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
The office action is a response to application filed on 4/12/2022. Wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
1. Claims 2-4, 14 and 15 are being 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, the limitation “a screen share intent detector to monitor for when the user of one of said client computing devices is to be the presenter.” invokes 35 U.S.C, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are rejected as being dependent of claim 2 or claim 14.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20220103566 A1) in view of Iwasaki (US 20210306390 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a computing system comprising:
Faulkner teaches a virtual server configured to provide a plurality of virtual computing sessions, each virtual computing session configured to provide a collaboration app that allows a user to participate in a collaboration session with other users; and (Faulkner, [0032], FIGS. 1A-1C show a system 100 for configuring and managing roles 205 and permissions 163 for users 162 participating in an event 102 associated with a communication session. FIG. 8A shows a collaboration app that allows multiple users to participate in a collaboration session with other users.)
a plurality of client computing devices configured to access the plurality of virtual computing sessions via a communications network for the users to participate in the collaboration session, with each client computing device comprising: (Faulkner, [0079], the operations illustrated in FIG. 9 and the other FIGURES can be implemented in association with the example presentation user interface(s) (UI) described above. For instance, the various device(s) and/or module(s) described herein can generate, transmit, receive, and/or display data associated with content of a communication session (e.g., live content, broadcasted event, recorded content, etc.) and/or a presentation UI that includes renderings of one or more participants of remote computing devices, avatars, channels, chat sessions, video streams, images, virtual objects, and/or applications associated with a communication session.)
a display, and a processor coupled to said display and configured to perform the following: (Faulkner, [0133], Fig.11 shows a computer device comprises a display and a processor.) enable app protection to prevent an unauthorized transfer of data by a user of said client computing device, (Faulkner, [0035] FIG. 1A shows a first state of the system 100 in a process for automatically configuring and managing user permissions according to the scenario described above. In this example, in response to the analysis of a document identifying the first user as a presenter, the first user 162A is assigned a presenter role 205B “Role 2.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 which grant the first user a level of control that allows access to a microphone “Microphone 2” and allows access to functionality that allows the first user to share and edit the document to other participants. The other users, second user 162B up to the Nth user 162N, are assigned an audience role 205C “Role 3.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 that allow the other participants to view the shared document and also perform one or more functions, such as a hand raise function. The audience members can have a level of control that provide view-only functionality to the shared document.)
said virtual server is further configured to monitor for when the user of one of said client computing devices is to be a presenter within the collaboration session, (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures.) and in response to one of the users being the presenter while the other users are non-presenters, the virtual computing session disables app protection in the presenter’s client computing device for the presenter to share their display screen with the non-presenters. (Faulkner, [0035] FIG. 1A shows a first state of the system 100 in a process for automatically configuring and managing user permissions according to the scenario described above. In this example, in response to the analysis of a document identifying the first user as a presenter, the first user 162A is assigned a presenter role 205B “Role 2.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 which grant the first user a level of control that allows access to a microphone “Microphone 2” and allows access to functionality that allows the first user to share and edit the document to other participants. The other users, second user 162B up to the Nth user 162N, are assigned an audience role 205C “Role 3.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 that allow the other participants to view the shared document and also perform one or more functions, such as a hand raise function. The audience members can have a level of control that provide view-only functionality to the shared document. [0037], the system can then change a person's role and thus also change permissions for that person.)
Faulkner does not teach and launch the collaboration app within the virtual computing session being accessed for the user to participate in the collaboration session with the other users;
Iwasaki however in the same field of computer networking teaches and launch the collaboration app within the virtual computing session being accessed for the user to participate in the collaboration session with the other users; (Iwasaki, [0109], FIG.1; the Launcher 102 is a launcher application that operates on the OS 101. The Launcher 102 manages or controls, for example, a start and end of event executed or conducted by the electronic information board, and external applications, such as the schedule viewer 103 a, the file viewer 103 b, the browser application 103 c, and the collaboration application 103 d being used during the execution of the event. [0169], If the content processing type is “file sharing”, the material of content (content data) includes, for example, URL indicating a storage destination of file data that was shared by each participant of an event (e.g., online meeting). [examiner notes: the event is equivalent to the virtual computing session.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify launch the collaboration app within the virtual computing session being accessed for the user to participate in the collaboration session with the other users as taught by Iwasaki. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to conveniently control the shared terminal at a conference room (Iwasaki, [0005]).
Regarding claim(s) 13, a virtual server comprising:
Faulkner teaches a processor configured to perform the following: (Faulkner, [0133], Fig.11 shows a computer device comprises a display and a processor.) provide a plurality of virtual computing sessions to be accessed by a plurality of client computing devices, (Faulkner, [0032], FIGS. 1A-1C show a system 100 for configuring and managing roles 205 and permissions 163 for users 162 participating in an event 102 associated with a communication session. FIG. 8A shows a collaboration app that allows multiple users to participate in a collaboration session with other users.) with each client computing device having app protection enabled to prevent an unauthorized transfer of data by a user of the client computing device, (Faulkner, [0035] FIG. 1A shows a first state of the system 100 in a process for automatically configuring and managing user permissions according to the scenario described above. In this example, in response to the analysis of a document identifying the first user as a presenter, the first user 162A is assigned a presenter role 205B “Role 2.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 which grant the first user a level of control that allows access to a microphone “Microphone 2” and allows access to functionality that allows the first user to share and edit the document to other participants. The other users, second user 162B up to the Nth user 162N, are assigned an audience role 205C “Role 3.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 that allow the other participants to view the shared document and also perform one or more functions, such as a hand raise function. The audience members can have a level of control that provide view-only functionality to the shared document.)
monitor for when the user of one of the client computing devices is to be a presenter within the collaboration session while the other users are non-presenters; (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures.)
and in response to one of the users being the presenter, disable app protection in the presenter’s client computing device for the presenter to share their display screen with the non-presenters. (Faulkner, [0035] FIG. 1A shows a first state of the system 100 in a process for automatically configuring and managing user permissions according to the scenario described above. In this example, in response to the analysis of a document identifying the first user as a presenter, the first user 162A is assigned a presenter role 205B “Role 2.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 which grant the first user a level of control that allows access to a microphone “Microphone 2” and allows access to functionality that allows the first user to share and edit the document to other participants. The other users, second user 162B up to the Nth user 162N, are assigned an audience role 205C “Role 3.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 that allow the other participants to view the shared document and also perform one or more functions, such as a hand raise function. The audience members can have a level of control that provide view-only functionality to the shared document. [0037], the system can then change a person's role and thus also change permissions for that person.)
Faulkner does not teach a launch a collaboration app within each corresponding virtual computing session in response to user input, with the collaboration app allowing the user to participate in the collaboration session with other users,
Iwasaki however in the same field of computer networking teaches launch a collaboration app within each corresponding virtual computing session in response to user input, with the collaboration app allowing the user to participate in the collaboration session with other users, (Iwasaki, [0109], FIG.1; the Launcher 102 is a launcher application that operates on the OS 101. The Launcher 102 manages or controls, for example, a start and end of event executed or conducted by the electronic information board, and external applications, such as the schedule viewer 103 a, the file viewer 103 b, the browser application 103 c, and the collaboration application 103 d being used during the execution of the event. [0169], If the content processing type is “file sharing”, the material of content (content data) includes, for example, URL indicating a storage destination of file data that was shared by each participant of an event (e.g., online meeting). [examiner notes: the event is equivalent to the virtual computing session.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify launch the collaboration app within the virtual computing session being accessed for the user to participate in the collaboration session with the other users as taught by Iwasaki. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to conveniently control the shared terminal at a conference room (Iwasaki, [0005]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 13, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner teaches wherein each virtual computing session uses a screen share intent detector to monitor for when the user of one of said client computing devices is to be the presenter. (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role (e.g. a presenter role) and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures.)
Regarding claim(s) 3, the computing system according to Claim 2
Faulkner teaches wherein the screen share intent detector is based on user interface (UI) automation. (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role (e.g. a presenter role) and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures. [0072]- [0075], FIG.7B shows an user interface shows an organizer presenter.)
Regarding claim(s) 4, the computing system according to Claim 2
Faulkner teaches wherein the screen share intent detector is based on code loaded into each launched collaboration app. (Faulkner, [0122], executable instructions stored on computer-readable media 1194 may include, for example, an operating system 1119, a client module 1120, a profile module 1122, and other modules, programs, or applications that are loadable and executable by data processing units(s) 1192. [0074], FIG. 7B shows a Webinar interface. [examiner noes: the system implements with program/executable instructions to perform all function such as monitor and detect role changing. A webinar is a web-based seminar, typically a live online presentation, meeting, or workshop where individuals or groups can interact in real-time.])
Regarding claim(s) 5, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner does not teach wherein the user of one of said client computing devices is to be the presenter based on the user selecting share screen within the collaboration app running in their virtual computing session.
Iwasaki however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the user of one of said client computing devices is to be the presenter based on the user selecting share screen within the collaboration app running in their virtual computing session. (Iwasaki, [0061], the collaboration system 10 is a system that assists or supports a plurality of persons or users to perform one work together. For example, the collaboration system is a system that is used to perform voice call, video call, chat, screen sharing (projection), information sharing, review of agenda, preparation and compilation of reference materials, schedule setting, determination of action item, or the like, using personal computer (PC), portable terminal, electronic information board (e.g., electronic whiteboard), projector, conference tool, or the like, in a place where persons gather to discuss and share opinions, consultation, or the like for a specific purpose (including a case where persons gather at the same physical place, and a case where persons are physically separated but user terminals are connected to each other via a network).)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the computing system according to Claim 8
Faulkner teaches wherein said virtual server is further configured to disable app protection for a new presenter while enabling app protection for the user that was previously the presenter. (Faulkner, [0035] FIG. 1A shows a first state of the system 100 in a process for automatically configuring and managing user permissions according to the scenario described above. In this example, in response to the analysis of a document identifying the first user as a presenter, the first user 162A is assigned a presenter role 205B “Role 2.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 which grant the first user a level of control that allows access to a microphone “Microphone 2” and allows access to functionality that allows the first user to share and edit the document to other participants. The other users, second user 162B up to the Nth user 162N, are assigned an audience role 205C “Role 3.” This role can be associated with specific permissions 163 that allow the other participants to view the shared document and also perform one or more functions, such as a hand raise function. The audience members can have a level of control that provide view-only functionality to the shared document. [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures)
Regarding claim(s) 12, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner teaches 1 wherein the unauthorized transfer of data includes at least one of display screen sharing, display screen recording and taking display screen shots. (Faulkner [0007], the system generates an agenda from input data to determine roles. The data can include, but is not limited to, shared content, user identities, data defining an event type, or any other content shared in any suitable format. For instance, shared content can include an image, video, or text that is displayed on a screen that is viewed by multiple users. Shared content can include files, messages, image data, text data, or content shared on a screen, such as a shared desktop.)
Regarding claim(s) 15, the virtual server according to Claim 14
Faulkner teaches wherein the screen share intent detector is based on at least one of user interface (UI) automation and code loaded into each launched collaboration app. (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role (e.g. a presenter role) and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures. [0072]- [0075], FIG.7B shows an user interface shows an organizer presenter. [0122], executable instructions stored on computer-readable media 1194 may include, for example, an operating system 1119, a client module 1120, a profile module 1122, and other modules, programs, or applications that are loadable and executable by data processing units(s) 1192. [0074], FIG. 7B shows a Webinar interface. [examiner noes: the system implements with program/executable instructions to perform all function such as monitor and detect role changing. A webinar is a web-based seminar, typically a live online presentation, meeting, or workshop where individuals or groups can interact in real-time.])
Regarding claim(s) 19, the method according to Claim 18
Faulkner teaches wherein each virtual computing session uses a screen share intent detector to monitor for when the user of one of the client computing devices is to be the presenter, (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role (e.g. a presenter role) and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures.)
with the screen share intent detector being based on at least one of user interface (UI) automation and code loaded into each launched collaboration app. (Faulkner, [0037], the system can also monitor user activity to determine if the input data 111 satisfies one or more criteria for initiating a role change of a participant. In response to determining that the input data indicates a need for a role change for one or more participants, the system can then change a person's role (e.g. a presenter role) and thus also change permissions for that person. The permissions can be modified to vary a level of control, e.g., a level of access, a person has to system resources, e.g., hardware resources or content resources, or system operations, e.g., functions that allow users to communicate notifications and certain gestures. [0072]- [0075], FIG.7B shows an user interface shows an organizer presenter. [0122], executable instructions stored on computer-readable media 1194 may include, for example, an operating system 1119, a client module 1120, a profile module 1122, and other modules, programs, or applications that are loadable and executable by data processing units(s) 1192. [0074], FIG. 7B shows a Webinar interface. [examiner noes: the system implements with program/executable instructions to perform all function such as monitor and detect role changing. A webinar is a web-based seminar, typically a live online presentation, meeting, or workshop where individuals or groups can interact in real-time.])
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 9, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner in view of Iwasaki further in view of Masi (US 20210352120 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 6, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner-Iwasaki do not teach wherein said virtual server is further configured to verify that the presenter is authorized to be the presenter before disabling app protection.
Masi however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein said virtual server is further configured to verify that the presenter is authorized to be the presenter before disabling app protection. (Masi, [0106], one participant such as an administrator or host of the meeting, can act as a presenter and control the view and the focus wall for all participants. [examiner notes: Faulkner teaches [0035], monitoring a participant role has been changed (.e.g.to be a presenter), the permission level of the participant will be change. A presenter has permission to share and edit a document to other participants.]])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify wherein said virtual server is further configured to verify that the presenter is authorized to be the presenter before disabling app protection as taught by Masi. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to allow users to replicate the experience of a real-life conference room environment, in which users can not only communicate with one another in real time, but also collaborate on documents, applications, and other files, as well as collaborate on a white board(Masi, [0004]).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the computing system according to Claim 6
Faulkner-Iwasaki does not teach wherein said virtual server uses a policy database to determine that the presenter is authorized.
Masi however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein said virtual server uses a policy database to determine that the presenter is authorized. (Masi, [0106], one participant such as an administrator or host of the meeting, can act as a presenter and control the view and the focus wall for all participants.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 6 applies here.
3. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner in view of Iwasaki further in view Jackson (US 20090265255 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner-Iwasaki do not teach wherein only one user can be a presenter at a time within the collaboration session.
Jackson however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein only one user can be a presenter at a time within the collaboration session. (Jackson, [0109], A Viewer can request to become a Presenter. In the case of Single Presenter Mode, typically only one user can be a Presenter at any time and when another user is granted Presenter privileges, the current Presenter can become a Viewer. In Multiple Presenter Mode, any number of users can be Presenters at the same time and all of their actions can be broadcast to all synchronized users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify wherein only one user can be a presenter at a time within the collaboration session as taught by Jackson. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improve the customer experience (Jackson, [0064]).
4. Claim(s) 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner in view of Iwasaki further in view Singh (US 20140204834 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 10, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner-Iwasaki do not teach wherein audio/video screen sharing traffic is offloaded from said virtual server to said plurality of computing devices for peer-to-peer communications.
Singh however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein audio/video screen sharing traffic is offloaded from said virtual server to said plurality of computing devices for peer-to-peer communications. (Singh, [0007], methods and apparatuses to offload data traffic from a cellular connection with a network to a wireless local area network (WLAN) connection via a relay device are described herein. The methods and apparatuses provide for establishing a wireless peer-to-peer (P2P) connection between a wireless communication device and a neighboring wireless communication device over which to offload data traffic from the cellular connection. [0023], some example embodiments additionally provide an offload coordination service, e.g., using an offload coordination service server, which can facilitate offloading of traffic by a wireless communication device from a first wireless connection, e.g., a cellular network connection, to a second wireless connection, e.g., a wireless peer-to-peer connection.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify wherein audio/video screen sharing traffic is offloaded from said virtual server to said plurality of computing devices for peer-to-peer communications as taught by Singh. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to offload Internet traffic to lower cost networks, such as free wireless local area networks (WLANs), subscription based WLANs, and/or operator provided WLANs. In this regard, WLAN access is typically not predicated on usage based billing, so users can generally use WLANs without worrying about exceeding a data traffic cap (Singh, [0004]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 10, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
5. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner in view of Iwasaki further in view Yeo (US 20120110078 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 11, the computing system according to Claim 1
Faulkner-Iwasaki do not teach wherein said virtual server is further configured to deny one of said client computing devices into the collaboration session in response to a local collaboration app being launched on said client computing device instead of launching the collaboration app in the virtual computing session.
Yeo however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein said virtual server is further configured to deny one of said client computing devices into the collaboration session in response to a local collaboration app being launched on said client computing device instead of launching the collaboration app in the virtual computing session. (Yeo, [0021], each of applications AP1 and AP2 permits a login of one user (one device) at the same time. In other words, each of applications AP1 and AP2 does not permit logins of a plurality of users (a plurality of devices) at the same time. [examiner notes: AP1 and AP2 are local applications. The limitation is same concept as Yeo and well know concept to only allow one device logging on an application at the same time.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Faulkner to specify wherein said virtual server is further configured to deny one of said client computing devices into the collaboration session in response to a local collaboration app being launched on said client computing device instead of launching the collaboration app in the virtual computing session as taught by Yeo. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to conveniently login to a selected application (Yeo, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449