting the target desktop application being found by the searching to be an existing hosting server hosting a desktop application configured to perform the one or more tasks; (col 5 ln 34-47)
replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server; (col 5 ln 35-48 ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart and Shannon, in order to have greater control over file modifications.
Beck discloses after replicating the at least one file of the server side web server into the server side hosting server, starting the target desktop application with the replicated at least one file; (par 25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Peart in view of Shannon with Beck in order to enable in response to the completion of the desktop application interaction, stopping and exiting the target desktop application. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable an application to interchange with its child process via a communication channel.
Regarding claims 35, 36, and 37 –
Beck discloses wherein the processor is further configured to in response to a determination that the request does not carry the backup application parameter, releasing the server side hosting server without receiving or storing the image. (par 20, 34-35 and claim 4, “suspending the operation of the first Web application by removing from a memory associated with the first Web application some of the contents of the memory”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Peart in view of Shannon with Beck in order to enable in response to the completion of the desktop application interaction, stopping and exiting the target desktop application. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable an application to interchange with its child process via a communication channel.
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peart et al (US 2003/0069924) in view of Shannon (US 5,799,147) and Beck (US 2007/0050449) and further in view of Ambroziak (US 6,415,319).
Peart in view of Shannon and Beck discloses as above.
Regarding claims 21 and 29 –
Ambroziak discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a browser plug-in configured to intercept user input to the client side user interface and provide it to the server side hosting server. (col 7 ln 15-30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Peart, Shannon, and Beck with the plug-in of Ambroziak in order to obtain a more user-friendly result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697