DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The user endpoint device” and “the remote endpoint device” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per independent claims 1 and 13, the specification defines “air-gapped” to be systems, computers, terminals or interfaces that are not connected to the internet or any other network outside of their immediate network. However, the claim language specifically states that the “air-gapped” controller is connected to the internet, the user system and the remote system. Furthermore, the claim language states that the connections are “emanation-less” thus are devoid of the use of sound, light or infrared. However, the claim language also states that controller is connected to the remote system electrically and to the user system via a network like the internet which could be interpreted to include the use of light or infrared such a fiber optic network.
As per the remaining dependent claims, the above arguments are mirrored.
Further, as per dependent claim 7, it is unclear from the claim language and specification what “evenly distributing” functional units would look like or what steps are being taken to accomplish this. This renders the claim indefinite.
Further, as per dependent claim 14, “a remote side unit” and “a controller side unit” have already been defined thus rendering the claim language indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinnant et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0366565) [hereinafter “Hinnant”].
As per claim 1, Hinnant teaches a air-gapped device controller system comprising: a remote system (Abstract, application executing in the cloud); a user system (Abstract, client device with user interface to sense user input and behavior); an air-gapped device controller ([0029] and Fig. 1, user video, audio and mouse/keyboard inputs are transmitted to virtual desktop host outputting them as if the user were there) (Examiner Note: “Air-gapped” is described in the specification as not being connected to any outside network like the internet, however, the claim language specifically states that it is. See 112 rejection above. For this rejection, “air-gapped” will be interpreted to be a transmission of various user actions over a network to be recreated somewhere remote); the air-gapped device controller comprising a plurality of functional units ([0029], audio, video and input tracker); the remote system being electrically connected to the air-gapped device controller (Fig. 1, communication application and virtual desktop host are connected electrically to the hardware of the cloud computing device); the user system being operably coupled to the air-gapped device controller through the internet (Fig. 1, user phone connected to system through a network like the internet see [0027]); the plurality of functional units being communicably coupled between each other, wherein the plurality of functional units facilitates mechanical, optical, and acoustic communication between the user system and the remote system through the air-gapped device controller ([0029], audio, video and input tracker); and the user system being operably coupled to the remote system through the air-gapped device controller, wherein the air-gapped device controller enabling an emanation-less connectivity between the user system and the remote system (Fig. 1, user system and remote system are connected through a network that can be wired see [0027]) (Examiner Note: emanation is described in the specification at Page 2 line 15-20, as signals like sound, infrared and light. See 112 rejection above. Emanation-less will be interpreted to be a wired connection.).
As per claim 2, Hinnant teaches air-gapped device controller system of claim 1, the plurality of functional units comprising: a keyboard and mouse controller ([0029], keyboard and mouse); a video exchange unit ([0029], video user interface that exchanges video); an audio exchange unit ([0029], audio user interface that exchanges video); the keyboard and mouse controller transcribing and controlling mechanical interactions between the remote system and the user system ([0029], sending keyboard and mouse inputs to desktop remote host to recreate user actions); the video exchange unit transcribing and controlling optical interactions between the remote system and the user system (Abstract and Fig. 1, remote desktop host receives and sends video with client/s); and the audio exchange unit transcribing and controlling acoustic interactions between the remote system and the user system (Abstract and Fig. 1, remote desktop host receives and sends video with client/s).
As per claim 4, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 2, wherein: the video exchange unit comprising a plurality of display devices and a plurality of cameras ([0031], display and camera devices); a first display device and a first camera being electrically connected to the remote system ([0031] and Fig 1., displays and cameras are connected to both the client and remote devices); a second display device and a second camera being operably connected to the user system, wherein the first display device and the second display device are from the plurality of display devices, and the first camera and the second camera are from the plurality of cameras see id.; and the first display devices being operably coupled to the second camera, and the second display device being operably coupled to the first camera (Fig. 1 and [0031], camera and display are operably connected based on input and output video signals), wherein optical interactions between the user system and the remote system is facilitated by the plurality of display devices and the plurality of cameras ([0031], video interactions are facilitated by the camera and display devices).
As per claim 5, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 2, wherein: the audio exchange unit comprising a plurality of microphones and a plurality of speakers (Abstract and [0029], audio is a part of the user interface including speakers and microphones see [0044] and [0070]); a first microphone and a first speaker being electrically connected to the remote system (Fig. 1, both client and remote system has a microphone and speaker see [0044] and [0070]); a second microphone and a second speaker being operably connected to the user system, wherein the first microphone and the second microphone are from the plurality of microphones and the first speaker and the second speaker are from the plurality of speakers see id.; and the first microphone being operably coupled to the second speaker and the second microphone being operably coupled to the first speaker, wherein acoustic interactions between the user system and the remote system is facilitated by the plurality of microphones and the plurality of speakers (Abstract and [0029], audio interactions are facilitated by the microphone and speakers see [0044] and [0070]).
As per claim 6, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 1, the air gapped device controller comprising: a remote side unit and a controller side unit (Fig. 1 and [0063], remote desktop host interacts with the remote system and also has internal code and hardware in the cloud with interactions with the client device); the remote side unit being physically coupled to the remote system ([0063], remote desktop host can include hardware which would be physically connected to the cloud computing environment); and the controller side unit being operably connected to the user system, wherein input from the user system being transferred as output from the remote system, thereby mimicking actions of the user system ([0029], video, audio and actions of user are replicated by remote desktop host).
As per claim 7, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 6, comprising: a protective housing ([0063], virtual desktop host can be implemented as a hardware device which includes a housing); the plurality of functional units being evenly distributed between the remote side and the controller side (Examiner Note: see 112 rejection above – will be interpreted to be there are two communications between the remote and client system) (Fig. 1, function, video and audio are evenly transferred between the two sides meaning also that both sides of input/output units); and the remote side unit and the controller side unit being electrically coupled within the protective housing ([0063], hardware includes electrical circuitry).
As per claim 8, Hinannt teaches the air gapped device controller system of claim 1, wherein the air-gapped device controller being configured to: enter a physical input to the user system ([0029], keyboard and mouse inputs are physically made at client device); and recreate the physical input of the user system onto the remote system through the air-gapped device controller ([0029], these physical inputs are recreated at the remote desktop host).
As per claim 9, Hinannt teaches the air gapped device controller system of claim 1, wherein the air-gapped device controller being configured to: receive a sensory information from the remote system (Abstract and Fig. 1, video and audio are sensed at the remote device); transcribe the sensory information to an input signal ([0029], video and audio are transcribed to a signal to be sent to the client); and send the input signal into the user system through the air-gapped device controller (Abstract and Fig. 1, sending the video and audio to the client device via the remote desktop host).
As per claim 10, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 1, wherein the user endpoint device and the remote endpoint device is at least one of an operating system (Fig. 1 and [0021], operating system abstracted onto endpoint devices), a computer (Fig.1 endpoint device can be a computer, phone or tablet), a tablet ([0026], computing device can be a tablet), a server ([0026], computing device includes a server and gaming console), a console see id., and a terminal (Fig. 1, [0026], a computing device is a terminal).
As per claim 12, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 1, comprising: a power cable and an ethernet cable ([0028], remote desktop host has a ethernet interface and may include hardware which requires a power cable see [0063]); and the power cable and the ethernet cable being electrically connected to the air-gapped device controller see id.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinnant in view of Matsubara et al. (JP-2019032719-A) [hereinafter “Matsubara”].
As per claim 3, Hinnant teaches air-gapped device controller system of claim 2.
Hinnant does not explicitly teach wherein: the keyboard and mouse controller comprising a keyboard, a trackpad, a keyboard clicker and at least one stylus; the keyboard and the trackpad being electrically connected to the remote system; the keyboard clicker and the at least one stylus being operably connected to the user system, wherein input from the user system is transcribed to the keyboard and the trackpad; the keyboard being mechanically coupled to the keyboard clicker; and the trackpad being mechanically coupled to the at least one stylus. Matsubara teaches wherein: the keyboard and mouse controller comprising a keyboard, a trackpad, a keyboard clicker and at least one stylus (Fig. 1 and Page 2 para. 3, keyboard, robot, mouse and other input devices including touch panel and touch pen see Page 13 para. 2); the keyboard and the trackpad being electrically connected to the remote system (Fig. 1, input devices are connected to the remote computer, i.e. operated device see Page 2 para. 3); the keyboard clicker and the at least one stylus being operably connected to the user system, wherein input from the user system is transcribed to the keyboard and the trackpad (Page 12 para. 6, operating keyboard and mouse by a worker giving it commands see Page 12 para. 8); the keyboard being mechanically coupled to the keyboard clicker (Fig. 1 and Page 12 para. 6, robot is mechanically inputting into the keyboard); and the trackpad being mechanically coupled to the at least one stylus (Fig. 1 and Page 12 para. 6, robot is inputting with other devices including touch pen see Page 13 para. 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hinnant with the teachings of Matsubara, wherein: the keyboard and mouse controller comprising a keyboard, a trackpad, a keyboard clicker and at least one stylus; the keyboard and the trackpad being electrically connected to the remote system; the keyboard clicker and the at least one stylus being operably connected to the user system, wherein input from the user system is transcribed to the keyboard and the trackpad; the keyboard being mechanically coupled to the keyboard clicker; and the trackpad being mechanically coupled to the at least one stylus, to fully recreate the user actions at the remote system.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 3-6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinnant in view of Pavley et al. (US Patent No. 6,370,282) [hereinafter “Pavley”].
As per claim 11, Hinannt teaches the air-gapped device controller system of claim 1.
Hinannt does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of functional units are miniature devices. Pavley teaches wherein the plurality of functional units are miniature devices (Col. 2, lines 1-30, miniature and portable device components described in the prior art).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hinnant with the teachings of Pavely, wherein the plurality of functional units are miniature devices, to fully recreate the user actions at the remote system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per independent claims 1 and 13 and their dependent claims, Applicant notes that the claims will be amended to clarify the specific elements of the “user end point device” and the “remote endpoint device”. Applicant further clarifies that the term “air-gapped” means that the claimed system includes “no direct physical, wired, or wireless digital communication channel between the secure system and the controller, other than indirect bridging using strictly optical, acoustic. or mechanical pathways”. Examiner submits that these amendments could expedite prosecution and could likely overcome the current rejection, these amendments need to made to the claim language as an attached document as a new version of the claims with markings indicating the changes.
Examiner suggests making these amendments to the claims in the next response and would be open to discussing how to do this in an after-final interview with Applicant if necessary.
For now, as the claims have not been amended thus far, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per independent claims 1 and 13 and their dependent claims, Applicant argues that the cited prior art references do not disclose fully air-gapped device with no network interface and uses indirect bridging. Applicant notes that this is what the novelty of the instant application is claiming. Examiner submits, similarly as above, that if these features were explicitly listed in the claim language, this would expedite prosecution and likely overcome the current rejection.
As noted above, these amendments need to made to the claim language as an attached document as a new version of the claims with markings indicating the changes. Examiner suggests making these amendments to the claims in the next response and would be open to discussing how to do this in an after-final interview with Applicant if necessary.
For now, as the claims have not been amended thus far, the rejections are maintained.
Examiner notes that the objection to claim 10 needs to be corrected.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Negishi (US PGPUB No. 2023/0241763), Khansari Zadeh et al. (US PGPUB No. 2022/0297303) and Kalakrishnan et al. (WO-2020154542-A1) all disclose various aspects including recreating user actions at a remote site.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 August 26, 2025