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 .
This Office Action is FINAL.
The following action is in response to communication(s):
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 4/27/2026 to the Application filed on 9/11/2023.
This application claims benefit of Priority from PCT international application Ser. No. PCT/CN2023/107425 filed on 7/14/2023.
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26-29 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 2, 9, 16, 21, 23, 25 are cancelled. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 were previously canceled.
Claims 27-29 are added.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §102/§103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered, a first part of the argument against (i) presenting graphical user interface of multiple virtual desktop together within a single window is addressed with newly cited art Brooks; the second part of the argument (ii) for performing inter-desktop I/O request forwarding and execution is not persuasive.
The applicant argued on page 10-12 for claim 1, 8, and 15 that Trivedi and Broussard do not teach or suggest forwarding I/O request between two virtual desktop environments. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Trivedi and Broussard taken together teach application generated I/O requests originating in one virtual desktop are forwarded to and executed in another virtual desktop. Specifically, Trivedi (Fig. 5A [0050-0051] Fig. 5B [0093-0096]) teaches a virtual channel connection manager 720 and drag and drop agent 708 from Fig. 5A, which enables data transfer among two virtual desktop to happen via a virtual channel 278 as shown in Fig. 5B, where the data transfer happens between the two remote server 106 and 106’ through the established virtual channel 278, rather than through local client, where drag and drop files also involves I/O request of files moving from one system to another system through the virtual channel. Broussard ([0025]-[0045]) discloses accessing files 412 on virtual folder drive D accesses files on remote computer 401 via connection between the local desktop and remote computer desktop 401, which is the equivalent of accessing virtual drive between two remote computers taught by Trivedi; the only difference being, in Trivedi’s case, the desktops for the two remote system are not accessed on local displays of the two remote system, but rather presented via virtual desktops. The examiner notes how and where the GUI of desktop system is presented, locally vs. remotely, does not affect how the applications running locally on remote system operates, i.e. virtual drive from remote system A to remote system B operates the same wregardless ofess where the GUI is presenting the virtual drive. Accordingly, Trivedi and Broussard together teaches forwarding I/O request between two virtual desktop environments.
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.
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.
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, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 27-29 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090030971 filed on 11/16/2007 (hereinafter Trivedi) in view of Broussard et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120109987, filed on 11/2/2010 (hereinafter Broussard), and Brooks (US Patent 6008809, hereinafter Brooks).
As for independent claim 1, Trivedi discloses device and method comprising
by a virtual desktop client operating on a client device, establishing a first virtual desktop session on a first virtual desktop and, by the virtual desktop client, establishing a second virtual desktop session on a second virtual desktop,
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049], [0055], [0085]-[0087] discloses establishing first virtual desktop, remote environment 204 and second virtual desktop, remote environment 240, by client machine 102 as shown in fig. 5A; Trivedi paragraph [0009], [0030], [0036], [0038] discloses processor and instructions stored in memory)
the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop executing on one or more host servers;
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049, [0057], [0085]-[0087] discloses first and second virtual desktop executing remote computing environment 204 and 240 on server 106 and 106')
determining, by the virtual desktop client, that the first virtual desktop session and the second virtual desktop session have been established;
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049], [0055], [0085]-[0087] discloses establishing first virtual desktop, remote environment 204 and second virtual desktop, remote environment 240, by client machine 102 as shown in fig. 5A)
in response to determining that the first virtual desktop session and the second virtual desktop session have been established, requesting one of the first or second virtual desktops to establish a connection with the other of said first or second virtual desktops;
(Trivedi paragraph [0010], [0047], [0049], [0055], [0085]-[0087] discloses establishing first virtual desktop, remote environment 204 and second virtual desktop, remote environment 240, by client machine 102 as shown in fig. 5A, [0093-0096] where transfers between the first virtual desktop (first server 106) and the second virtual desktop (second server 106’) happens via the virtual channel 278 as shown in Fig. 5B)
receiving a first graphical user interface (GUI) of the first virtual desktop at the client device; receiving a second GUI of the second virtual desktop at the client device;
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049], [0057] receiving GUI for virtual desktops, viewing window 702 provides a substantially real-time graphical representation of the display screen of a remote computing environment 204; Trivedi paragraph [0085]-[0087] discloses first virtual desktop, viewing window 702 of remote computing environment 204 and second virtual desktop, viewing window 701 of remote computing environment 240 as shown in fig. 5A)
determining a remote display layout corresponding to an arrangement of the first GUI and the second GUI together in a
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049], [0049] discloses presenting the first and second graphical user interface, viewing windows 702, 701 of remote desktops 204 and 240, with substantially real-time graphical representation of the display screen of a remote computing environment as shown in fig. 5A).
Trivedi further discloses presenting folders on the first and second GUI of the first and second virtual desktop
(Trivedi paragraph [0056], [0092] discloses displaying fodders on first virtual desktop and second virtual desktop as shown in fig. 3A, 3B, and 5A).
Trivedi does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising redirecting a folder in the first virtual desktop to the second virtual desktop by presenting the folder as a virtual drive on the second GUI of the second virtual desktop, wherein files presented in the virtual drive are mapped to corresponding locations in the folder on the first virtual desktop wherein an application request to access a file presented in the virtual drive on the second virtual desktop is redirected to a corresponding file in the folder on the first virtual desktop.
However, Broussard discloses device and method comprising
redirecting a folder in the first
(Broussard paragraph [0025]-[0027] discloses redirecting folder in a remote computer 401 as folder drive D on a GUI where files 412 in folder 410 are mapped to files in the remote desktop; Broussard paragraph [0050] discloses presenting the folder on remote desktop as a virtual drive Y on the GUI of a different desktop)
wherein an application request to access a file presented in the virtual drive on the second
(Broussard paragraph [0025]-[0045] discloses accessing files 412 on folder drive D accesses files on remote computer 401 via connection between the local desktop and remote computer desktop 401).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Trivedi’s method of presenting folders on the first and second GUI of the first and second virtual desktop with Broussard’s method of redirecting a folder in the first virtual desktop to the second virtual desktop by presenting the folder as a virtual drive on a GUI of a desktop, wherein files presented in the virtual drive are mapped to corresponding locations in the folder on the first virtual desktop, wherein an application request to access a file presented in the virtual drive on the second virtual desktop is redirected to a corresponding file in the folder on the first virtual desktop for a method comprising redirecting a folder in the first virtual desktop to the second virtual desktop by presenting the folder as a virtual drive on the second GUI of the second virtual desktop, wherein files presented in the virtual drive are mapped to corresponding locations in the folder on the first virtual desktop, wherein an application request to access a file presented in the virtual drive on the second virtual desktop is redirected to a corresponding file in the folder on the first virtual desktop. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to be able to have a system where “user and applications running on local computer can then perform file operations on the mapped remote files as if the files reside in a data storage drive at the local computer” (Broussard [0002]).
Additionally, Trivedi-Broussard do not explicitly teach “… display layout corresponding to an arrangement of the first GUI and the second GUI together in a single window … based on the determined remote display layout, presenting the first GUI and the second GUI together in the window on the client device, such that the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop are accessible from within the single window,”.
However, Brooks teaches device and method comprising
… display layout corresponding to an arrangement of the first GUI and the second GUI together in a single window … based on the determined remote display layout, presenting the first GUI and the second GUI together in the window on the client device, such that the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop are accessible from within the single window,
(Brooks col 8 line 59 – col 9 line 20 and Fig. 10 discloses grouping the first and second windows 502 and 506 together in a single dynamic window, such that window 502 and window 506 are accessible from within the same single dynamic window).
Brooks and Trivedi-Broussard are analogous art because Brooks also teaches arrangement of multiple windows in a desktop environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Trivedi-Broussard and Brooks before him/her, to modify the teachings of Trivedi-Broussard to include the teachings of Brooks so that the two remote desktop session can be grouped into a single dynamic window. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help user to group similar windows together and move and operate on the group of windows collectively, providing better organization and accessibility to a group of similar windows; it would also provide better control to users to resize/reposition the windows within the dynamic window, giving users simultaneous view of multiple windows while allowing user to adjust size/position of the multiple window arrangement (col 1 line 50 – col 2 line 7).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Trivedi discloses device and method comprising
using the connection between the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop to redirect a clipboard from the first virtual desktop to the second virtual desktop to enable the user to copy data from the first virtual desktop and paste the data into the second virtual desktop
(Trivedi paragraph [0092] discloses transferring data objects from first remote desktop to second remote desktop; Trivedi paragraph [0076], [0109] discloses copy operation copies the data object from the source and copies the object to the target and unlike a move operation doesn’t delete the data object from the source environment).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Trivedi discloses device and method comprising
in the first virtual desktop, detecting that a second file is picked up by a mouse cursor and moved to a border of the first virtual desktop GUI without being released; detecting on the client device, based on the remote display layout, that the mouse cursor is subsequently released in the second virtual desktop GUI; and in response to determining that the mouse cursor is subsequently released in the second virtual desktop GUI, copying the second file into the second virtual desktop
(Trivedi paragraph [0006], [0008], [0012], [0060], [0085], [0089], [0090], [0092], [0109], [0117] discloses selecting and releasing file 242 from first virtual desktop 242 to second virtual desktop 701 to copy the file as shown in fig. 5A; Trivedi paragraph [0076], [0109] discloses copy operation copies the data object from the source and copies the object to the target and unlike a move operation doesn’t delete the data object from the source environment).
As for claim 8, claim 8 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Trivedi paragraph [0009], [0030], [0036], [0038] discloses processor and instructions stored in memory).
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Trivedi paragraph [0009], [0030], [0036], [0038] discloses processor and instructions stored in memory).
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 27, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Trivedi discloses device and method comprising
wherein forwarding the I/O request to the first virtual desktop is initiated based on user input made on the client device, and wherein forwarding the I/O request and returning the data responsive to the I/O request are performed directly between the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop over the connection without routing the I/O request or the responsive data through the client device.
(Trivedi paragraph [0093-0096] discloses all data transfers between the two remote computer 106, 106’ happen via the virtual connection 278, where input/output request generated from an application user interface on one of the virtual desktop, and communicated to the corresponding application running on the server 106/106’, is then directed to the other remote server via virtual connection 278 to the corresponding application, such as drag and drop file transfers 602-604 shown in Fig. 5B; Broussard [0022-0040] operation made on virtual drive is forwarded to the remote system where the actual drive reside over connections between the local the remote systems).
As for claim 28-29, claims 28 and 29 both include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 27, and are likewise rejected.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi in view of Broussard, Brooks, and Saul et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090282359, filed on 5/12/2008 (hereinafter Saul).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Trivedi discloses device and method comprising
requesting the first virtual desktop to set its GUI and requesting the second virtual desktop to set its GUI
(Trivedi paragraph [0047], [0049], [0055], [0085]-[0087] discloses displaying first GUI of first virtual desktop, remote environment 204 and second GUI of second virtual desktop, remote environment 240, as shown in fig. 5A).
Trivedi-Broussard-Brooks do not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for the first GUI to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the first GUI; and based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for the second GUI to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the second GUI.
However, Saul discloses device and method comprising
based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for first GUI and requesting the virtual desktop to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the GUI
(Saul paragraph [0006], [0039] discloses determining resolution of a virtual desktop based on geometry information received from a remote computer generating to be same as resolution of a display driver of the remote computer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saul’s method of based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for first GUI and requesting the virtual desktop to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the GUI with Trivedi-Broussard-Brooks’ method of requesting the first virtual desktop to set its GUI and requesting the second virtual desktop to set its GUI with Broussard for a method of based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for the first GUI and requesting the first virtual desktop to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the first GUI; and based on the remote display layout, determining a resolution for the second GUI and requesting the second virtual desktop to set its GUI to the determined resolution for the second GUI. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enhance the visual appearance of a display screen for an improved user experience.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi in view of Broussard, Brooks, and Loginov et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150012861, filed on 7/2/2013 (hereinafter Loginov).
As for claim 22, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Trivedi further teaches transferring data between the two remote virtual desktop sessions using drag and drop agent 708 via virtual channel manager 710 (Fig. 5A [0050-0051]), including operation using a clipboard ([0050-0051]), but Trivedi-Broussard-Brooks do not explicitly disclose the steps of:
detecting, at the second virtual desktop, a request to access clipboard data in response to a paste command; Determining that a most recent copy operation was performed in the first virtual desktop; suspending the request to access the clipboard data at the second virtual desktop; retrieving the clipboard data from a clipboard of the first virtual desktop over the connection established between the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop; and returning the retrieved clipboard data to satisfy the suspended request at the second virtual desktop.
However, Loginov discloses device and method comprising
detecting, at the second
(Loginov [0028-0031] Fig. 2 shows a copy/cut content is stored in a shared clipboard between two remote computing devices, when a paste command is requested, the shared clipboard is accessed, and the previous copied/cut content is retrieved from the shared clipboard according to order of operations, where when the last copy/cut was from another device, the shared clipboard would retrieve the content which was from the other device, and satisfy the paste request from the remotely retrieved content form the other device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Loginov’s method of shared clipboard between two remote computers to enable copy/paste between two remote computers, with Trivedi-Broussard-Brooks’ method of sharing clipboard between the first virtual desktop and the second virtual desktop, to achieve sharing clipboard between two virtual desktop environments. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enhance copy/paste experiences between two virtual desktop environment hosted by a client computer for an improved user experience.
As for claim 24 and 26, Claim 24 and 26 both include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 22, and are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights