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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, line 8, it is unclear whether “the sensitive application” is referring to “a predesignated sensitive application” in line 6 (i.e. consistent terms should be used)
As per claim 3, line 7, recites term “the remote desktop”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per claim 5, line 2, recites term “the remote desktop”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per claim 7, line 2, it is unclear whether “a list of predesignated sensitive applications” includes “a predesignated sensitive application” in claim 1 (i.e. is a predesignated sensitive application one of the “list of predesignated sensitive applications”?)
As per claims 8 and 15, they have the same deficiency as claim 1 above. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 10 and 17, they have the same deficiency as claim 3 above. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 12 and 19, they have the same deficiency as claim 5 above. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 14, it has the same deficiency as claim 7 above. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, they depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San et al. US Pub 2020/0228606 (hereafter San) in view of Chittampally et al. US Pub 2022/0414241 (hereafter Chittampally) and further in view of Vasu US Patent 12,249,140 (hereafter Vasu).
As per claim 1, San teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method, comprising: establishing a collaborative session on a primary user's virtual desktop with one or more secondary users, wherein a graphical user interface (GUI) of the virtual desktop is streamed to a virtual desktop client running on a client device of the primary user and to a virtual desktop client running on a client device of each of the one or more secondary users (para[0027, 0030-0039], FIG. 2, desktop session is established and the owner client 220 is connected to virtual desktop 202, and the other client devices 221-223 are also connected to the virtual desktop, and the GUI of the virtual desktop is streamed to each client via corresponding connection).
San does not explicitly teach detecting that a predesignated sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop; and in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, stopping streaming the GUI to the virtual desktop client of each of the one or more secondary users.
However, Chittampally teaches detecting that a predesignated sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop (para[0004-0005, 0031], privacy manager provides a user to select items such as applications, files documents that contains sensitive applications that the user wish to hidden from screen sharing, and the privacy manager determine if any of the preselected items are open in the primary desktop environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chittampally’s teaching to San’s invention in order to provide a method to automatically hide predetermined sensitive items from a screen sharing session with other users over a network to avoid inadvertently revealing private data to remote parties when the user forgets to close sensitive items while sharing the screen, which can results in serious consequences both monetary or security (para[0003-0005, 0025]).
San and Chittampally do not explicitly teach in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, stopping streaming the GUI to the virtual desktop client of each of the one or more secondary users.
However, Vasu teaches in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, stopping streaming the GUI to the virtual desktop client of each of the one or more secondary users (col 34, line 42-63, col 36, line 22-48, when Visual advance check sensitive information detector module detects that the sensitive information is being shared, the module interrupt and aborts the screen sharing, thus the streaming of GUI of the virtual desktop is stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Vasu’s teaching to San and Chittampally’s invention in order to avoid sensitive or private information being shared via screen sharing by providing visual filtering, where the module can interrupt and abort the screen sharing and blur or blank out sensitive information in a shared workspace (col 36, line 22-48).
As per claim 2, San, Chittampally and Vasu teach the method of claim 1, and Vasu teaches further comprising: in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, presenting a warning dialog in the virtual desktop with a warning message indicating that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop (col 36, line 22-67, col 37, line 1-13, when the application with sensitive information is open in the virtual desktop, the screen share is interrupted to indicate the presence of sensitive information and the user given (required to make) a choice to filter out the sensitive part or override and force share the screen, representing a warning message to the user).
As per claim 3, Vasu teaches further comprising: in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, presenting a dialog in the virtual desktop that provides the primary user with one or more options for handling the open sensitive application, the options including one or more of: to minimize the sensitive application; to close the sensitive application; to pop-out the sensitive application from the remote desktop in a separate window; to stop sharing the virtual desktop with collaborators; or to continue sharing the virtual desktop without taking action; and handling the open sensitive application according to the primary user's selection in the dialog (col 36, line 22-67, col 37, line 1-13, when the application with sensitive information is open in the virtual desktop, the screen share is interrupted to indicate the presence of sensitive information and the user given (required to make) a choice to filter out the sensitive part or override and force share the screen, representing a warning message to the user).
As per claim 4, Vasu teaches further comprising: after handling the open sensitive application according to the primary user's selection in the dialog, resuming streaming the GUI to the virtual desktop client of each of the one or more secondary users (col 36, line 22-67, col 37, line 1-13, after user’s selection of either masking/blurring the sensitive image or force share the screen, the system resumed the screen sharing to other users accordingly).
As per claim 5, Chittampally teaches further comprising: popping-out the opened sensitive application from the remote desktop in a separate window by: closing the opened sensitive application in the virtual desktop; and launching the sensitive application as a virtual application in a new window on the primary user's client device (para[0028-0029], FIG. 2, item 212b is a sensitive application which is moved from the virtual desktop to other new window of the primary user device).
As per claim 6, San teaches further comprising, prior to establishing the collaborative session on the primary user's virtual desktop: receiving a request from the primary user to invite the one or more secondary users into the collaborative session; (para[0016-0017], the primary user requests to invite other users to collaborate on the virtual desktop, prompting the system to invite them to join the virtual desktop session).
In addition, Chittampally teaches detecting that a predesignated sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop (para[0004-0005, 0031], privacy manager provides a user to select items such as applications, files documents that contains sensitive applications that the user wish to hidden from screen sharing, and the privacy manager determine if any of the preselected items are open in the primary desktop environment).
In addition, Vasu teaches in response to detecting that the sensitive application is open in the virtual desktop, presenting a dialog in the virtual desktop that provides the primary user with one or more options for handling the open sensitive application, the options including one or more of: to minimize the sensitive application; to close the sensitive application; to pop-out the sensitive application from the remote desktop in a separate window; to stop sharing the virtual desktop with collaborators; or to continue sharing the virtual desktop without taking action (col 36, line 22-67, col 37, line 1-13, when the application with sensitive information is open in the virtual desktop, the screen share is interrupted to indicate the presence of sensitive information and the user given (required to make) a choice to filter out the sensitive part or override and force share the screen, representing a warning message to the user);
and handling the open sensitive application according to the primary user's selection in the dialog before streaming the GUI of the virtual desktop to the virtual desktop client of any of the one or more secondary users (col 36, line 22-67, col 37, line 1-13, module pre-checks the screen prior to a starting the screen sharing, and handling the user’s selection of either masking/blurring the sensitive image or force share the screen).
As per claim 7, Chittampally teaches further comprising: sending a list of predesignated sensitive applications by the virtual desktop client of the primary user to the virtual desktop; and monitoring the virtual desktop to detect when an application in the list of predesignated sensitive applications is opened (para[0004-0005, 0031], privacy manager provides a user to select items such as applications, files documents that contains sensitive applications that the user wish to hidden from screen sharing, and the privacy manager determine if any of the preselected items are open in the primary desktop environment).
As per claim 8, it is a computing device claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it is a computing device claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is a computing device claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is a computing device claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is a computing device claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is a computing device claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is a computing device claim of claim 7 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at 571-272-4169. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195