Detailed Action
1. This office action is in response to communication filed May 4, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-24 are currently pending and claim 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Amendment
3. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on May 4, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17-18 are amended. Claims 7, 14, and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 22-24 are new claims. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-24 remain pending in the application.
The amendment filed May 4, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as follows:
receiving, from the remote desktop, rendering data corresponding to a window of the executed remote desktop component, and transforming the rendering data to remove content associated with the remote desktop outside of the window, thereby generating a modified window that excludes a remote desktop user interface of the remote desktop; and
presenting the modified window via the local OS as a local application window.
The added material to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not disclosed in the Specification based upon the Examiner’s review of the Specification following claim amendments. The Applicant does not disclose in the Remarks where the Applicant believes the claim limitations are disclosed in the Specification, so the Examiner is given no specific citations to reference. As such, the new claim limitations are new matter instantiated in the amendments to the claims filed May 4, 2026.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 11-13 of Remarks, the Applicant respectfully submitted that the independent claim 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite features not taught or disclosed in the cited references.
A. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The amendments to the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not overcome the prior art rejections made over Patnaik (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0266986) in view of Clark et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0144283). The Examiner has cited prior art citations that disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that Clark does not disclose registering remote components with native OS resources to make them searchable. The Examiner’s rejection includes the combination of Patnaik disclosing registering remote components with native OS resources and Clark discloses searching remote and local files at the same time, so the combination is made obvious to be able to search remote components. Additionally, the limitations regarding modifying a remote desktop interface as a content window and presenting the modified window is clearly disclosed in Patnaik based upon displaying the remote desktop or a remote-application environment which is presented instead of a full desktop of the VM, so the remote-application environment maps to a modified window as it does not show the remote desktop, only the remote-application environment on the local system’s display. As such, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 despite amendments, and further all claims 1-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In the Conclusion section on page 13 of Remarks, the Applicant respectfully submitted that the application is now believed to be in condition for allowance.
B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Following amendment to the claims, the Examiner believes the Applicant has asserted new matter into the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 that are not believed to be supported by the original disclosure.
The amendment filed May 4, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as follows:
receiving, from the remote desktop, rendering data corresponding to a window of the executed remote desktop component, and transforming the rendering data to remove content associated with the remote desktop outside of the window, thereby generating a modified window that excludes a remote desktop user interface of the remote desktop; and
presenting the modified window via the local OS as a local application window.
The added material to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not disclosed in the Specification based upon the Examiner’s review of the Specification following claim amendments. The Applicant does not disclose in the Remarks where the Applicant believes the claim limitations are disclosed in the Specification, so the Examiner is given no specific citations to reference. As such, the new claim limitations are new matter instantiated in the amendments to the claims filed May 4, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as follows:
receiving, from the remote desktop, rendering data corresponding to a window of the executed remote desktop component, and transforming the rendering data to remove content associated with the remote desktop outside of the window, thereby generating a modified window that excludes a remote desktop user interface of the remote desktop; and
presenting the modified window via the local OS as a local application window.
The added material to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not disclosed in the Specification based upon the Examiner’s review of the Specification following claim amendments. The Applicant does not disclose in the Remarks where the Applicant believes the claim limitations are disclosed in the Specification, so the Examiner is given no specific citations to reference. As such, the new claim limitations are new matter instantiated in the amendments to the claims filed May 4, 2026.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0266986) in view of Clark et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0144283) – hereinafter “Clark”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Patnaik discloses:
A method to localize remote desktops to a local operating system (OS) on a client device, (Abstract “One method, performed by a remote desktop application executing on a client device, includes detecting an input for opening a file of the client device at a VM associated with the remote desktop application. … The method further includes an operation for causing presentation of a user interface (UI) of the application in the remote desktop application, the UI comprising information about the opened file.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop contains remote desktop applications executing on a client device to open both local and remote files.
the method comprising:
installing a remote desktop client on the client device to operate as at least one background service that communicates with the local OS of the client device; ([0030] “One general aspect includes a method, performed by a remote desktop application executing on a client device, that includes an operation for detecting an input for opening a file of the client device at a virtual machine (VM) associated with the remote desktop application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop client detects an input for opening a file on the VM.
identifying, by the remote desktop client, a remote desktop component associated with a remote desktop to register with the local OS for localization, wherein identifying includes obtaining, from a connection server, remote desktop information that identifies the remote desktop and the remote desktop component; ([0043] “The cloud service stores the files of the user in a remote location, such as a cloud storage server. In some cases, the files in the remote location maybe synchronized with a local folder that stores copies of all or some of the files in the cloud storage, that is, the cloud service guarantees that the copies on the cloud storage and the local machine are the same. This way, when a client device accesses a file from the cloud storage, the local copy may be used if the local copy is current.” and [0049] “At operation 302, the VM server collects information on the associations available for the VM, that is, which programs are available for opening files and the information is stored by the VM server, e.g., in a database. At operation 304, the associations available for the VM are configured in the remote desktop executing on the client device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the local and remote files are guaranteed to be the same copy of the file whether in the cloud or on the local device. There are associations made between remote desktop and its components so that they can properly exist on the client device.
registering, by the remote desktop client, the remote desktop component with the local OS as a local resource … wherein the registering causes the remote desktop component to be presented on a user interface (UI) of the local OS together with local content including one or more of: local drives, folders, files or applications; (Fig. 2 and [0041-0042] “FIG. 2 is a UI 102 showing cloud storage on the local client device accessible by the VM, according to some example embodiments. The UI 202 corresponds to the desktop view of the client device 104. In the illustrated example, the UI 202 includes the remote desktop window 212 for interfacing with the remote VM. Further, the UI 202 presents a desktop for the OS executing on the computing device. The desktop includes several folders, such as “This PC” folder 204 for accessing the file system of the client device, a cloud folder 206 for accessing a file directory provided by a cloud service, and a network folder for presenting network information of the client device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop components are shown on the UI as local resources in the cloud folder directly next to PC and Network folders via the local OS.
receiving, on the UI of the local OS of the client device, a request to invoke the remote desktop component; ([0048-0050] “Associations refer to mapping a file type (e.g., as defined by its extension in the file name) to the application that will open the file when the file is selected for opening. At operation 304, the associations available for the VM are configured in the remote desktop executing on the client device. During use of the redirection option for opening files from the cloud server, operations 306, 308, 310, and 312 are performed. At operation 306, the remote desktop, executing on the client device, invokes an association to open a certain file selected by the user on the remote desktop window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop component is invoked based on the association to open a file on the remote desktop window.
redirecting, by the remote desktop component, the request to the remote desktop, wherein the remote desktop component is executed in response to the request; ([0050] “During use of the redirection option for opening files from the cloud server, operations 306, 308, 310, and 312 are performed. At operation 306, the remote desktop, executing on the client device, invokes an association to open a certain file selected by the user on the remote desktop window. At operation 308, the command is translated by the remote desktop (e.g., formatted for transmittal to the server with instructions to open an application with the given file), and, at operation 308, the remote desktop sends the request to the VM server with information about the location of the filed to be opened (e.g., the location of the file on cloud storage).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop component redirects the request to the VM server with information about the request of the location of the file that is to be opened.
receiving, from the remote desktop, rendering data corresponding to a window of the executed remote desktop component, transforming the rendering data to remove content associated with the remote desktop outside of the window, thereby generating a modified window that excludes a remote desktop user interface of the remote desktop; and (Fig. 2 representing Remote Desktop window on local OS and [0042] “In the illustrated example, the UI 202 includes the remote desktop window 212 for interfacing with the remote VM. Further, the UI 202 presents a desktop for the OS executing on the computing device.” and [0050] “During use of the redirection option for opening files from the cloud server, operations 306, 308, 310, and 312 are performed. At operation 306, the remote desktop, executing on the client device, invokes an association to open a certain file selected by the user on the remote desktop window. At operation 308, the command is translated by the remote desktop (e.g., formatted for transmittal to the server with instructions to open an application with the given file), and, at operation 308, the remote desktop sends the request to the VM server with information about the location of the filed to be opened (e.g., the location of the file on cloud storage).” and [0052] “It is noted that embodiments are described with reference to remote desktops, but the same principles may be applied to remote-application environments where the window of an application is presented instead of the desktop on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the embodiment showing the remote desktop window in Fig. 2 also applies to an embodiment of a window of an application presented instead of a desktop of the VM in which it is a modified window that includes the remote application rather than the remote desktop user interface.
presenting the modified window via the local OS as a local application window. (Fig. 2 representing Remote Desktop window on local OS and [0042] “In the illustrated example, the UI 202 includes the remote desktop window 212 for interfacing with the remote VM. Further, the UI 202 presents a desktop for the OS executing on the computing device.” and [0050] “During use of the redirection option for opening files from the cloud server, operations 306, 308, 310, and 312 are performed. At operation 306, the remote desktop, executing on the client device, invokes an association to open a certain file selected by the user on the remote desktop window. At operation 308, the command is translated by the remote desktop (e.g., formatted for transmittal to the server with instructions to open an application with the given file), and, at operation 308, the remote desktop sends the request to the VM server with information about the location of the filed to be opened (e.g., the location of the file on cloud storage).” and [0052] “It is noted that embodiments are described with reference to remote desktops, but the same principles may be applied to remote-application environments where the window of an application is presented instead of the desktop on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the embodiment showing the remote desktop window in Fig. 2 also applies to an embodiment of a window of an application presented instead of a desktop of the VM in which it is a modified window that includes the remote application rather than the full remote desktop user interface presented in the local OS to the user.
Patnaik does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the remote desktop client from the remote desktop, information regarding the identified remote desktop component that enables registration of the remote desktop component with the local OS;
… such that the remote desktop component is exposed through one or more native user interface elements of the local OS including at least one of: a file explorer interface, an application selection menu, or a search interface and is invocable via user input on the one or more native user interface elements …
presenting, by the local OS, a user interface (UI) that shows the registered remote desktop component as being local on the client device along with local content that resides on the local device;
However, Clark discloses:
receiving, by the remote desktop client from the remote desktop, information regarding the identified remote desktop component that enables registration of the remote desktop component with the local OS; and ([0011] “Given user credentials for the remote application or service, the file usage aggregator module can retrieve the remote file usage statistics from one or more remote hosts via a Web API (application programming interface) or other interface. The file usage aggregator module can then present a single view of usage characteristics of files from both local and remote sources.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the information regarding remote files and applications is received which can be used to present usage characteristics for local and remote files.
… such that the remote desktop component is exposed through one or more native user interface elements of the local OS including at least one of: a file explorer interface, an application selection menu, or a search interface and is invocable via user input on the one or more native user interface elements … (Fig. 4 and [0011] “The file usage aggregator module can, in some embodiments, include a search function to perform a unified search for files by file name or content, from both the local and remote sources. The file usage aggregator module can display annotated information for each file in the unified file usage list, for example showing the file name, last time of access, or other information.” and [0023] “In embodiments as shown in FIG. 4, once file usage aggregator module 108 generates combined usage data 122, the file selector list 128 and other information can be presented to the user in file browser 112. … The selection of any file in file selector list 128 can be transparent to the user with regard to local or remote location. The file browser 112 therefore presents the user with a unified view of their local and remote file for convenient browsing and selection, in combined order of most recent use.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, both the search interface and file browser show local and remote sources in a shared interface of the local OS.
presenting, by the local OS, a user interface (UI) that shows the registered remote desktop component as being local on the client device along with local content that resides on the local device. (Fig. 4 Desktop Sidebar 138 and [0027] “In embodiments, in addition to being viewable in a full-function file browser 112, a selected number of sorted files from local and remote sources can be shown in a desktop sidebar 138, or other visible or readily accessible selected area or part of the user interface 132 of client 102.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote files are shown in the same desktop sidebar as local files.
Both Patnaik and Clark are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the cloud file usage art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patnaik's remote file loading on the local OS because Clark's remote file loading is based upon combining local and remote file usage to aggregate file usage statistics together for both local and remote files such that remote files can be searched/displayed in local OS user interfaces.
Motivation would improve cloud file usage on a user’s local devices based upon allowing searchability of both remote and local files at the same time via the same interfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the remote desktop component includes one or more of: the remote desktop, a drive of the remote desktop, a folder of the remote desktop, a remote application installed on the remote desktop, or a remote file on the remote desktop. (Fig. 2 and [0043-0044] “The cloud service stores the files of the user in a remote location, such as a cloud storage server. In some cases, the files in the remote location maybe synchronized with a local folder that stores copies of all or some of the files in the cloud storage, that is, the cloud service guarantees that the copies on the cloud storage and the local machine are the same. This way, when a client device accesses a file from the cloud storage, the local copy may be used if the local copy is current. In this example, the remote desktop window 212 includes a “This PC” file folder 210 with information on the file system of the VM. The file system of the VM includes a local C: drive (local to the VM), a D: drive that corresponds to the C: drive on the client device named Desktop-0A42, and a drive E: that corresponds to the cloud storage of the client device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop in Fig. 2 shows folders including Desktop, Documents, and Downloads and drives including local VM C: drive, client device C: drive mapped to the D: drive, and cloud storage E: drive which contain files that are guaranteed to be the same on the local client device and VM.
Regarding claim 3, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the registered remote desktop component presented on the UI includes a remote application, wherein the local content includes a local file, (Fig. 6, Remote Desktop 112 + Applications 612 + Local File 504 and [0068] “In the remote desktop 112, the applications 612 are shown as available for the VM and are executed on the VM server 402 when needed. In this scenario, the local file 504 is to be opened by the VM and associated with one of the applications 612 available on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop is used to open a local file with a remote application.
and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to selection of the local file for opening by the remote application presented on the UI, redirecting the local file to the remote desktop; ([0069] “Initially, the remote desktop 112 gets 621 the association information and stores 622 the information on the association manager 614. When the user selects 623, on the remote desktop 112, the local file 504 on the client device 104 for opening, the association manager 614 launches 624 the application 612 in the remote desktop with the parameters associated with the association for the local file 504.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop 112 receives the local file 504 for opening in the remote application 612.
opening the local file on the remote desktop using the remote application; and ([0070] “Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application (e.g., application 612) on the VM with the local file VM copy 508. The application is then shown in the remote desktop 112.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the local file is opened in the VM and shown in the remote desktop.
presenting the local file in the modified window of the remote application, wherein the modified window has the content of the remote desktop interface cropped out. ([0070] “Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application (e.g., application 612) on the VM with the local file VM copy 508. The application is then shown in the remote desktop 112.” and [0052] “It is noted that embodiments are described with reference to remote desktops, but the same principles may be applied to remote-application environments where the window of an application is presented instead of the desktop on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the local file is opened in the application and shown in a window of an application rather than as an entire desktop.
Regarding claim 4, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the registered remote desktop component presented on the UI includes the remote desktop, wherein the local content includes a local file, (Fig. 6, Remote Desktop 112 + Applications 612 + Local File 504 and [0068] “In the remote desktop 112, the applications 612 are shown as available for the VM and are executed on the VM server 402 when needed. In this scenario, the local file 504 is to be opened by the VM and associated with one of the applications 612 available on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop is used to open a local file with a remote application.
and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to selection of the local file for opening on the remote desktop presented on the UI, redirecting the local file to the remote desktop; ([0069] “Initially, the remote desktop 112 gets 621 the association information and stores 622 the information on the association manager 614. When the user selects 623, on the remote desktop 112, the local file 504 on the client device 104 for opening, the association manager 614 launches 624 the application 612 in the remote desktop with the parameters associated with the association for the local file 504.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop 112 receives the local file 504 for opening in the remote application 612.
opening the local file on the remote desktop using a default remote application installed on the remote desktop; and ([0070] “Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application (e.g., application 612) on the VM with the local file VM copy 508. The application is then shown in the remote desktop 112.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the local file is opened in the VM and shown in the remote desktop.
presenting the local file in the modified window of the default remote application, wherein the modified window has the content of the remote desktop interface cropped out. ([0070] “Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application (e.g., application 612) on the VM with the local file VM copy 508. The application is then shown in the remote desktop 112.” and [0052] “It is noted that embodiments are described with reference to remote desktops, but the same principles may be applied to remote-application environments where the window of an application is presented instead of the desktop on the VM.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the local file is opened in the application and shown in a window of an application rather than as an entire desktop.
Regarding claim 5, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the registered remote desktop component presented on the UI includes a remote folder, (Fig. 2 and [0043-0044] “The cloud service stores the files of the user in a remote location, such as a cloud storage server. In some cases, the files in the remote location maybe synchronized with a local folder that stores copies of all or some of the files in the cloud storage, that is, the cloud service guarantees that the copies on the cloud storage and the local machine are the same. This way, when a client device accesses a file from the cloud storage, the local copy may be used if the local copy is current. In this example, the remote desktop window 212 includes a “This PC” file folder 210 with information on the file system of the VM. The file system of the VM includes a local C: drive (local to the VM), a D: drive that corresponds to the C: drive on the client device named Desktop-0A42, and a drive E: that corresponds to the cloud storage of the client device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remote desktop in Fig. 2 shows folders including Desktop, Documents, and Downloads and drives including local VM C: drive, client device C: drive mapped to the D: drive, and cloud storage E: drive which contain files that are guaranteed to be the same on the local client device and VM.
and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to selection of a remote file, in the remote folder presented on the UI, for opening, checking the remote desktop to determine if the remote file is located on the remote desktop; ([0057] “The cloud file 510 may have a copy on the client device 104, referred to as cloud file client copy 502. The cloud file client copy 502 may be a copy of the cloud file 510 (e.g., when the cloud storage is synchronized), or may be a reference to the cloud file 510, and when the client device 104 needs to access the cloud file 510, then the cloud file 510 is copied to the client device 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the cloud file may be a file already stored on the necessary device or just a reference to the file and must be copied to access it.
in response to the remote file being located on the remote desktop, opening the remote file on the remote desktop using a remote application installed on the remote desktop; and ([0080] “In other embodiments, the association information kept by the VM server 402 is used to automatically trigger the download of the cloud file 510. Thus, for the remote desktop 112, the operations are the same for opening a local file or a cloud file, but the VM server 402 will detect when the file to open is in cloud storage and will automatically download from cloud storage.” and [0077] “At operation 726, the VM server downloads the cloud file 510 from storage and stores the transferred file as cloud file VM copy 506. Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application 612 on the VM for the cloud file VM copy 506, which is shown in the remote desktop 112.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the cloud file is downloaded automatically to be located on the necessary remote desktop and opened in the application on the VM and shown in the remote desktop.
in response to the remote file being located on some other remote desktop, redirecting the remote file to the remote desktop and opening the remote file using the remote application installed on the remote desktop. ([0076-0077] “At operation 625, the remote desktop 112 sends a request to the VM server 402 to open the cloud file 510 on the VM with the corresponding application (e.g., application 604), and the request includes the location of the cloud file 510. At operation 726, the VM server downloads the cloud file 510 from storage and stores the transferred file as cloud file VM copy 506. Then, the VM server 402 opens 627 the application 612 on the VM for the cloud file VM copy 506, which is shown in the remote desktop 112.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the cloud file is downloaded and opened in the application on the VM and shown in the remote desktop.
Regarding claim 6, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
performing a search on the local OS for local content, including a keyword search; and
presenting a hitlist that matches the search for local content, wherein the hitlist includes the registered remote desktop component.
However, Clark discloses:
performing a search on the local OS for local content, including a keyword search; and ([0011] “The file usage aggregator module can, in some embodiments, include a search function to perform a unified search for files by file name or content, from both the local and remote sources. The file usage aggregator module can display annotated information for each file in the unified file usage list, for example showing the file name, last time of access, or other information.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, there is a search function to perform a search for files by file name.
presenting a hitlist that matches the search for local content, wherein the hitlist includes the registered remote desktop component. ([0011] “The file usage aggregator module can, in some embodiments, include a search function to perform a unified search for files by file name or content, from both the local and remote sources. The file usage aggregator module can display annotated information for each file in the unified file usage list, for example showing the file name, last time of access, or other information.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the search for files by file name shows both local and remote sources.
Both Patnaik and Clark are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the cloud file usage art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patnaik's remote file discovery on the local OS because Clark's remote file discover is based upon being able to search both local and remote files at the same time in local OS user interfaces.
Motivation would improve cloud file usage on a user’s local devices based upon allowing searchability of both remote and local files at the same time via the same interfaces.
Regarding claims 8-13, they are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims having the same limitations as cited in methods claim 1-6. Thus, claims 8-13 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claims 1-6 above.
Regarding claims 15-20, they are computing device claims having the same limitations as cited in method claims 1-6. Thus, claims 15-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claims 1-6 above.
Regarding claim 22, Patnaik discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
monitoring, by the remote desktop client, the remote desktop component using updated information regarding the remote desktop component received from the remote desktop via a communication channel;
detecting a change in the remote desktop component based on a difference between the updated information and previously received information used for the registration; and
in response to detecting the change, updating the registration of the remote desktop component with the local OS by modifying the information used to present the remote desktop component on the user interface (UI) of the local OS, such that the remote desktop component presented through the one or more native user interface elements reflects the change.
However, Clark discloses:
monitoring, by the remote desktop client, the remote desktop component using updated information regarding the remote desktop component received from the remote desktop via a communication channel; ([0018] “File usage aggregator module 108 can also communicate with the set of hosts 116 via network 114, and receive remote usage data 120 related to user files stored in or by associated host applications or services. Remote usage data 120 can include the same or similar types of information as the information stored in local usage data 118, including file name, file size information, file type information, date created information, date last accessed information, date last modified information, and the like. Remote usage data 120 can be delivered to file usage aggregator module 108 via HTTP (hyper-text transfer protocol) responses from Web services in an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) or Atom feed format, or other channels or connections. … File usage aggregator module 108 can refresh or receive local usage data 118 and remote file usage data 120 at predetermined update periods, when notified of updates to file usage data, or at other times.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the file usage data is received at predetermined update periods to monitor remote desktop component information including file names, sizes, types, dates of creation/access, etc.
detecting a change in the remote desktop component based on a difference between the updated information and previously received information used for the registration; and (Fig. 1-3 and [0021] “In terms of aggregation of file activity information, as shown in FIG. 3, file usage aggregator module 108 can receive local usage data 118 and remote file usage data 120 and compare and combine information in those file usage records to generate combined usage data 122. File usage aggregator module 108 can examine file usage parameters 126 contained in each of local usage data 118 and remote file usage data 120 to sort the set of combined files.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the file usage data is aggregated to sort both local and remote files, so the change in remote file information necessitates a change via the file usage aggregator module.
in response to detecting the change, updating the registration of the remote desktop component with the local OS by modifying the information used to present the remote desktop component on the user interface (UI) of the local OS, such that the remote desktop component presented through the one or more native user interface elements reflects the change. (Fig. 1-3 and [0021] “In terms of aggregation of file activity information, as shown in FIG. 3, file usage aggregator module 108 can receive local usage data 118 and remote file usage data 120 and compare and combine information in those file usage records to generate combined usage data 122. File usage aggregator module 108 can examine file usage parameters 126 contained in each of local usage data 118 and remote file usage data 120 to sort the set of combined files.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the file usage data is aggregated to sort both local and remote files, so the change in remote file information necessitates a change via the file usage aggregator module. This change is shown in the local OS by updating the ordering of the set of combined files based on file usage records.
Both Patnaik and Clark are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the cloud file usage art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patnaik's remote file updating on the local OS because Clark's remote file updating is based upon continuously comparing file activity information for both local and remote files to update a combined list of recently used files to display on the local OS with both remote and local files.
Motivation would improve cloud file usage on a user’s local devices based upon allowing navigability of both remote and local files at the same time via the same interfaces to improve a user’s efficiency in handling either form of file.
Regarding claim 23, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 22. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 24, it is a computing device claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 22. Thus, claim 24 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art includes:
- Harshith Katta Rajasekhar (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0199056) which discloses sharing files between local applications and remote computing devices.
- Bafna et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0224233) which discloses sharing files between local and remote computing devices.
- Kohavi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0328033) which discloses seamless integration of local and remote windows in a single desktop environment.
- Wesley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0304326) which discloses integrating local and remote applications such that a desktop can show both forms of applications.
- Yanez et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0051262) which discloses sharing local system windows with remote systems to include windows of both forms on the same display.
- Momchilov et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0132381) which discloses seamless integration of local and remote windows in a single desktop environment such that both windows appear simultaneously on the same display.
- O’Gorman (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0311457) which discloses merging remote and local interfaces for application integration to have a shared display.
- Mir et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0138314) which discloses a combined display of taskbar buttons on local and remote machines to have a shared desktop window with an example of local client taskbar icons with remote application output windows on the same display.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights