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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 28 December 2025. Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Claims 3-5, 10-12, 17-19 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 20-24 are pending and have been considered below.
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, 6, 8, 13, 15, 20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halim et al (US 2014/0289639 A1) in view of Momchilov et al. (US 2012/0226742 A1) and further in view of Zhang (US 2014/0136638 A1) and Giralt (US 2023/0244435 A1).
Claim 1. Halim discloses method to handle events associated with local applications, the method comprising:
accessing, by the first user device, the first remote desktop during the first remote desktop session, a client may be in communication with a server to transmit operating status information and, in response, receive a remote desktop GUI (P 0033 Fig 3) on the client GUI (P 0043),
wherein the first remote desktop fully occupies a first display screen of the first user device to obscure a local desktop of the first user device, the client displays the remote desktop in a full screen mode or in a size and location that obscures the system tray and other user interface elements of the host operating system (OS) (P 0011) The remote desktop obscures elements of the host operating system which is analogous to the local desktop;
detecting a first event associated with at least one local application that runs in the local desktop on the first user device, a client obtains operating status information (P 0013) relating to a prompt or other message displayed by the OS or another application (P 0019);
in response to detecting the first event, displaying a first notification of the first event [within] the first remote desktop that occupies the first display screen, the operating status message is displayed (P 0019) within the window of the remote desktop session on the client (P 0026) receive a remote desktop GUI including a visual indication of the status information for output on an available display (P 0033).
Halim does not disclose sending, from a first user device to a connection server, a connection request for a first remote desktop session for a user of the user device, wherein the connection server establishes the first remote desktop session for a first remote desktop, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Momchilov discloses a remote machine serves as a master node that provides the functionality required to identify and provide address information associated with a remote machine hosting a requested application (P 0037) a user of a local computing device connects to a remote computing device (P 0062). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim and Momchilov, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine sending, from a first user device to a connection server, a connection request for a first remote desktop session for a user of the user device, wherein the connection server establishes the first remote desktop session for a first remote desktop with the teachings of Halim with the motivation to provide a seamless, unified user experience to enhance theme-integration between a client and remote desktop presenting the UI elements with the receiver's product and OS-specific UI (Momchilov: P 0005-0006).
Halim does not disclose displaying a first notification of the first event over the first remote desktop that occupies the first display screen, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Momchilov discloses a client-side user interface element may appear as a popup over a full-screen remotely generated desktop in a style consistent with the client operating system (P 0113) a remote desktop is displayed on a client display in full-screen mode, including a remote taskbar with a local window button generated by the remote host because the local taskbar is hidden behind or underneath the remote desktop environment and/or remote taskbar (P 0115 Fig 4A). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim and Momchilov, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine displaying a first notification of the first event over the first remote desktop that occupies the first display screen with the teachings of Halim and Momchilov with the motivation to provide a seamless, unified user experience to enhance theme-integration between a client and remote desktop presenting the UI elements with the receiver's product and OS-specific UI (Momchilov: P 0005-0006).
Halim does not disclose sending an event message associated with the first event from the first user device to the connection server, wherein the connection server determines that the user is connected to a second remote desktop session on a second user device and causes a second notification to be displayed on the second user device, the second notification indicating that the first event has been detected on the first user device and displaying an option to handle the first event from the second user device, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Zhang discloses a messaging synchronizing method in an instant messaging application wherein a server detects a log-in status corresponding to an instant messaging account currently logged-in through an instant messaging application at a first terminal and determining that the instant messaging account is simultaneously logged-in from the first terminal and a second terminal (P 0006) a prompt indicating an unread message is sent to all login terminals (P 0050) data synchronization is performed a server (P 0077) when an action is performed on a first terminal of the instant messaging account, a notification is displayed on a second terminal of the instant messaging application to carry out the action requested on the first terminal (P 0094 Fig 6B). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov and Zhang, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine sending an event message associated with the first event from the first user device to the connection server, wherein the connection server determines that the user is connected to a second remote desktop session on a second user device and causes a second notification to be displayed on the second user device, the second notification indicating that the first event has been detected on the first user device with the teachings of Halim and Momchilov with the motivation to help a user coordinate actions at multiple terminals when the user is accessing an application from two or more terminals (Zhang: P 0004).
Halim does not disclose receiving, from the connection server, an indication that the option to handle the first event from the second user device has been selected, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Zhang discloses on the second terminal the user may select “yes” or “cancel” to in response to the action initiated on the first terminal (P 0094 Fig 6B). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov and Zhang, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine receiving, from the connection server, an indication that the option to handle the first event from the second user device has been selected with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov and Zhang with the motivation to help a user coordinate actions at multiple terminals when the user is accessing an application from two or more terminals (Zhang: P 0004).
Halim does not disclose in response to the indication, causing the first user device to operate as a remoting server and the second user device to operate as a remoting client, and establishing, via the connection server, a client-to-client remoting session between the first user device and the second user device using a session token brokered by the connection server; and remoting, from the first user device to the second user device, graphical data of the local desktop of the first user device that is cropped at the first user device to include only a window of the at least one local application associated with the first event and to exclude a remaining portion of the local desktop of the first user device, wherein user input received on the second user device is transmitted to the first user device to control the window of the at least one local application, as disclosed in the claims. Momchilov discloses a remote machine serves as a master node that provides the functionality required to identify and provide address information associated with a remote machine hosting a requested application (P 0037) a user of a local computing device connects to a remote computing device (P 0062). Zhang discloses a messaging synchronizing method in an instant messaging application wherein a server detects a log-in status corresponding to an instant messaging account currently logged-in through an instant messaging application at a first terminal and determining that the instant messaging account is simultaneously logged-in from the first terminal and a second terminal (P 0006) a prompt indicating an unread message is sent to all login terminals (P 0050) data synchronization is performed a server (P 0077) when an action is performed on a first terminal of the instant messaging account, a notification is displayed on a second terminal of the instant messaging application to carry out the action requested on the first terminal (P 0094 Fig 6B). In the same field of invention, Giralt discloses when the user has selected the window of the application to share, videoconference endpoint identifies the x and y coordinates of the area that bounds the desired window and crops the image of the screen to include only the portion of the video stream inside the area that bounds the desired window, and the cropped image is sent via a sharing window of the meeting connection so participant devices are able to view the content inside the desired window (P 0035). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine in response to the indication, causing the first user device to operate as a remoting server and the second user device to operate as a remoting client, and establishing, via the connection server, a client-to-client remoting session between the first user device and the second user device using a session token brokered by the connection server; and remoting, from the first user device to the second user device, graphical data of the local desktop of the first user device that is cropped at the first user device to include only a window of the at least one local application associated with the first event and to exclude a remaining portion of the local desktop of the first user device, wherein user input received on the second user device is transmitted to the first user device to control the window of the at least one local application with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov and Zhang with the motivation to help a user coordinate actions at multiple terminals when the user is accessing an application from two or more terminals (Zhang: P 0004) and to provide the advantage of sharing only the shared window or other limited content so as to not frustrate user with non-relevant content (Giralt: P 0019).
Claim 3-5. Canceled.
Claim 6. Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt disclose the method of claim 1, and Momchilov discloses a user may disconnect from a remote session and reconnect to the same remote session a user may disconnect from a remote session and reconnect to the same remote session or switching to a different device without pausing the virtual machine or desktop, or needing to close and re-launch applications and server-based messages regarding status of the existing session may be redirected to the client operating system, whether on the desktop machine or laptop (P 0108) to detect the correct parent-child relationship, in some embodiments, the API used to launch the published application may be hooked or intercepted to monitor launching of applications (P 0147). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine sending, by the first user device, configuration information to the connection server, wherein the configuration information specifies the at least one application and events associated with the at least one application that are to be monitored with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt with the motivation to provide a seamless, unified user experience to enhance theme-integration between a client and remote desktop presenting the UI elements with the receiver's product and OS-specific UI (Momchilov: P 0005-0006).
Claim(s) 8 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 10-12. Canceled.
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 6 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 17-19. Canceled.
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 6 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 22. Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt disclose the method of claim 1, and Momchilov discloses the system uses Security Support Provider Interface authentication tokens (P 0182). Zhang discloses and account login information data structure includes an unique account ID corresponding to a particular instant messaging account, a login ID for each session, e.g. each terminal, through which the account is logged in, a terminal ID, and application type identifying whether the application is a client application installed at the client device, or is, alternatively, a web client, and a timestamp (P 0112). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein establishing, via the connection server, a remoting session between the first user device and the second user device further comprises: obtaining, by the connection server, a session token from first user device; and transmitting the session token to the second user device, wherein the session token is used by the second user device to establish the remoting session between the first user device and the second user device with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt with the motivation to provide a seamless, unified user experience to enhance theme-integration between a client and remote desktop presenting the UI elements with the receiver's product and OS-specific UI (Momchilov: P 0005-0006).
Claim(s) 23 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 22 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 24 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 22 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halim et al (US 2014/0289639 A1) in view of Momchilov et al. (US 2012/0226742 A1) and Zhang (US 2014/0136638 A1) and Giralt (US 2023/0244435 A1) and further in view of Cooperman et al. (US 6,907,447 B1).
Claim 2. Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt disclose the method of claim 1, but Halim does not disclose wherein in response to expiration of an amount of time, the first notification disappears from the first display screen of the first user device, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Cooperman discloses in response to an IM client application that receives requests to initiate IM conversations, the application displays a notification window (C 2 L 39-) if the user chooses to do nothing and ignore the IM conversation request, the notification window will remain active for a predetermined amount of time and is then gradually removed so that it appears to "roll" down (C 2 L 66 – C 3 L 3). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang, Giralt and Cooperman, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein in response to expiration of an amount of time, the first notification disappears from the first display screen of the first user device with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt with the motivation to provide a method for conveniently evaluating a message and allowing the user to unintrusively act on or dismiss the message (Cooperman: C 1 L 50 – C 2 L 21).
Claim(s) 9 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 2 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 16 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 9 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halim et al (US 2014/0289639 A1) in view of Momchilov et al. (US 2012/0226742 A1) and Zhang (US 2014/0136638 A1) and Giralt (US 2023/0244435 A1) and further in view of Eshkoli et al. (US 2006/0164507 A1).
Claim 7. Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt disclose the method of claim 1, but Halim does not disclose wherein the first event includes at least one of an incoming email, an incoming call, an upcoming meeting, or a calendar event, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Eshkoli discloses when a new call is received (P 0063) the caller is connected and identified by a caller ID, e.g. phone number, ISDEN number, IP address, etc (P 0064). Therefore, considering the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang, Giralt and Eshkoli, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the first event includes at least one of an incoming email, an incoming call, an upcoming meeting, or a calendar event with the teachings of Halim, Momchilov, Zhang and Giralt with the motivation in order to facilitate multiple participants collaborating in a session with local and remote interfaces (Eshkoli: P 0003-0005).
Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 7 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 21 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 7 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
In response, the independent claims, namely claims 1, 8, and 15, have been amended to recite features not taught or disclosed in the cited references. The claims now recite:
in response to the indication, causing the first user device to operate as a remoting server and the second user device to operate as a remoting client, and establishing, via the connection server, a client-to-client remoting session between the first user device and the second user device using a session token brokered by the connection server; and
remoting, from the first user device to the second user device, graphical data of the local desktop of the first user device that is cropped at the first user device to include only a window of the at least one local application associated with the first event and to exclude a remaining portion of the local desktop of the first user device, wherein user input received on the second user device is transmitted to the first user device to control the window of the at least one local application.
Applicants respectfully submit that at least the above limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 are not disclosed or suggested by the combination of cited references. In particular, the amended claims now expressly recite establishing a client-to-client remoting session between a first user device and a second user device in response to a user selection to handle an event, as well as cropping graphical data of a local desktop at the first user device to include only a window of a local application associated with the event before transmission to the second user device. As amended, the claims require that, upon receiving an indication that the option to handle the event has been selected at the second user device, the first user device operates as a remoting server and the second user device operates as a remoting client, such that a client-to-client remoting session is established between the two user devices. The connection server is limited to brokering a session token used to establish the remoting session, and does not operate as the remoting endpoint or render the remoted desktop.
None of the cited references disclose or suggest such a client-to-client remoting session. Halim is directed to remote desktop sessions established between a client device and a server computing device, where the server renders the remote desktop and transmits a remote desktop GUI to the client. Halim does not disclose or suggest a scenario in which one user device operates as a remoting server for another user device, nor does Halim disclose establishing a remoting session directly between two user devices in response to a user selection. To the contrary, Halim explicitly establishes remoting sessions between a client and a server, not between two client devices.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Momchilov discloses a remote machine serves as a master node that provides the functionality required to identify and provide address information associated with a remote machine hosting a requested application (P 0037) a user of a local computing device connects to a remote computing device (P 0062). Zhang discloses a messaging synchronizing method in an instant messaging application wherein a server detects a log-in status corresponding to an instant messaging account currently logged-in through an instant messaging application at a first terminal and determining that the instant messaging account is simultaneously logged-in from the first terminal and a second terminal (P 0006) a prompt indicating an unread message is sent to all login terminals (P 0050) data synchronization is performed a server (P 0077) when an action is performed on a first terminal of the instant messaging account, a notification is displayed on a second terminal of the instant messaging application to carry out the action requested on the first terminal (P 0094 Fig 6B).
That is, as noted above, Halim discloses an event is generated on a client device that generates a window associated with the event, but the event window may be obscured by a remote OS window. A handle of the event is transmitted to the remote server, which generates a remote OS window with a selectable graphical element for the event, and transmits the modified remote OS window to the client. The client device then displays the remote OS window with the selectable event graphical element. The claim language does not describe the meanings “remoting server,” and “remoting client” other than to distinguish the two devices. Halim can be interpreted such that the client device remotes to the remote server and the transmitted handle represents graphical information about the local OS user interface. However, Halim does not disclose that the remote server displays any information.
Momchilov discloses both a remoting server and a remoting client. Zhang discloses remoting, from the first user device to the second user device, graphical data of the local desktop of the first user device and user input received on the second user device is transmitted to the first user device to control the window of the at least one local application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
None of Halim, Momchilov and Zhang disclose graphical data of the local desktop of the first user device that is cropped at the first user device to include only a window of the at least one local application associated with the first event and to exclude a remaining portion of the local desktop of the first user device. Giralt discloses when the user has selected the window of the application to share, videoconference endpoint identifies the x and y coordinates of the area that bounds the desired window and crops the image of the screen to include only the portion of the video stream inside the area that bounds the desired window, and the cropped image is sent via a sharing window of the meeting connection so participant devices are able to view the content inside the desired window (P 0035).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145 3/25/2026
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights