DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to claims filed 03/02/2026
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims now require a connection server that performs coordinated operations across multiple remote desktops, including receiving application and file metadata, managing selectable icons, validating multiple requests, establishing communication session between file redirection managers of different remote desktops, and forwarding requests that cause a file to be transmitted between remote desktops for opening by a launched application. These operations define a particular network architecture and workflow that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and that improves the functioning of remote desktop systems by enabling seamless cross-desktop file access.
The Examiner previously characterized the claimed validation steps as a mental process. However, the amended claim makes clear that the validation occurs within a broader technical protocol executed by a connection server that orchestrates interaction among distributed software components, including file redirection managers operating on separate remote desktops. The claim recites specific data flows and machine interactions, such as receiving a third request from a first remote desktop, establishing a communication session between file is transmitted from the second remote desktop to the first remote desktop. Theses steps integrate any credential checking into a concrete technological process that enables coordinated launching and cross-desktop file access, rather than merely evaluating information or organizing human activity.
With respect to point (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In summary, Applicant argues the newly amended claims include subject matter directed towards defining a particular network architecture and workflow that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The examiner respectfully maintains the rejection. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) recites “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer")”. That is, even though the instant claims recite limitations incorporating a broader technical environment, if the underlying abstract idea limitation can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, the use of generic computing components and operations does not limit the limitation from being performed by a human, mentally or with a physical aid. At a high level, the independent claims, as currently recited, are directed to the abstract idea because the operative technical steps, such as “receiving …”, “storing …”, “forwarding …”, etc., are recited merely as conventional computer routing operations governed entirely by the abstract idea of request credential validation. Further, the identified “validating …” limitations recite no further technical detail that would exclude the broadest reasonable interpretation covering performance of the limitation in the mind. Thus, the additional limitations recited above represent nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity directed to data gathering and outputting and mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to the abstract idea and has not been integrated into practical application.
Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Moreover, the amended claim provides a technical improvement to remote desktop environments. By requiring the connection server to maintain metadata associated with selectable icons and to dynamically broker a communication session between file redirection managers when a request file resides on a different remote desktop, the claim improves the way remote applications are launched and how files are access across distributed virtual machines. This reduces the need for separate manual sessions, eliminates redundant file copying workflows, and allows seamless application execution across multiple remote desktops. Such improvements are rooted in computer networking and virtualization technology and therefore amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Even if certain individual steps could be viewed in isolation as generic operations, the claim as a whole recites a specific ordered combination that transforms the operation of the connection server into a specialized broker that coordinates launch requests and file transfers between remote desktops. The establishment of a communication session between file redirection managers and the subsequent transmission of the file across remote desktops constitutes a concrete technical implementation that is neither conventional nor purely mental. Accordingly, the amended claim is directed to a practical application that improves computer functionality and satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to point (b), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In summary, Applicant argues that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer and/or to any other technical field by necessitating “the connection server to maintain metadata … and to dynamically broker a communication session between file redirection managers” in order to “improve the way remote applications are launched and how files are access across distributed virtual machines.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), with respect to evaluating improvements in the function of a computer, recites “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.” That is, the examiner sets forth that the purported improvements, discussed by the applicant above, fail to properly identify how the computer, network technology, and/or virtualization technology is improved beyond their conventional capabilities in the claims. Consistent with MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the examiner has not uncovered the improvements, as set forth by the applicant above, in the instant specification disclosed in sufficient detail that incorporate the improvements to the connection server, remote desktops, and file redirection managers in manner beyond their conventional capabilities. As such, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to the claim as a whole reciting a specific ordered combination, the claim fails to demonstrate how the specific order of additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The order combination of limitations incorporating mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and well-understood, routine, and conventional operations are arranged in a natural operational sequence consistent with conventional computer networking practices. As discussed above, the examiner has not uncovered any improvement in the ordered combination of limitations disclosed in sufficient detail that demonstrates the claim as a whole integrating the judicial exception into practical application.
For these reasons, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection. Please see the detailed analysis in the rejection below regarding full subject matter eligibility of the claims. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided by the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 7, 9-10, and 12 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 13, 15-16, and 18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation of “validating, at the connection server, the second request based on credentials included in the second request”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “validating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally observing input, mentally evaluating the input with respect to particular logical criteria, and mentally assigning a logical truth value, e.g. true or false, to the input with respect to the criteria.
Further, the limitation of “validating, at the connection server, the third request to obtain the file using credentials included in the third request to obtain the file using credentials included in the third request”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitations of generic computing components, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The rationale provided above is applied here.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a connection server”, “a client device”, “a first remote desktop”, “a second remote desktop”, “a first file redirection manager”, and “a second file redirection manager” which are merely recitations of generic computing components or other machinery merely as tools to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “receiving … application information for an application located on a first remote desktop in response to a first request … to add the application”, “receiving, …, file information identifying a file location and a second remote desktop associated with a file”, “receiving … a second request to launch the application”, “receiving, …, a third request to obtain the file from the second remote desktop based on a determination that the file is not located on the firs remote desktop” and “wherein the file is transmitted from the second file redirection manager to the first file redirection manager for opening by the application launched on the first remote desktop” which are recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity amounting to mere data gathering and data outputting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). These elements will be further analyzed below at step 2B with regard to being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. Further still, the claims recite the following additional elements – “forwarding … the second request based on validating the second request, wherein, based on the second request, the first remote desktop launches the application for display” and “forwarding the third request to the second remote desktop” which are recitations of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the “forwarding” function is cited at such a high level of generality that these additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, the claims further recite “storing, …, the application information and the file information as metadata associated with selectable icons provided to the client device” which is recitation of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the “storing” function is cited at such a high level of generality that these additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Moreover still, the claims recite “establishing, …, a communication session between a first file redirection manager of the first remote desktop and a second file redirection manager of the second remote desktop” which is recitation of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the “establishing” function is cited at such a high level of generality that these additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has concluded that
claims 1, 20, 22, and 25 not only recite a judicial exception but the claim is directed to the judicial
exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components or other machinery as tools to apply the abstract idea and no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity and post-solution data outputting activity is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(I) “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The evidentiary requirement referenced here is found in MPEP § 2106.07 (a)(III) “(B) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05 (d), subsection II, as noting the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.” That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive and transmit data which is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 1 as it applies equally to claim 3 except that in claim 3 recites additional elements not included in claim 1: “the second request to launch the application comprises a request to launch the file using the application” which is recitation of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the “launch” function is cited at such a high level of generality that these additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, it recites additional elements of “the second request, forwarded to the first remote desktop, comprises the application information for the application and the file information for the file,” and “the file information for the file comprising at least an indication that the file is located on the second remote desktop” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “selection, by a user of the client device, of the second icon for the file” and “selection, by the user of the client device, of the first icon for the application and the file from a list of recent files displayed on the client user interface for the file”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally observing a set of icons or files, mentally evaluating the set for any particular quality or attribute, and performing a mental judgement that designates an icon as a selection, through a mental label or formation of mental preference. Further the claim recites additional elements of “transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the application information for the application, such that a first icon for the application is added to a client use interface at the client device” and “transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the file information for the file, such that a second icon for the file is added to the client user interface at the client device” which are recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity amounting to mere data outputting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(I) “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The evidentiary requirement referenced here is found in MPEP § 2106.07 (a)(III) “(B) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05 (d), subsection II, as noting the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.” That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit data which is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 1 as it applies equally to claim 7 except that in claim 7 recites additional elements not included in claim 1: “one or more processors”, “at least one memory,” and “the one or more processors and the at least one memory configured to cause the system to” which are merely recitations of generic computing components or other machinery merely as tools to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 9, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 3 as it applies equally to claim 9. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 4 as it applies equally to claim 10. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 6 as it applies equally to claim 12. Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 13, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 1 as it applies equally to claim 13 except that in claim 13 recites additional elements not included in claim 1: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations for seamlessly launching at least one of applications or files located on remote desktops” which are merely recitations of generic computing components or other machinery merely as tools to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 15, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 3 as it applies equally to claim 15. Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 16, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 4 as it applies equally to claim 16. Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 16 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 18, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 6 as it applies equally to claim 18. Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 18 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibovici et al. Patent No. 10,896,155 B2 (hereinafter Leibovici) in view of Hu et al. Pub. No. US 2018/0121030 A1 (hereinafter Hu) in view of Liu et al. Pub. No. Us 2021/0334118 A1 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Khalid et al. Patent No. US 9,798,730 B2 (hereinafter Khalid).
With regard to claim 1, Leibovici teaches a method of seamlessly launching at least one of applications or files located on remote desktops (Col. 1, lines 37-43, One or more embodiments provide techniques for seamlessly opening a file in a computing device for viewing and editing, even though the computing device may not have application installed therein to support the file type. According to the embodiments, the viewing and editing operations on files of unsupported file types are enabled seamlessly though virtual desktop or application sessions), the method comprising:
receiving, at the connection server, file information identifying a file location and a second remote desktop associated with a file (Col. 5, lines 13-21, At step 420, the request to open the file is stored in a shared file (e.g., as an XML file within a shared hidden sync folder) along with metadata of the file. The metadata of the file includes the file name, file path, file size, and the file creation time stamp. As described in further detail below, this information is used by file open agent 167 running inside a virtual machine when opening the file within an application launched in the virtual machine that is remotely accessed by client machine 108 for viewing and editing);
storing, at the connection server, the application information and the file information as metadata associated with selectable icons provided to the client device (FIG. 4, 420 Store request to open file and metadata of the file in an XML file; Col. 5, lines 13-15, At step 420, the request to open the file is stored in a shared file ( e.g., as an XML file within a shared hidden sync folder) along with metadata of the file.)
receiving, at the connection server, from the client device, a second request to launch the application (Col. 4-Col. 5, lines 66-67 and lines 1-4, FIG. 4 illustrates steps of a method executed by file open engine 113 of client machine 108 in response to a request to open a file through a remoting session. The method begins at step 410, where file open engine 113 receives the request to open a file through a remoting session (e.g., when a user selects the option to do so through context menu 213 or 223); Col. 4, lines 63-65, a file that is request to be opened is opened within the application environment),
validating, at the connection server, the second request based on credentials included in the second request (Col. 5, lines 53-61, At step 432, file open engine 113 transmits user credentials to connection broker 137 as part of a single sign-on method … Connection broker 137 determines whether or not the user credentials are proper and file open engine 113 proceeds according to the determination step 434);
forwarding, to the first remote desktop, the second request based on validating the second request, wherein, based on the second request, the first remote desktop launches the application for display at the client device (Col. 5-Col. 6, lines 61-67 and line 1, If the user credentials are determined to be proper, the user is logged not the virtual machine, which is either the user’s persistent virtual machine or the one selected at step 430, and file open engine 113 launches a virtual desktop or application client in client machine to establish a remoting session with the virtual machine to display the file that has been opened for viewing and editing by the virtual machine (step 436));
receiving, at the connection server, from the first remote desktop, a third request to obtain the file from the second remote desktop based on a determination that the file is not located on the first remote desktop (Col. 5, lines 1-11, The method begins at step 410, where file open engine 13 receives the request to open a file through a remoting session (e.g., when a use selects the option to do so through context menu 213 or 223). Then, at step 412, file open engine 113 determines if the file is in a shared sync folder such as shared folder 220 whose contents are automatically synchronized across all devices of the user through file sync server 180, or not such as file 212. If file open engine 113 determines the file is not in a shared sync folder, the file is moved or copied into a shared sync folder at step 418 before executing step 420);
validating, at the connection server, the third request to obtain the file using credentials included in the third request to obtain the file using credentials included in the third request (At step 432, file open engine 113 transmits user credentials to connection broker 137 as part of a single sign-on method …. Connection broker 137 determines whether or not the user credentials are proper and file open engine 113 proceeds according to the determination at step 434);
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach receiving application information for an application located on a remote desktop to be utilized by a client device.
Hu teaches receiving, at the connection server, the application information for an application located on a first remote desktop in response to a first request from a client device ([0018], Method 400 begins at step 402 where connection server 108 receives a request from a client 102 for a list of installed applications, and their file paths and protocol information. At step 404, connection server 108 accesses protocol table 150 located on connection server storage 140 to determine a list of installed applications of client 102) to the add the application to the connection server ([0019], Protocol table 150 is updated each time a new application is installed at client 102 and other clients whose connections to remote desktops are managed by connection server 108. For each application, the entry for that application in protocol table 150 is populated with the name or identifier of default protocol and the indication of the protocol configuration for that application);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Hu with the teachings of Leibovici in order to provide a method that teaches retrieval of application information on a remote desktop to be utilized by a client device. The motivation for applying Hu teaching with Leibovici teaching is to provide a method that allows for the collection of application names and IDs to be used in connecting to a window display server, enabling efficient launching and display of a set of remote desktop applications (Hu, [0002]). Leibovici and Hu are analogous art directed towards file operations and virtual desktop arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu with Leibovici to teach the claimed invention in order to provide seamless launch and display of applications on remote desktops.
However, Leibovici and Hu do not explicitly teach the selection of an application and file through the use of selectable icons on a client user interface.
Liu teaches storing, at the connection server, the application information and the file information as metadata associated with selectable icons provided to the client device (FIG. 2, File Icon 203a-203n, Remote App. Icon 209a-209n presented to client; [0021], The data stored in the remote data store 112 includes, for example … application information 133; [0024], The application information 133 an include information regarding remotely executed applications 118 such as the types of files the remotely executed application 118 can open. In some cases, the application information 133 can record whether the remotely executed application 118 is to be considered a default application for a particular file type. The application information 133 can include manual configurations that map particular file types to particular remotely executed applications 118; [0029], The user interface 2000 also includes … a plurality of remote application icons);
…
the second request identifying the application and the file based on selection of the selectable icons at a client user interface of the client device ([0030], Performing a drag-and-drop action of a file icon 203 relative to a remote application icon 209 or a remote desktop icon 212 causes a copy of the corresponding local file 154 to be opened by the corresponding remotely executed application 118 or remote desktop environment 121);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Leibovici and Hu in order to provide a method that teaches the management of available applications and request for execution based on selectable icon user interface. The motivation for applying Liu teaching with Leibovici and Hu teaching is to provide a method that allows for management of local and remote virtual applications and files such they may be presented and manipulated graphically to a user (Liu, [0001]-[0003]). Leibovici and Hu and Liu are analogous art directed towards file operations and virtual desktop arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Liu with Leibovici and Hu to teach the claimed invention in order to provide graphical data corresponding to a set of application for user interaction.
Leibovici reasonably teaches receiving and validating a request to open a file through a remoting session (Col. 5). However, Leibovici, Hu, and Liu do not explicitly teach the method of transmission of a file not located on a first desktop through establishing a communication session between file redirection managers of the respective remote desktops.
Khalid teaches establishing, by the connection server, a communication session (Col. 13, lines 44-59, Referring now to FIG. 5, a block diagram depicts one embodiment of a method 500 for redirecting a request for access to a folder on a first machine, the request being made by a resource executing within a remote access session on the first machine. The method includes configuring a remote access session for file system redirection (block 510)) between a first file redirection manager of the first remote desktop and a second file redirection manager of the second remote desktop (Col. 9, lines 18-22, In brief overview, the system 200 includes a first machine 102, a first component 210, a resource 230 executing on the first machine 102, a second machine 106, and a second component 220. The first component 210 on the first machine 102; Col. 10, lines 7-10, In some embodiments, the first component 210 includes a file system redirector that receives the intercepted request and transmits intercepted request to the second component 220); and
forwarding the third request to the second remote desktop (Col. 11, lines 50-56, The component 210 redirects the request to the second machine 106 responsive to the received folder mapping information (block 330). In some embodiments, the component 210 transmits the intercepted request to a file system redirector. In one of these embodiments, the file system redirector transmits the intercepted request to the second machine 106.), wherein the file is transmitted from the second file redirection manager to the first file redirection manager for opening by the application launched on the first remote desktop (Col. 11, lines 57-58 and line 61-65, In one embodiments, a second component 220 on the second machine 106 receives the redirected request … In yet another embodiment, the second component 220 transmits to the first machine 102, an enumeration of the requested at least one file or object for display by the resource 230 executing on the first machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Khalid with the teachings of Leibovici, Hu, and Liu in order to provide a method that teaches communication method of redirecting a request to access of a file located on an independent destination machine from a source machine. The motivation for applying Khalid teaching with Leibovici, Hu, and Liu teaching is to provide a method that allows for request access routing across remote device such that enables organized management of folders and files such that the requesting application receives and modifies the appropriate file from the appropriate machine (Khalid, Col. 1-Col. 2). Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid are analogous art directed towards file operations and virtual desktop arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Khalid with Leibovici, Hu, and Liu to teach the claimed invention in order to provide .
With regard to claim 3, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
Leibovici further teaches the second request to launch the application comprises a request to launch the file using the application (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Once the file in the virtual machine is synchronized, file open agent 167, at 524 launches the application within which the file can be opened for viewing and editing. In the example where the file is a Microsoft Visio® file, the Microsoft Visio® application is launched at step 524. After the application has been launched, file open agent 167 opens the file within the application at step 526); and
based on the second request, the first remote desktop launches the file using the application for display at the client device (Col. 6, lines 50-60, At step 528, the display of the application environment that is to be transmitted to client machine 108 is generated … At step 530, the generated display is transmitted to client machine 108).
With regard to claim 4, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the method of claim 3, wherein:
Leibovici further teaches the second request, forwarded to the first remote desktop, comprises … the file information for the file, the file information for the file comprising at least an indication that the file is located on the second remote desktop (Col. 5, lines 13-21, At step 420, the request to open the file is stored in a shared file (e.g., as an XML file within a shared hidden sync folder) along with metadata of the file. The metadata of the file includes the file name, file path, file size, and the file creation time stamp. As described in further detail below, this information is used by file open agent 167 running inside a virtual machine when opening the file within an application launched in the virtual machine that is remotely accessed by client machine 108 for viewing and editing).
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach the application information for the application.
Hu teaches the application information for the application ([0018], Method 400 begins at step 402 where connection server 108 receives a request from a client 102 for a list of installed applications, and their file paths and protocol information. At step 404, connection server 108 accesses protocol table 150 located on connection server storage 140 to determine a list of installed applications of client 102)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Hu with the teachings of Leibovici, Liu, and Khalid in order to provide a method that teaches retrieval of application information on a remote desktop to be utilized by a client device. The motivation for applying Hu teaching with of Leibovici, Liu, and Khalid teaching is to provide a method that allows for the collection of application names and IDs to be used in connecting to a window display server, enabling efficient launching and display of a set of remote desktop applications (Hu, [0002]). of Leibovici, Liu, Khalid, and Hu are analogous art directed towards file operations and virtual desktop arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu with Leibovici to teach the claimed invention in order to provide seamless launch and display of applications on remote desktops.
With regard to claim 7, Leibovici teaches A system comprising (Col. 9, line 5, a computer system):
one or more processors (Col. 9, line 10, a processor); and
at least one memory, the one or more processors and the at least one memory configured to cause the system to (Col. 9, lines 9-11, a memory storing instructions; and a processor wherein the processor is programmed to carry out a method):
Claim 7 is a system having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 9, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the system of claim 8, wherein:
Leibovici further teaches the second request to launch the application comprises a request to launch the file using the application (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Once the file in the virtual machine is synchronized, file open agent 167, at 524 launches the application within which the file can be opened for viewing and editing. In the example where the file is a Microsoft Visio® file, the Microsoft Visio® application is launched at step 524. After the application has been launched, file open agent 167 opens the file within the application at step 526); and
based on the second request, the first remote desktop launches the file using the application for display at the client device (Col. 6, lines 50-60, At step 528, the display of the application environment that is to be transmitted to client machine 108 is generated … At step 530, the generated display is transmitted to client machine 108).
With regard to claim 10, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach teaches the system of claim 9, wherein:
Leibovici further teaches the second request, forwarded to the first remote desktop, comprises … the file information for the file, the file information for the file comprising at least an indication that the file is located on the second remote desktop (Col. 5, lines 13-21, At step 420, the request to open the file is stored in a shared file (e.g., as an XML file within a shared hidden sync folder) along with metadata of the file. The metadata of the file includes the file name, file path, file size, and the file creation time stamp. As described in further detail below, this information is used by file open agent 167 running inside a virtual machine when opening the file within an application launched in the virtual machine that is remotely accessed by client machine 108 for viewing and editing).
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach the application information for the application.
Hu teaches the application information for the application ([0018], Method 400 begins at step 402 where connection server 108 receives a request from a client 102 for a list of installed applications, and their file paths and protocol information. At step 404, connection server 108 accesses protocol table 150 located on connection server storage 140 to determine a list of installed applications of client 102) which is substantially similar to claim 4, and therefore rejected with similar rationale.
Examiner notes: It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 10 is being substantially recited again for the method of claim 4.
With regard to claim 13, Leibovici teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations for seamlessly launching at least one of applications or files located on remote desktops (Col. 10, lines 5-7, A non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method), the operations comprising:
Claim 3 is a non-transitory computer readable medium having similar limitations to claim 1. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 15, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein:
Leibovici teaches the second request to launch the application comprises a request to launch the file using the application (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Once the file in the virtual machine is synchronized, file open agent 167, at 524 launches the application within which the file can be opened for viewing and editing. In the example where the file is a Microsoft Visio® file, the Microsoft Visio® application is launched at step 524. After the application has been launched, file open agent 167 opens the file within the application at step 526); and
based on the second request, the first remote desktop launches the file using the application for display at the client device (Col. 6, lines 50-60, At step 528, the display of the application environment that is to be transmitted to client machine 108 is generated … At step 530, the generated display is transmitted to client machine 108).
With regard to claim 16, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein:
Leibovici further teaches the second request, forwarded to the first remote desktop, comprises … the file information for the file, the file information for the file comprising at least an indication that the file is located on the second remote desktop (Col. 5, lines 13-21, At step 420, the request to open the file is stored in a shared file (e.g., as an XML file within a shared hidden sync folder) along with metadata of the file. The metadata of the file includes the file name, file path, file size, and the file creation time stamp. As described in further detail below, this information is used by file open agent 167 running inside a virtual machine when opening the file within an application launched in the virtual machine that is remotely accessed by client machine 108 for viewing and editing).
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach the application information for the application.
Hu teaches the application information for the application ([0018], Method 400 begins at step 402 where connection server 108 receives a request from a client 102 for a list of installed applications, and their file paths and protocol information. At step 404, connection server 108 accesses protocol table 150 located on connection server storage 140 to determine a list of installed applications of client 102) which is substantially similar to claim 4, and therefore rejected with similar rationale.
Examiner notes: It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 16 is being substantially recited again for the method of claim 4.
Claims 6, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibovici in view of Hu in view of Liu in view of Khalid as applied to claims 4, 10, 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Arrouye et al. Pub. No. US 2018/0335902 A1 (hereinafter Arrouye).
With regard to claim 6, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the method of claim 4, further comprising:
Leibovici further teaches transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the file information for the file, such that a second icon for the file is added to the client user interface at the client device (Fig. 2B, drawing.vsd icon 222; Col. 4, lines 29-39, In FIG. 2B, a user has opened a shared folder 220, the contents of which are synchronized in the same manner as shared files 182 described above. Shared folder 220 includes a file 222 which has the extension “.vsd” that may not be supported by the underlying computing device, which in the embodiment illustrated herein is the tablet computer. As a way to enable the user of the tablet computer open such a file for viewing and editing, a file open engine 113 is implemented in the tablet computer and the user is given an option to open the file for viewing and editing through a remoting session),
wherein the second request to launch the file is received via:
selection, by a user of the client device, of the second icon for the file (Col. 4, lines 39-45, The option is displayed through a context menu 223, which may be brought up according to any technically feasible method, currently known or future developed (e.g., a mouse right click or a touch screen input equivalent to a mouse right click). When this option is selected, file open engine 113 carries out the method of FIG. 4 (request to launch file)); or
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach a request to launch the file received via selection of a first icon associated with an application.
In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches selection, by the user of the client device, of the first icon for the application (Fig. 2, Remote App. Icon 209a-209N; [0029], The user interface 200 also includes a remote workspace user interface 206 rendered by the remote workspace client 149. In this example, the emote workspace user interface 206 includes a plurality of the remote application icons 209a, 209b, … 209N, corresponding to remotely executable applications 118 … Clicking, double clicking, tapping, or other user actions relative to a remote application icon 209 or remote desktop icon 212 can cause remote workspace client 149 to open a session with an instance of the corresponding remotely executed application 118 or remote desktop environment 121)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Leibovici, Hu, and Khalid in order to provide a method that teaches request launching associated with selection of an application icon. The motivation for applying Liu teaching with Leibovici, Hu, and Khalid teaching is to provide a method that allows for application execution abstraction such that the user may launch an application in association with a particular file through graphical means without requiring application capability knowledge or manual configuring application and file locations (Liu, [0009]-[0010]). Leibovici, Hu, and Khalid and Liu are analogous art directed towards virtual desktop arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Liu with Leibovici, Hu, and Khalid to teach the claimed invention in order to provide graphical data corresponding to a set of application for user interaction.
However, the Leibovici and Liu does not explicitly teach transmission of application information to display an icon to a client user interface.
Hu teaches transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the application information for the application ([0016], At step 206, client 102 receives the requested information from the connection server 108. The protocol information includes a name or identifier of a protocol and an indication of a protocol configuration), such that a first icon for the application is added to a client user interface at the client device (FIG. 3, Application with application information presented with GUI selection; [0016], The recommended protocol and protocol configuration are presented as default choices that may be modified by the user, for example by using the drop-down menu);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Hu with the teachings of Leibovici, Liu, and Khalid in order to provide a method that teaches transmission of application information to display an icon of the application on a client user interface. The motivation for applying Hu teaching with Leibovici, Liu, and Khalid teaching is to provide a method that allows for a user to obtain visual data and transmit input information in response executing remote devices seamlessly on a local device (Hu, [0013]). Leibovici, Liu, Khalid, and Hu are analogous art directed towards file operations and remote windowing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu with Leibovici and Liu to teach the claimed invention in order to provide search accessible means of receiving interactive icons to seamlessly launch remote applications.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach a display of a list of recent files for selection.
Arrouye teaches the file from a list of recent files displayed on the client user interface for the file (Fig. 3C, Recents 244; [0073], Fig. 3C, depicts how customized folders can used to intelligently display files for selection, according to some embodiments. As depicted in user interface 310 in FIG. 3C, recents button 244 can be selected to display the … files 202-2, 204-2, 216-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Arrouye with the teachings of Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid in order to provide a method that teaches selection of a file from a list of recent files display on a client user interface. The motivation for applying Arrouye teaching with Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teaching is to provide a method that allows for different, relevant categorical lists of files to be intelligently displayed to a user, such that allows for a method to present files of interest to a user in an efficient and meaningful manner (Arrouye, [0003]). Leibovici, Hu, Liu, Khalid, and Arrouye are analogous art directed towards information retrieval and file operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Arrouye with Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid to teach the claimed invention in order to provide a categorized display of recent files, thereby enabling efficient presentation of files of interest to a user for selection.
With regard to claim 12, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors and the at least one memory are further configured to cause the system to:
Leibovici further teaches transmit, from the connection server to the client device, the file information for the file, such that a second icon for the file is added to the client user interface at the client device (Fig. 2B, drawing.vsd icon 222; Col. 4, lines 29-39, In FIG. 2B, a user has opened a shared folder 220, the contents of which are synchronized in the same manner as shared files 182 described above. Shared folder 220 includes a file 222 which has the extension “.vsd” that may not be supported by the underlying computing device, which in the embodiment illustrated herein is the tablet computer. As a way to enable the user of the tablet computer open such a file for viewing and editing, a file open engine 113 is implemented in the tablet computer and the user is given an option to open the file for viewing and editing through a remoting session),
wherein the second request to launch the file is received via:
selection, by a user of the client device, of the second icon for the file (Col. 4, lines 39-45, The option is displayed through a context menu 223, which may be brought up according to any technically feasible method, currently known or future developed (e.g., a mouse right click or a touch screen input equivalent to a mouse right click). When this option is selected, file open engine 113 carries out the method of FIG. 4 (request to launch file)); or
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach a request to launch the file received via selection of a first icon associated with an application.
In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches selection, by the user of the client device, of the first icon for the application (Fig. 2, Remote App. Icon 209a-209N; [0029], The user interface 200 also includes a remote workspace user interface 206 rendered by the remote workspace client 149. In this example, the emote workspace user interface 206 includes a plurality of the remote application icons 209a, 209b, … 209N, corresponding to remotely executable applications 118 … Clicking, double clicking, tapping, or other user actions relative to a remote application icon 209 or remote desktop icon 212 can cause remote workspace client 149 to open a session with an instance of the corresponding remotely executed application 118 or remote desktop environment 121)
Rationale to claim 6 applied here.
However, the Leibovici and Liu does not explicitly teach transmission of application information to display an icon to a client user interface.
Hu teaches transmit, from the connection server to the client device, the application information for the application ([0016], At step 206, client 102 receives the requested information from the connection server 108. The protocol information includes a name or identifier of a protocol and an indication of a protocol configuration), such that a first icon for the application is added to a client user interface at the client device (FIG. 3, Application with application information presented with GUI selection; [0016], The recommended protocol and protocol configuration are presented as default choices that may be modified by the user, for example by using the drop-down menu) which is substantially similar to limitation of claim 6, and therefore rejected using similar rationale.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach a display of a list of recent files for selection.
Arrouye teaches the file from a list of recent files displayed on the client user interface for the file (Fig. 3C, Recents 244; [0073], Fig. 3C, depicts how customized folders can used to intelligently display files for selection, according to some embodiments. As depicted in user interface 310 in FIG. 3C, recents button 244 can be selected to display the … files 202-2, 204-2, 216-2) which is substantially similar to limitation of claim 6, and therefore rejected using similar rationale.
Examiner notes: It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that limitations of claim 12 is being substantially recited again for the method of claim 6.
With regard to claim 18, Leibovici, Hu, Liu, and Khalid teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise:
Leibovici further teaches transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the file information for the file, such that a second icon for the file is added to the client user interface at the client device (Fig. 2B, drawing.vsd icon 222; Col. 4, lines 29-39, In FIG. 2B, a user has opened a shared folder 220, the contents of which are synchronized in the same manner as shared files 182 described above. Shared folder 220 includes a file 222 which has the extension “.vsd” that may not be supported by the underlying computing device, which in the embodiment illustrated herein is the tablet computer. As a way to enable the user of the tablet computer open such a file for viewing and editing, a file open engine 113 is implemented in the tablet computer and the user is given an option to open the file for viewing and editing through a remoting session),
wherein the second request to launch the file is received via:
selection, by a user of the client device, of the second icon for the file (Col. 4, lines 39-45, The option is displayed through a context menu 223, which may be brought up according to any technically feasible method, currently known or future developed (e.g., a mouse right click or a touch screen input equivalent to a mouse right click). When this option is selected, file open engine 113 carries out the method of FIG. 4 (request to launch file)); or
However, Leibovici does not explicitly teach a request to launch the file received via selection of a first icon associated with an application.
In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches selection, by the user of the client device, of the first icon for the application (Fig. 2, Remote App. Icon 209a-209N; [0029], The user interface 200 also includes a remote workspace user interface 206 rendered by the remote workspace client 149. In this example, the emote workspace user interface 206 includes a plurality of the remote application icons 209a, 209b, … 209N, corresponding to remotely executable applications 118 … Clicking, double clicking, tapping, or other user actions relative to a remote application icon 209 or remote desktop icon 212 can cause remote workspace client 149 to open a session with an instance of the corresponding remotely executed application 118 or remote desktop environment 121)
Rationale to claim 6 applied here.
However, the Leibovici and Liu does not explicitly teach transmission of application information to display an icon to a client user interface.
Hu teaches transmitting, from the connection server to the client device, the application information for the application ([0016], At step 206, client 102 receives the requested information from the connection server 108. The protocol information includes a name or identifier of a protocol and an indication of a protocol configuration), such that a first icon for the application is added to a client user interface at the client device (FIG. 3, Application with application information presented with GUI selection; [0016], The recommended protocol and protocol configuration are presented as default choices that may be modified by the user, for example by using the drop-down menu) which is substantially similar to limitation of claim 6, and therefore rejected using similar rationale.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach a display of a list of recent files for selection.
Arrouye teaches the file from a list of recent files displayed on the client user interface for the file (Fig. 3C, Recents 244; [0073], Fig. 3C, depicts how customized folders can used to intelligently display files for selection, according to some embodiments. As depicted in user interface 310 in FIG. 3C, recents button 244 can be selected to display the … files 202-2, 204-2, 216-2) which is substantially similar to limitation of claim 6, and therefore rejected using similar rationale.
Examiner notes: It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that limitations of claim 18 is being substantially recited again for the method of claim 6.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,182,126 B2
teaches
Abstract, Multilevel redirection can be performed in a VDI environment. When a user establishes a second remote session within a first remote session, various redirection techniques can be configured to span both remote sessions so that redirection will be available within the second remote session in the same manner that redirection was available in the first remote session.
US 2021/0014317 A1
teaches
[0004], Herein described are one or more embodiments of a method. The method generally includes: receiving, from a user of a client device, first input indicating: a location on a remote device; and a file type; identifying a file corresponding to the file type at the location; generating a graphical representation of the file; providing the graphical representation of the file to the user; receiving, from the user, second input corresponding to the graphical representation of the file; identifying stored credentials based on the second input; initiating a virtual desktop session using the stored credentials; providing a remote interface to the virtual desktop session on the client device; launching an application within the virtual desktop session; and opening the file within the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN A CASTANEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-0465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/I.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights