DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2023 are
in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 14 and 19 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “execute the one or more commands to the CLI session…” and is dependent on claim 8. However, claim 8 does not recite “one or more commands.” Claim 8 recites “at least one CLI command.”
Claim 19 recites “to at least one of the shared CLI history, the at least one process, the sending, and the storing of the at least one CLI command…” and is dependent on claim 15. However, claim 15 does not recite a shared CLI history, a process, a sending step, or a storing step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4,7-11,14-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by McCormack US. publication 20050021652 A1(hereinafter “McCormack”)
As per claim 1
McCormack discloses a method for collaborating in a shared Command Line Interface (CLI) session in a computing environment having one or more processor devices [McCormack, par 0032 - 0033, Fig.1, describes a collaborative shell program being linked to an IM system on an IM server; user computers and the IM server each have a processor and memory] comprising: instantiating a unique CLI session [McCormack, par 0074 and par 0084, Figs 6-8, describes where after the user is logged in a session is started and a separate session independent of the current session can be opened, so each session is separate], shared between multiple users and platforms [McCormack, par 0080, Fig.7 summary, describes the shared window being displayed on both user’s computers. Messages relay to desktop applications, browsers, pagers, cell phones and PDAs] using at least one of a cloud UI dashboard and CLI tool [McCormack, par 0036 and par 0059, Fig.1 and Fig.3, describes each user computer running a CLI shell program. The buddy list GUI shows statues indicators for monitored targets served by the networked IM server], by a session owner [McCormack, par 0076 and par 0095, Fig.6 and Fig.10, describe the main user selecting the target systems to invite other users, inviting others and letting them see commands is in the initiating user’s control]; and by virtue of permissions established by the shared, unique CLI session [McCormack, par 0077 and par 0039, Fig.6, describes authentication to the target which is through session 158 for each command issuer, and each user’s rights are kept on the IM server], managing, by at least one of the session owner and authorized ones of those of the multiple users, execution of at least one CLI command in the CLI session [McCormack, par 0091 – 0092, Figs.6-7 and 10, describes any authorized participant issues commands from the shared chat window the target; only authorized users’ commands will execute].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
McCormack discloses further including performing at least one of receiving from, and executing those of the at least one CLI command from [McCormack, par 0051, Fig.2, describes a proxy intercepting incoming text; text starting with the command character is submitted through the session to the target and executed], an additional CLI shared within the CLI session in the computing environment [McCormack, par 0082 and par 0085, Figs. 6-7, describe a second user’s computer (110B with its own CLI shell program and IM client) joins session 158 and issues commands through the shared chat window] by one of the authorized ones of those of the multiple users [McCormack, par 0078, Fig.6, describes users invited to control the session based on their own credentials and have the authorization to issue commands].
As per claims 9 and 16, the limitations of claims 9 and 16 correspond to the features of claim 2 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
McCormack discloses further including displaying a CLI history within the CLI session on either of the CLI, the additional CLI, or a further additional CLI [McCormack, par 0079 and 0080, Figs.2 and 7, describe how each user’s text and name show in the chat window as running history. The command output is appended to the output text field, and the shared chat window displays on every participant’s computer].
As per claims 10 and 17, the limitations of claims 10 and 17 correspond to the features of claim 3is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
McCormack discloses further including displaying those of the at least one CLI command being executed within the CLI session [McCormack, par 0079, Figs.6 and 11, describe how responses are relayed to all the connected users; non authorized participants still view the commands issued and their responses].
As per claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 correspond to the features of claim 4 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
McCormack discloses, further including performing at least one of: accepting a requested text input via a Cloud shell for at least one of a CLI command construction and a mid-step question of an execution of the at least one command, locking an input in the CLI session to an individual user, blocking other users from providing additional input during the input of the CLI session, granting control of access to any specific user at a time to make changes and execute the at least one command to the CLI session, transferring control of the execution of the at least one command to other participants of the CLI session, restricting the at least one command, inviting other Cloud users to participate in the CLI session, removing the other Cloud users from the CLI session, establishing a chat between the other cloud users of the CLI session, wherein messages from the chat are displayed in one of a differing format and section on one of a web user interface and the CLI, and ending the CLI session [McCormack, par 0080, Fig.6, describes other users being selected from the buddy list or an invitation window and added to session].
As per claim 14 and 21, the limitations of claim 14 and 21 correspond to the features of claim 7is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
McCormack discloses a system for collaborating in a shared Command Line Interface (CLI) session in a computing environment having one or more processor devices [McCormack, par 0032-0033, Fig.1, describes a collaborative shell program being linked to an IM system on an IM server; user computers and the IM server each have a processor and memory] comprising: a CLI session controller server hosting one or more Application Program Interfaces (APIs), incorporating the one or more processor devices [McCormack, par 0040, Fig.1, describes IM server computer system 140 including processor 142, memory 146 and network interface 144], further having executable instructions that when executed cause the system to [McCormack, par 0041, Fig.1, describes IM server application 148 and collaborative shell program 150 stored in memory 146 and executed on IM server computer system]: instantiate a unique CLI session [McCormack, par 0074 and par 0084, Figs 6-8, describes where after the user is logged in a session is started and a separate session independent of the current session can be opened, so each session is separate], shared between multiple users and platforms [McCormack, par 0080, Fig.7 summary, describes the shared window being displayed on both user’s computers. Messages relay to desktop applications, browsers, pagers, cell phones and PDAs] using at least one of a cloud UI dashboard and CLI tool [McCormack, par 0036 and par 0059, Fig.1 and Fig.3, describes each user computer running a CLI shell program. The buddy list GUI shows statues indicators for monitored targets served by the networked IM server] by a session owner, and by virtue of permissions established by the shared, unique CLI session owner [McCormack, par 0039, Fig.6, describes authentication to the target which is through session 158 for each command issuer, and each user’s rights are kept on the IM server], manage, by at least one of the session owner and authorized ones of those of the multiple users, execution of at least one CLI command in the CLI session [McCormack, par 0039, Figs.6-7 and 10, describe any authorized participant issues commands from the shared chat window the target; only authorized users’ commands will execute].
As per claim 15
McCormack discloses a computer program product for collaborating in a shared Command Line Interface (CLI) session in a computing environment having one or more processor devices, the computer program product comprising [McCormack, par 0032 – 0033, Fig.1, describes a collaborative shell program being linked to an IM system on an IM server; user computers and the IM server each have a processor and memory]: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media [McCormack, par 0107, “collaborative shell program 150, including all, any, or parts of processes described herein with reference to FIGS. 1-11, are stored. Some examples of computer program products are CD-ROM discs, ROM cards, floppy discs, magnetic tapes, computer hard drives “], the program instructions comprising: program instructions to instantiate a unique CLI session [McCormack, par 0074 and par 0084, Figs 6-8, describes where after the user is logged in a session is started and a separate session independent of the current session can be opened, so each session is separate], shared between multiple users and platforms using at least one of a cloud UI dashboard and CLI tool by a session owner, and program instructions to, by virtue of permissions established by the shared, unique CLI session [McCormack, par 0036, par 0059 and par 0080, Fig.6, describes authentication to the target which is through session 158 for each command issuer, and each user’s rights are kept on the IM server] manage, by at least one of the session owner and authorized ones of those of the multiple users, execution of at least one CLI command in the CLI session [McCormack, par 0039, Figs.6-7 and 10, describe any authorized participant issues commands from the shared chat window the target; only authorized users’ commands will execute].
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.
Claim(s) 5,6,12,13,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormack (US 20050021652 A1, published Jan.27, 2005) in view of Mohylevskyy (US 20230073052 A1, published Mar.9, 2023) further in view of Butler (US 6584493 B1, published Jun.24, 2003)
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
McCormack does not disclose, but Mohylevskyy discloses further including applying an Artificial Intelligence (AI) deep learning process [Mohylevskyy, par 0017, “A code completion system for a CLI utilizes deep learning models to predict candidates to complete a line of CLI code.“], within the CLI session [Mohylevskyy, Fig. 1 and 7, describes the user’s browser running a CLI connected to a cloud service].
Therefore it would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormack so that the AI deep learning process is applied within the CLI session as taught by Mohylevskyy. One would have been motivated to do so to provide predictive, context-aware command suggestions or anomaly detection to the operator dynamically during execution.
McCormack and Mohylesvskyy do not disclose but Adam discloses to at least one of propose, allow, and deny list candidates for the at least one command [Adam, par 0023, “ allow only commands in the GO list, forbid all commands in the NO GO list “].
It would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormack in view of Mohylesvskyy so that the CLI includes one of propose, allow and deny list of candidates for at least one CLI command as taught by Adam. One would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve system security and administrative efficiency.
As per claim 12 and 18, the limitations of claim 12 and 18 correspond to the features of claim 5 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
McCormack does not disclose, but Butler discloses further including performing at least one of proposing and executing ([Butler,col 6, lines 4-6], “the remote sends a request to assume control to the host who then has the option to either accept or decline the request “)one of direct and approved ones of the at least one command ([Butler, col 11, lines 50-53], “When a viewer of a host becomes its controller, the host's own keyboard and mouse are locked, and input comes from the controller instead. The act of controlling is the process of sending input and window activation back “), ([Butler, col 22, lines 14-15], “The host displays a pass control request UI to end user, who can say yes/no. “) to a host attendee for execution ([Butler, col 10, lines 63-64], “each person hosting (sharing an application) acts like a miniature server for the conference.”).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormack so that an approved command is proposed and executed to the host as taught by Butler. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure that only authorized and validated operations are performed on the host.
As per claim 13 and 20, the limitations of claim 13 and 20 correspond to the features of claim 6is/are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormack (US 20050021652 A1, published Jan.27, 2005) in view of Mohylevskyy (US 20230073052 A1, published Mar.9, 2023) further in view of Adam (US 20160048685 A1, published Feb.18, 2016).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
McCormack does not disclose but Mohylevskyy discloses further including program instructions to apply an Artificial Intelligence (AI) deep learning process [Mohylevskyy, par 0017, “A code completion system for a CLI utilizes deep learning models to predict candidates to complete a line of CLI code.“], to at least one of the shared CLI history, the at least one process, the sending, and the storing of the at least one CLI command [Mohylevskyy, Fig.7, describes the code competion engine tracking each line of CLI code entered into the CLI and converting the last n lines into the deep learning model’s input].
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormack such that the program includes instructions to apply an AI deep learning process to at least one of the shared CLI history and in that process the CLI command is sent and stored as taught by Mohylevskyy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to predict the next syntactically correct command from the commands previously entered in the session.
McCormack and Mohylevskyy do not disclose but Adam discloses to at least one of propose, allow, and deny list candidates for the at least one CLI command [Adam, par 0023, “ allow only commands in the GO list, forbid all commands in the NO GO list “].
It would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormack in view of Mohylevskyy so that the CLI command contains one of propose, allow, and deny list candidates as taught by Adam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to validate commands before execution and proactively prevent disallowed operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saipratap Prem whose telephone number is (571)270-0894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. -4 p.m..
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, Jung Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/SAIPRATAP PREM/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights