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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Currently pending claims are 1 – 20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter where “One or more computer storage media” as recited in the claim, may be reasonably interpreted as being intended to include communication media that include signals / carrier waves which “bear" instructions as claimed according to the disclosure of the specification (SPEC: Para [0087]: including a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave). Such embodiments of the "manufacture" are not computer elements which define structural and functional interrelationships between the instructions and the rest of the computer that permit the functionality of the instructions to be realized / executed upon access by a hardware processor. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully suggests an amendment of the claim language such as either (a) “One or more computer storage device” or (b) “One or more non-transitory computer storage media”. Appropriate correction(s) is (are) required and any other claims not addressed are objected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (EP 1-143-660 A2).
As per claim 1, Shah teaches a computerized system comprising:
one or more computer processors (Shah: FIG. 1); and
computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations (Shah: FIG. 1) comprising:
configuring a unified policy object for a remote client and a local client (Shah: see above & Abstract / Line 1 – 6, Para [0035] Line 1 – 3, Para [0059] Line 8 – 12 and Para [0045] Line 3 – 6: a policy database configures / stores all (combined) policy management functions (policy settings) including all users (local / remote clients) using a unified hierarchical object oriented structure (Para [0035] Line 1 – 3) in a LDAP database that constitutes a unified policy object), wherein the unified policy object is a combined management configuration that enables enforcement of a unified policy of the unified policy object on both the remote client and the local client (Shah: see above & Para [0031] Line 29 – 32, Para [0048] Line 34 – 39, Para [0059] Line 3 – 7 / Line 21 – 23 and Para [0045] Line 3 – 6: a unified policy is enforced on each individual policy enforcers in different locations (local / remote clients), which is transparent to an administrator so as to enable both of the local policy enforcers and remotely situated policy enforcers accordingly);
communicating the unified policy to the remote client (Shah: see above & Abstract / Line 8 – 10 / Line 1 – 3, Para [0059] and Para [0045] Line 3 – 6: a unified policy can be automatically transferred (communicated) to the policy enforcers in different locations, including a remotely situated policy enforcer and a local policy enforcer (on a local network));
generating unified device management data associated with the unified policy, the remote client, and the local client (Shah: see above & Para [0048] Line 34 – 39 and Para [0031] Line 29 – 32: creating unified policy and spanning multiple functional aspects (i.e. unified device management data) to the multiple policy enforcers (local / remote clients)); and
communicating the unified device management data to cause display of the unified device management data on a device management interface (Shah: see above & FIG. 4 / E-402, Para [0059] Line 15 – 17and Para [0047]: providing a global monitor (web-based) user interface (UI) to define (add, view & modify) the policy enforcer’s configurations and monitor various aspects of the device).
As per claim 8, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 with the exception of the feature(s) of communicating a request for unified device management data associated with a unified policy, a remote client, and a local client (Shah: see above, FIG. 3 / E-308 and Para [0048] Line 34 – 39: a policy management sub-module entity sends requests for unified device management data associated with a unified hierarchical object oriented structure (Para [0035] Line 1 – 3) to an administrator of a central policy server (FIG. 3) for creating and spanning multiple functional aspects (i.e. unified device management data) to the multiple policy enforcers (local / remote clients)).
As per claim 15, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 with the exception of the feature(s) of communicating the unified policy to the local client to cause enforcement of the unified policy on the local client (Shah: see above & Para [0030] Line 1 – 3 and Para [0031] Line 29 – 32).
As per claim 2, Shah teaches wherein configuring the unified policy object is based on a request from a device management client to configure the unified policy, wherein configuring the unified policy object comprises generating the unified policy, and wherein the unified policy enables consolidation of policy configuration, management, and enforcement for remote clients and local clients (Shah: see above, FIG. 3 / E-308 and Para [0048] Line 34 – 39: a policy management sub-module entity (as a device management client) sends requests for unified device management data associated with a unified hierarchical object oriented structure (Para [0035] Line 1 – 3) to an administrator of a central policy server (FIG. 3) for creating and spanning multiple functional aspects (i.e. unified device management data) to the multiple policy enforcers (local / remote clients)).
As per claim 3 & 12, Shah teaches wherein the unified policy object is associated with unified device management resources comprising an integrated development framework of virtual desktop infrastructure resources and device management system resources (Shah: see above & Para [0020] Line 21 – 37).
As per claim 4, Shah teaches wherein the unified policy includes a first policy attribute that is enabled for local clients and the first policy attribute that is disabled for remote clients (Shah: see above & Para [0070] Line 9 – 12 / Line 20 – 25: first, a first policy attribute applied to a policy enforcer for a local network takes on rule at a time (I.e. activated for a local client) when comparing it against the network traffic (i.e. against a remote client), wherein the first attribute has an “active flag attribute” indicating (as an option) whether the policy has been de-activated (disabled) or activated (enabled) for a remote client).
As per claim 5, 13 & 19, Shah teaches wherein the unified policy is temporarily enforced on the local client during a remote session between the remote client and the local client (Shah: see above & Para [0073] Line 45 – 46: a time attribute indicates a time slot during which a policy is to be effective).
As per claim 6, Shah teaches receiving, from a device management client, a request for the unified device management data associated with the unified policy, the remote client, and the local client (Shah: see above, FIG. 3 / E-308 and Para [0048] Line 34 – 39: a policy management sub-module entity (as a device management client) sends requests for unified device management data associated with a unified hierarchical object oriented structure (Para [0035] Line 1 – 3) to an administrator of a central policy server (FIG. 3) for creating and spanning multiple functional aspects (i.e. unified device management data) to the multiple policy enforcers (local / remote clients)),
wherein the device management client enables configuration and management of the unified policy object and the unified policy (Shah: see above); and
based on receiving the request, communicating the unified device management data to the device management client to cause display of the unified device management data on the device management interface, wherein the device management interface includes a plurality of unified device management interfaces configured to display unified device management data associated with remote clients and local clients (Shah: see above, FIG. 3 / E-308 and Para [0048] Line 34 – 39: a policy management sub-module entity sends requests for unified device management data associated with a unified hierarchical object oriented structure (Para [0035] Line 1 – 3) to an administrator of a central policy server (FIG. 3) for creating and spanning multiple functional aspects (i.e. unified device management data) to the multiple policy enforcers (local / remote clients)).
As per claim 7 & 18, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 – 6 with the exception of the feature(s) of communicating the unified policy to the local client to cause the local client to apply the unified policy, wherein applying the unified policy comprises selectively applying local client policy attributes of the unified policy (Shah: see above & Para [0064] Line 10 – 13 and Para [0071] Line 20 – 24: a host (i.e. a local client) can selectively apply (activate) local client policy attributes of the unified policy by using an “active flag attribute” with an option to indicate whether the unified policy should be activated or de-activated).
As per claim 9, 10, 14 & 16, the instant claim is directed to a claimed content having functionality corresponding to the Claims 1 – 8.
As per claim 11, Shah teaches wherein the unified policy enables consolidation of policy configuration, management, and enforcement for remote clients and local clients (Shah: see above & Para [0007] Line 20 – 23: enabling unification (i.e. consolidation) of policy configuration, management, and enforcement).
As per claim 17, Shah teaches storing the unified policy in a unified policy store of the remote client (Shah: see above & Para [0105] Line 22 – 27: coping / storing a unified policy configuration information to a policy enforcer of a VPN client (i.e. remote client).
As per claim 20, Shah teaches wherein the remote connection is associated with a dynamic virtual channel that enables communicating the unified policy from the remote client to the local client (Shah: see above & Para [0050] Line 46 – 48 / Line 51 – 54: activating a dynamic routing capabilities of the (local / remote) policy enforcers to provide a virtual channel
of a VPN connection).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2561 – 2025 ---------------------------------------------------