DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant's RCE filed May 7, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-21 have been examined and are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues examiner mischaracterizes the teachings of Leichtling. Arguing that Leichtling’s extraction point is fixed at the higher level. Examiner’s understanding of the term intercept is as follows. Intercepting indicates that the system is determining where in a process that occurs regardless (such as providing for a local display) to read at to then send to a remote display. If the system is only determining the appropriate level to render graphics for the remote display it is not so much intercepting as it is simply providing. Namely if the only display being provided the graphics is the remote display then nothing is intercepted per se.
Accordingly, examiner’s understanding of the previous argument was just that. Applicant was arguing that intercepting does not occur for the lower level scenario because the graphics were explicitly being converted solely for the remote display. However, as seen in paragraph [0046] since the system displays on the local display as well as the remote display, the commands are intercepted while processing the graphics for the local display.
Applicant argues Leichtling teaches that the server always attempts to extract higher-level graphics commands from the application. Paragraph [0046] of Leichtling discloses describe whether a particular session provides higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands to a local display device (e.g., display device 120), to the client computer 110, or to both the local display device and the client computer 110. When higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands are provided both to the local display device and the client computer. The server in Leichtling supports sending itself the lower level graphics commands. Accordingly, in this embodiment Leichtling intercepts at the lower level because it is not processing those commands only to be sent to the client, they are also being processed for itself.
Applicant argues Leichtling does not disclose alternative graphic libraries and choosing based on client capabilities. Paragraph [0038] of Leichtling discloses Remote device interface 345 includes a higher-level graphics command processor 350 or a GDI/GDI+ rendering engine 355 for lower-level graphics commands, depending on whether the client computer 110 generates graphics using higher-level or lower-level graphics commands. Paragraph [0047] of Leichtling discloses the server computer 105 determines the capability of the client computer 110 to receive and use either higher-level or lower-level graphics commands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2013/0113833 to Larsson (hereinafter “Larsson”) and further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0082583 to Leichtling (hereinafter “Leichtling”).
As to Claim 1, Larsson discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
configuring an instance of a web browser application in a client device to interface with and display output of a remote application instance in an orchestrator server, [wherein the configuring includes providing characteristics of the client device to the orchestrator server] (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses processing device transmits at least one of the image or the drawing command to a web browser instance running on a remote client device, wherein the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Since the web browser instance is running on the remote client device it must have been instantiated);
providing, to a server, a request for content for rendering in the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
receiving, by the web browser application instance, a first set of one or more draw commands associated with a first output of the remote application instance, the first output responsive to the request for content, [wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels] (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
rendering, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the first output of the remote application instance based on the received first set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
providing, to the remote application instance, an input event received by the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120);
receiving, by the web browser application instance, a second set of one or more draw commands associated with a second output of the remote application instance in response to execution of an action responsive to the input event (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120. Paragraph [0042] of Larsson discloses processing logic may receive new or updated graphical output data periodically or continuously. Accordingly, method 300 may be repeated until a connection to the client device is terminated or the application is terminated. Thus, the system is continuously running and responding to inputs from the browser); and
rendering, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the second output of the remote application instance based on the received second set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120).
Larsson does not explicitly disclose wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels.
However, Leichtling discloses this. Paragraph [0009] of Leichtling discloses the server computer determines the capability of client computers to use relatively higher-level graphics commands. The server computer provides either higher-level graphics commands or lower-level graphics commands to client computers, depending on the capacity of the client computers to generate graphics. Paragraph [0030] of Leichtling discloses compositor/UCE 305 processes or extracts higher-level graphics commands from an application program 300. As described further below, the higher-level graphics commands are subsequently processed and sent to a client computer 110, if client computer 110 is able to use higher-level graphics commands to generate graphics. Paragraph [0033] of Leichtling discloses for legacy client computers which render graphics using lower-level graphics commands processed from higher-level graphics commands at the server, higher-level graphics commands from application programs 300 are provided to a GDI/GDI+ renderer 325. GDI/GDI+ renderer 325 renders the graphics primitives into lower-level graphics commands sent to display driver loader 320. Accordingly, Leichtling discloses using different techniques according to the client’s capability to process higher or lower graphics commands. Paragraph [0046] of Leichtling discloses describe whether a particular session provides higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands to a local display device (e.g., display device 120), to the client computer 110, or to both the local display device and the client computer 110. When higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands are provided both to the local display device and the client computer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the remote application system as disclosed by Larsson, with adjusting graphic levels according to client capability as disclosed by Leichtling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device. Larsson and Leichtling are directed toward remote application systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Modifying Larsson with the techniques of Leichtling would improve Larsson’s scalability.
As to Claim 2, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the input event is one or more of a cursor movement, a click event, keyboard events, and scrolling events (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses such input commands may include mouse commands, keyboard commands, scrolling commands, etc. Mouse commands are understood to include cursor movement and click events).
As to Claim 3, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the server is an execution computing device, and wherein the client device is a rendering computer device (Paragraph [0013] of Larsson discloses an application running on a server machine. Thus, the server is executing an application. Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device).
As to Claim 5, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device comprises:
receiving, from the server, a set of one or more files, the set of one or more files including information that configures the web browser application executing on the client device to display the output of the remote application instance (Paragraph [0016] of Larsson discloses using the JavaScript API 125, the browser 120 may download JavaScript code from a remote server and run the JavaScript code within the JavaScript sandbox).
As to Claim 7, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request for content is a request for a network resource (Paragraph [0019] of Larsson discloses server applications that provide services such as webpage viewing services to the client).
As to Claim 8, Larsson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that provides instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, comprising:
configuring an instance of a web browser application in a client device to interface with and display output of a remote application instance in an orchestrator server, [wherein the configuring includes providing characteristics of the client device to the orchestrator server] (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses processing device transmits at least one of the image or the drawing command to a web browser instance running on a remote client device, wherein the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Since the web browser instance is running on the remote client device it must have been instantiated); providing, to a server, a request for content for rendering in the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
receiving, by the web browser application instance, a first set of one or more draw commands associated with a first output of the remote application instance, the first output responsive to the request for content, [wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels] (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
rendering, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the first output of the remote application instance based on the received first set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
providing, to the remote application instance, an input event received by the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120);
receiving, by the web browser application instance, a second set of one or more draw commands associated with a second output of the remote application instance in response to execution of an action responsive to the input event (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120. Paragraph [0042] of Larsson discloses processing logic may receive new or updated graphical output data periodically or continuously. Accordingly, method 300 may be repeated until a connection to the client device is terminated or the application is terminated. Thus, the system is continuously running and responding to inputs from the browser); and
rendering, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the second output of the remote application instance based on the received second set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120).
Larsson does not explicitly disclose wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels.
However, Leichtling discloses this. Paragraph [0009] of Leichtling discloses the server computer determines the capability of client computers to use relatively higher-level graphics commands. The server computer provides either higher-level graphics commands or lower-level graphics commands to client computers, depending on the capacity of the client computers to generate graphics. Paragraph [0030] of Leichtling discloses compositor/UCE 305 processes or extracts higher-level graphics commands from an application program 300. As described further below, the higher-level graphics commands are subsequently processed and sent to a client computer 110, if client computer 110 is able to use higher-level graphics commands to generate graphics. Paragraph [0033] of Leichtling discloses for legacy client computers which render graphics using lower-level graphics commands processed from higher-level graphics commands at the server, higher-level graphics commands from application programs 300 are provided to a GDI/GDI+ renderer 325. GDI/GDI+ renderer 325 renders the graphics primitives into lower-level graphics commands sent to display driver loader 320. Accordingly, Leichtling discloses using different techniques according to the client’s capability to process higher or lower graphics commands. Paragraph [0046] of Leichtling discloses describe whether a particular session provides higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands to a local display device (e.g., display device 120), to the client computer 110, or to both the local display device and the client computer 110. When higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands are provided both to the local display device and the client computer.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 9, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the input event is one or more of a cursor movement, a click event, keyboard events, and scrolling events (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses such input commands may include mouse commands, keyboard commands, scrolling commands, etc. Mouse commands are understood to include cursor movement and click events).
As to Claim 10, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the server is an execution computing device, and wherein the client device is a rendering computer device (Paragraph [0013] of Larsson discloses an application running on a server machine. Thus, the server is executing an application. Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device).
As to Claim 12, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device comprises:
receiving, from the server, a set of one or more files, the set of one or more files including information that configures the web browser application executing on the client device to display the output of the remote application instance (Paragraph [0016] of Larsson discloses using the JavaScript API 125, the browser 120 may download JavaScript code from a remote server and run the JavaScript code within the JavaScript sandbox).
As to Claim 14, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the request for content is a request for a network resource (Paragraph [0019] of Larsson discloses server applications that provide services such as webpage viewing services to the client).
As to Claim 15, Larsson discloses an apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium coupled with the processor that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes said processor to perform the following:
configure an instance of a web browser application in a client device to interface with and display output of a remote application instance in an orchestrator server, [wherein the configuring includes providing characteristics of the client device to the orchestrator server] (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses processing device transmits at least one of the image or the drawing command to a web browser instance running on a remote client device, wherein the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Since the web browser instance is running on the remote client device it must have been instantiated);
provide, to a server, a request for content for rendering in the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
receive, by the web browser application instance, a first set of one or more draw commands associated with a first output of the remote application instance, the first output responsive to the request for content, [wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels] (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
render, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the first output of the remote application instance based on the received first set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120);
provide, to the remote application instance, an input event received by the web browser application instance (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120);
receive, by the web browser application instance, a second set of one or more draw commands associated with a second output of the remote application instance in response to execution of an action responsive to the input event (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the server component 145 is configured to receive input commands from the browser 120. The drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120. Paragraph [0042] of Larsson discloses processing logic may receive new or updated graphical output data periodically or continuously. Accordingly, method 300 may be repeated until a connection to the client device is terminated or the application is terminated. Thus, the system is continuously running and responding to inputs from the browser); and
render, by the web browser application instance, one or more portions of the second output of the remote application instance based on the received second set of one or more draw commands (Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device. Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses the drawing commands and images may be sent to the browser 120 in response to requests from the browser 120).
Larsson does not explicitly disclose wherein an interception technique for intercepting the first set of one or more draw commands by the remote application instance and a graphics level for transporting the first set of one or more draw commands to the web browser application instance are determined based on the provided characteristics of the client device, wherein determining the interception technique includes evaluating multiple candidate graphics levels based on an evaluation of one or more rules against the provided characteristics of the client device, and selecting a graphics library level within a graphics pipeline of the remote application instance at which to intercept the draw commands based on determining a highest-level rendering library available in the candidate graphics levels.
However, Leichtling discloses this. Paragraph [0009] of Leichtling discloses the server computer determines the capability of client computers to use relatively higher-level graphics commands. The server computer provides either higher-level graphics commands or lower-level graphics commands to client computers, depending on the capacity of the client computers to generate graphics. Paragraph [0030] of Leichtling discloses compositor/UCE 305 processes or extracts higher-level graphics commands from an application program 300. As described further below, the higher-level graphics commands are subsequently processed and sent to a client computer 110, if client computer 110 is able to use higher-level graphics commands to generate graphics. Paragraph [0033] of Leichtling discloses for legacy client computers which render graphics using lower-level graphics commands processed from higher-level graphics commands at the server, higher-level graphics commands from application programs 300 are provided to a GDI/GDI+ renderer 325. GDI/GDI+ renderer 325 renders the graphics primitives into lower-level graphics commands sent to display driver loader 320. Accordingly, Leichtling discloses using different techniques according to the client’s capability to process higher or lower graphics commands. Paragraph [0046] of Leichtling discloses describe whether a particular session provides higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands to a local display device (e.g., display device 120), to the client computer 110, or to both the local display device and the client computer 110. When higher-level graphics commands and/or lower-level graphics commands are provided both to the local display device and the client computer.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 16, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the input event is one or more of a cursor movement, a click event, keyboard events, and scrolling events (Paragraph [0022] of Larsson discloses such input commands may include mouse commands, keyboard commands, scrolling commands, etc. Mouse commands are understood to include cursor movement and click events).
As to Claim 17, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the server is an execution computing device, and wherein the client device is a rendering computer device (Paragraph [0013] of Larsson discloses an application running on a server machine. Thus, the server is executing an application. Paragraph [0012] of Larsson discloses the web browser instance is capable of natively rendering the image and/or the drawing command to a display on the remote client device).
As to Claim 19, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device further causes said processor to:
receive, from the server, a set of one or more files, the set of one or more files including information that configures the web browser application executing on the client device to display the output of the remote application instance (Paragraph [0016] of Larsson discloses using the JavaScript API 125, the browser 120 may download JavaScript code from a remote server and run the JavaScript code within the JavaScript sandbox).
As to Claim 21, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the request for content is a request for a network resource (Paragraph [0019] of Larsson discloses server applications that provide services such as webpage viewing services to the client).
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson-Leichtling and further in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0126775 to Schwebke et al. (hereinafter “Schwebke”).
As to Claim 4, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device comprises:
receiving a packet from the server, the packet containing initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the remote application system as disclosed by Larsson, with exchanging keys as disclosed by Schwebke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device. Larsson and Schwebke are directed toward remote application systems. Larsson discloses establishing a connection between a client and server. Schwebke discloses part of setting up a connection between the client and server includes encryption key exchange. Modifying Larsson to include Schwebke’s disclosure would improve the security of Larsson.
As to Claim 6, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the set of one or more files includes a packet including initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 11, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device comprises:
receiving a packet from the server, the packet containing initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 13, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the set of one or more files includes a packet including initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 18, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein configuring the instance of the web browser application in the client device further causes said processor to:
receive a packet from the server, the packet containing initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
As to Claim 20, Larsson-Leichtling discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the set of one or more files includes a packet including initial logic and [a key for establishing a secure] connection between the server and the web browser application executing on the client device (Paragraph [0025] of Larsson discloses server component 235 establishes a connection with a remote client upon a connection request from the client).
Larsson-Leichtling does not explicitly disclose a key for establishing a secure.
Paragraph [0044] of Schwebke discloses the connection phase may include encryption-key exchange.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 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, Philip Chea can be reached on 5712723951. 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.
/KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights