DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the request for continuation filed on July 21, 2025 in
application 18595,015.
Claims 2-11, 17-29 are presented for examination. Claims 2-11, 17-20 are amended. Claims 21-29 are newly added. Claims 1 and 12-16 are cancelled.
IDS submitted on August 17, 2023 was acknowledged.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that the limitation of “the first workspace and the second workspace being different native operating system-managed environments for grouping application windows” is not taught by related prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that Zamir does not disclose receiving session data about a computing session previously established on the second user device and session data describing a display arrangement on a second device.
Examiner disagreed. Zamir teaches establishing a new login session (para. 27, fig. 2) where the login session could be migrated to a different physical machine (para. 21). Furthermore, Zamir teaches when the login session is being terminated, the system walks through all of the open windows and capture a screenshot of each window that is open on the desktop at the time … the location of each window is also determined and recorded along with the screenshots before the session is terminated … when the user starts a new active login session later, the state of the desktop can be restored using the recorded file paths, screenshots and window locations (para. 13). Therefore, the migrating the new login session to a different physical machine is equated to the claimed limitation of receiving session data previously on the second user device.
Additionally, applicant stated that Zamir reconnects to already-running remote virtual machine session where the applications are executing remotely and not reconstruct a computing session locally.
Examiner disagreed. Zamir teaches of a component for determining the processes for each window and the arguments passed to those processes on launch (para. 25) and to relaunch applications automatically (para. 28). The login session could be migrated to a different physical machine (para. 21). The component for determining and relaunch application is equated to the claimed limitation of reconstructing the window session at the different physical device upon a new login.
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2-3, 5-7, 9-11, 17-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current application 18/595,015
Patent 11,921,592 (app. 16/947,131)
Claim 2
Claims 1-2
Claim 3
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 1, 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claims 9, 11
Claim 8 (full screen mode)
Claim 9
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 2
Claim 11
Claim 9
Claim 17
Claim 12
Claim 18
Claim 16
Claim 19
Claims 12, 16
Claim 20
Claims 12, 16
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
******************
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Wang et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,921,592 in view of Kori US 2003/0132928. Wang et al. teach of transferring computer session between user devices and restoring the computing session on a display of the first user device based on the session data according to the display arrangements in which the first application was arranged but does not explicitly teach of the display being in the full-screen mode. Kori teaches of setting the layout to full screen display, so that the title bar and window frame are hidden and the desktop display is hidden (para. 75). It would have been obvious to modify the method of Wang et al. by adding Kori full screen display. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would allow the title bar and window frame to be hidden (para. 75).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9-11, 17, 22, 25-27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zamir (US 2017/0249069).
In regard to claim 2, Zamir teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first user device, an authentication credential of a user account associated with the first user device and a second user device (once a new login session is established, para. 27, fig. 2, user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) it is noted that a login session would authenticate the credential of a user and migrating to a different machine equate to first and second user device;
receiving, by the first user device, session data about a computing session previously establish on the second user device (user’s desktop may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21 restoring desktop state, fig. 4, para. 35), the session data including information about a display arrangement of a plurality of applications launched by a user during the computing session on the second user device (when the login session is being terminated, the system walks through all of the open windows and capture a screenshot of each window that is open on the desktop at the time … the location of each window is also determined and recorded along with the screenshots before the session is terminated … when the user starts a new active login session later, the state of the desktop can be restored using the recorded file paths, screenshots and window locations, para. 13); and
generating a local reconstruction (user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) of the computing session on the first user device using the session data (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b), including:
initiating, by an operating system of the first user device, local execution of at least a portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device (a component for determining the processes for each window and the arguments passed to those processes on launch, para. 25, applications will be automatically relaunch, para. 28); and
rendering, by the operating system of the first user device, windows of the portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device according to the display arrangement in which the windows were arrange during the computing session on the second user device (a component for detecting windows locations, para. 25, all windows will be opened in the same location on the screen where the corresponding windows were located just prior to termination of the session, para. 31).
In regard to claim 6, Zamir teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the session data includes coordinates of a window of an application (the location of each window (e.g., the window’s XY coordinates on the screen), para. 33), and a width and height of the window (sets windows locations properly based on the locations that were recorded prior to session termination, para. 36, location and sizes of the window, para. 37, it is noted that since the size and location can be adjusted for different resolution, therefore the size and location is stored in the previously collected information, width and height is equated to the size and location.
In regard to claim 9, Zamir does not explicitly teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
in response to receiving the session data, rendering a user interface object with a selectable option to enable a user to initiate generation of the local reconstruction of the computing session on the first user device (for other application windows, the agent starts its own process per application window, showing the last screenshot of the app and a list of options per file that was originally opened in the last session by that application, para. 36, fig. 4, 409); and
in response to a user selection of the selectable option, generating the local reconstruction of the computing session in the first user device (clicking one of the options will launch the application with the selected file, para. 36).
In regard to claim 10, Zamir teaches the method of claim 2, wherein receiving the session data includes: receiving, over a network (collected information is uploaded to a server, para. 34, fig. 3, 313), the session data from a synchronization engine executing on one or more server computers, the synchronization engine configured to manage synchronization of the computing session across user devices (recording the information that can be used to restore the desktop state of a login session, para. 32, fig. 3).
In regard to claim 11, Zamir teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (processor, fig. 6, para. 38); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions (storage medium for storing program instructions for execution by the processor, para. 38) that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:
receive, by a first user device, an authentication credential of a user account associated with the first user device and a second user device (once a new login session is established, para. 27, fig. 2, user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) it is noted that a login session would authenticate the credential of a user and migrating to a different machine equate to first and second user device;
receiving, by the first user device, session data about a computing session previously establish on the second user device (user’s desktop may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21 restoring desktop state, fig. 4, para. 35), the session data including information about a display arrangement of a plurality of applications launched by a user during the computing session on the second user device (when the login session is being terminated, the system walks through all of the open windows and capture a screenshot of each window that is open on the desktop at the time … the location of each window is also determined and recorded along with the screenshots before the session is terminated … when the user starts a new active login session later, the state of the desktop can be restored using the recorded file paths, screenshots and window locations, para. 13); and
generating a local reconstruction (user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) of the computing session on the first user device using the session data (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b), including:
initiating, by an operating system of the first user device, local execution of a portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device (a component for determining the processes for each window and the arguments passed to those processes on launch, para. 25, applications will be automatically relaunch, para. 28); and
render, by the operating system of the first user device, windows of the portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device to the display arrangement in which the windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device (a component for detecting windows locations, para. 25, all windows will be opened in the same location on the screen where the corresponding windows were located just prior to termination of the session, para. 31).
In regard to claim 17, Zamir teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that cause at least one processor to execute operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, by a first user device, an authentication credential of a user account associated with the first user device and a second user device (once a new login session is established, para. 27, fig. 2, user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) it is noted that a login session would authenticate the credential of a user and migrating to a different machine equate to first and second user device;
receiving, from the second user device, session data about a computing session previously establish on the second user device (user’s desktop may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21 restoring desktop state, fig. 4, para. 35), the session data including information about a display arrangement of a plurality of applications launched by a user during the computing session on the second user device (when the login session is being terminated, the system walks through all of the open windows and capture a screenshot of each window that is open on the desktop at the time … the location of each window is also determined and recorded along with the screenshots before the session is terminated … when the user starts a new active login session later, the state of the desktop can be restored using the recorded file paths, screenshots and window locations, para. 13); and
generating a local reconstruction (user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21) of the computing session on the first user device using the session data (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b), including:
initiating, by an operating system of the first user device, local execution of at least a portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device (a component for determining the processes for each window and the arguments passed to those processes on launch, para. 25, applications will be automatically relaunch, para. 28); and
rendering, by the operating system of the first user device, windows of the portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device according to the display arrangement in which the windows were arrange during the computing session on the second user device (a component for detecting windows locations, para. 25, all windows will be opened in the same location on the screen where the corresponding windows were located just prior to termination of the session, para. 31).
In regard to claim 22, Zamir teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the portion of the plurality of applications include a non-browser application, a browser application, a tab rendered by the browser application, and a web application executable by the browser application (the agent uses office software APIs to determine any documents that are open and the locations in those documents … for any open browsers (e.g., including IP addresses of web sites), for any open folders and windows are open, para. 34, fig. 1).
In regard to claim 25, Zamir teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the portion of the plurality of applications include a first application and a second application, the session data includes focus information indicating that a window of the first application had focus when the computing session was last recorded, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: identify the window of the first application as an active interface to receive user input (the user may be actively editing the word processing document, para. 20, the location in the document may include the position of the cursor within document, para. 24, a component for determining the processes for each window and the arguments passed to those processes on launch, para. 25).
In regard to claim 26, Zamir teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the session data includes information reflecting a state of the computing session in response to the user logging out of the second user device (process for recording the information that can be used to restore the desktop state of a login session … prior to the termination of the session, agent captures a screenshot of each open window and records the snapshots, para. 32-33).
In regard to claim 27, Zamir teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the session data is stored in association with the user account and retrieved from a remote server upon authentication of the user account on the first user device (user starts a new active login session at a later time, para. 13, another possibility is that the user’s desktop image may be migrated to a different physical machine, para. 21).
In regard to claim 29, Zamir teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the session data includes a position of a window of an application on a display of the second user device, the session data including a size of the window ((sets windows locations properly based on the locations that were recorded prior to session termination, para. 36, location and sizes of the window, para. 37), wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: programmatically adjust at least one of the position of the window or the size of the window based on a display resolution or scaling factor associated with the first user device (restoring the desktop state after resolution changes, fig. 5a-5B, para. 37).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamir (US 2017/0249069) in further view of Gest (US 2003/0179240).
In regard to claim 3, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the session data includes information that indicates that a split screen mode was enabled during the computing session on the second user device, wherein generating the local reconstruction on the first user device includes:
partitioning a display of the first user device into a first display screen portion and a second display screen portion, the second display screen portion being independent from the first display screen portion;
rendering first windows of a first portion of the plurality of applications in the first display screen portion according to the display arrangement in which the first windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device; and
rendering second windows of a second portion of the plurality of applications in the second display screen portion according to the display arrangement in which the second windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device.
Gest teaches of a virtual desktop management system that enables a user to create multiple desktops on the same computer system, one desktop for office-related applications, one desktop for development applications, one desktop for internet-related applications and a taskbar to switch between virtual desktops (para. 6).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Zamir by adding Gest managing virtual desktop. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would provide a window environment with multiple desktops (para. 37).
In regard to claim 5, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the first user device displays a current desktop interface, the method further comprising:
in response to receiving the session data, generating a workspace that corresponds to the computing session established by the second user device, the workspace being a native operating system-managed environment for grouping application windows;
rendering, on the first user device, a user interface element that represents the workspace; and
in response to a user selection of the user interface element, switching a display of the first user device from the current desktop interface to a desktop interface corresponding to the workspace, the desktop interface displaying the windows of the portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device according to the display arrangement in which the windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device.
Gest teaches of a virtual desktop management system that enables a user to create multiple desktops on the same computer system, one desktop for office-related applications, one desktop for development applications, one desktop for internet-related applications and a taskbar to switch between virtual desktops (para. 6). The window environment includes an operating system or shell that presents a user with specially delineated areas of the screen call “windows.” Windowing environments (e.g., Macintosh Finder operating system, windows-based operating systems, UNIX-based operating system, the OS/2 Presentations Manager, etc.) (para. 3).
Refer to claim 3 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 18, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the session data includes information that indicates that a split screen mode was enabled during the computing session on the second user device, wherein the operations further comprise:
partitioning a display of the first user device into a first display screen portion and a second display screen portion, the second display screen portion being independent from the first display screen portion; and
rendering the windows of the portion of the plurality of applications in the first display screen portion and the second display screen portion according to the display arrangement in which the windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device.
Gest teaches of a virtual desktop management system that enables a user to create multiple desktops on the same computer system, one desktop for office-related applications, one desktop for development applications, one desktop for internet-related applications and a taskbar to switch between virtual desktops (para. 6).
Refer to claim 3 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 19, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the session data includes information that associates a first portion of the plurality of applications to a first virtual desk and a second portion of the plurality of applications to a second virtual desk, wherein the operations further comprise: arranging the first portion of the plurality of applications in a first user interface that corresponds to the first virtual desk; arranging the second portion of the plurality of applications in a second user interface that corresponds to the second virtual desk; and provide one or more user interface controls on the first user device that enable the user to switch between the first user interface and the second user interface.
Gest teaches of a virtual desktop management system that enables a user to create multiple desktops on the same computer system, one desktop for office-related applications, one desktop for development applications, one desktop for internet-related applications and a taskbar to switch between virtual desktops (para. 6).
Refer to claim 3 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 20, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first user device displays a current desktop interface, wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to receiving the session data, generating a workspace that corresponds to the computing session established by the second user device, the workspace being a native operating system-managed environment for grouping application windows;
rendering, on the first user device, a user interface element that represents the workspace; and
in response to a user selection of the user interface element, switching a display of the first user device from the current desktop interface to the workspace, the workspace displaying the windows of the portion of the plurality of applications on the first user device according to the display arrangement in which the windows were arranged during the computing session on the second user device.
Gest teaches of a virtual desktop management system that enables a user to create multiple desktops on the same computer system, one desktop for office-related applications, one desktop for development applications, one desktop for internet-related applications and a taskbar to switch between virtual desktops (para. 6). The window environment includes an operating system or shell that presents a user with specially delineated areas of the screen call “windows.” Windowing environments (e.g., Macintosh Finder operating system, windows-based operating systems, UNIX-based operating system, the OS/2 Presentations Manager, etc.) (para. 3).
Refer to claim 3 for motivational statement.
************************
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamir (US 2017/0249069) in further view of Sinclair et al. (US 2020/0319784).
In regard to claim 7, Zamir does not explicitly teach the method of claim 2, wherein the session data includes information that indicates that a picture-in-picture window was enabled during the computing session on the second user device, wherein generating the local reconstruction of the computing session on the first user device includes:
replicating, by the operating system of the first user device, the picture-in-picture window on the first user device according to a display arrangement in which the picture-in-picture window was arranged during the computing session on the second user device, the picture-in-picture window configured to display media data in a foreground regardless of whether the user interacts with other applications on the first user device.
Sinclair et al. teach of during a session, a user may select between various views, such as a picture in picture view or a split-screen view (para. 85).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Zamir by adding Sinclair et al. personalizing information. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would allow user to select various views (para. 85).
************************
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamir (US 2017/0249069) in further view of Kori (US 2003/0132928).
In regard to claim 8, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the session data includes information that indicates that a full screen mode for an application was enabled during the computing session on the second user device, wherein generating the local reconstruction of the computing session on the first user device includes: displaying an interface of the application in the full screen mode in which a toolbar of the application is removed from the interface of the first user device.
Kori teaches of setting the layout to full screen display, so that the title bar and window frame are hidden and the desktop display is hidden (para. 75).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Zamir by adding Kori full screen display. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would allow the title bar and window frame to be hidden (para. 75).
***********************************************
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamir (US 2017/0249069) in further view of Gaber et al. (US 2021/0097596).
In regard to claim 21, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: selecting a subset of the plurality of applications for the local reconstruction on the first user device based on a prediction that the subset is relevant to a usage context of the first user device.
Gaber et al. teach of generating a prediction on workspace J for a given active user (para. 40, 55, 57, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Zamir by adding Gaber et al. workspace recommendation. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in generating a prediction on workspace (para. 40).
In regard to claim 28, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: rendering a user interface that enables the user to select one of a plurality of stored computing sessions associated with the user account for synchronization on the first user device.
Gaber et al. teach of generating a prediction on workspace J for a given active user, and optionally, a top N list of available workspaces for a given active user (para. 40, fig. 4), generate ordered list of available workspaces, ranked by weight scores generated by the workspace recommendation system and present given user with a top N list of workspaces (para. 46-47).
Refer to claim 21 for motivational statement.
***********************************************
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamir (US 2017/0249069) in further view of Miller et al. (US 2021/0366430).
In regard to claim 24, Zamir teaches of (restore logic can arrange the windows in a heuristic way which puts them in a visually similar location on the respective locations in the prior sessions, para. 37, fig. 5a-b) but Zamir does not teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the session data includes stacking order information indicating whether a window of an application of the plurality of applications was positioned in a foreground or a background on the second user device, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: in response to the stacking order information indicating that the window of the application was positioned in the background on the second user device, rendering the window of the application in the background on the first user device.
Miller et al. teach of collecting window information to include: an identification of a foreground window, and coordinates of the foreground window (para. 6). Use the collected window information to determine a number of background windows that overlap a foreground window (para. 8).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Zamir by adding Miller eta l. generating multi-monitor. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in collecting window information (para. 64-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Pachkov et al. (US 11,159,627) desktop protocol
Yost (US 2020/0272304) plurality of work environment
Hinckley (US 7,532,196) split view, migration and virtual desktop
Suryanarayanan et al. (US 10,686,646) desktop recovery
************************
Lin et al. (US 2010/0121959) full-screen
Cheng et al. (US 9,164,646) multiple desktop surfaces
Burch et al. (US 9,219,762) desktop migration
Xiao et al. (10,511,674) migrate virtual desktop
Ronkainen et al. (US 2002/0175933) switch to different user interface
Hochmuth et al. (US 2006/0136835) full-screen mode display
************************
Singh (US 11,159,646) virtual desktop instance
Patil et al. (US 2021/0271577) desktop computer platform recovery
Koushik et al. (US 11,068,136) virtual desktop instance failure
Song et al. (US 7,386,855) application mobility service
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Thomas Ashish can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov