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
1. This action is in response to the application filed on March 29, 2024. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-29 are pending. Claims 16-29 represent ALLOCATION OF SERVER RESOURCES IN REMOTE-ACCESS COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, Applicant claims “he allocated serve.” Examiner construes it as a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed. The teaching is the claim is different from anything in the disclosure including paragraph 19 and figure 3 Applicant pointed Examiner to as stated in the interview summary.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification including paragraph 19 and figure 3, Applicant referred to Examiner is not enabling the claimed limitations “determining and allocating a server of a plurality of servers with a process upon a system; establishing a remote desktop environment comprising a plurality of applications within the allocated server; and providing the remote desktop environment comprising the plurality of applications to a client device.”
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claim 16 fails to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the Applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply email sent on December 4, 2025 as a result to our back and forth. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the Applicant has stated “The original language of independent claim 16 aligns with paragraph [0019] of the specification, specifically lines 3-5;” and in claim: “16. A method comprising:
determining and allocating a server of a plurality of servers with a process {Steps 320 - 360 of Method 300} upon a system; (steps 320, 340)
establishing a remote desktop environment comprising a plurality of applications within the allocated server; and {step 370 of Method 300}
providing the remote desktop environment comprising the plurality of applications to a client device. {step 370 of Method 300},” and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because after review of both paragraph 19 and the mapping of claim 16, Applicant fails to disclose in the specification the teaching of the claimed subject matter.
Double Patenting
5. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
18/621,370
11,949,737
10,992,744
11,665,229
16. A method comprising: determining and allocating a server of a plurality of servers with a process upon a system; establishing a remote desktop environment comprising a plurality of applications within the allocated server; and providing the remote desktop environment comprising the plurality of applications to a client device.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a gateway server of a network, a request from a client device, wherein the network comprises a plurality of servers each capable of providing a remote desktop environment to the client device, and wherein the remote desktop environment provided by each server of the plurality of servers hosts a plurality of applications; determining in dependence upon a capacity and a utilization level of each server of the plurality of servers a first server of the plurality of servers; and directing the request from the client device to the first server of the plurality of servers to establish the client session and to execute the requested application as part of the client session; wherein determining the capacity of each server of the plurality of servers comprises: determining a maximum number of allotments to be supported for each system resource of a set of system resources of the respective server; and determining the current utilization of each server of the plurality of servers comprises: determining a number of allotments allocated to each client session of the server of the plurality of servers for each system resource of the set of system resources; and summing the number of allotments allocated to all current client sessions; and either: each allotment for each system resource of a set of system resources for each server of the plurality of servers represents a constant portion of the system resource for that server of the plurality of servers; or: each allotment for each system resource of a set of system resources for each server of the plurality of servers represents a universal unit of the system resource employed for the plurality of servers.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a gateway server of a network, a request from a client device to execute an application, wherein the network comprises a plurality of servers each capable of providing a remote desktop environment to the client device, and wherein the remote desktop environment provided by each of the plurality of servers hosts a plurality of applications; selecting a subset of the plurality of servers that each provide a remote desktop environment that hosts the requested application; determining a priority level for a client session to be established between the client device and the requested application; determining a capacity of each server of the subset of servers, the capacity characterizing system resources of the respective server independent of a number of client sessions; determining a current utilization level of each server of the subset of servers in dependence upon a number and priority levels of client sessions currently supported by the respective server, the current utilization level characterizing systems resources employed by active client sessions; determining, based on the priority level for a client session to be established, and the capacity and the current utilization level of each of the subset of servers, that the client device is to be directed to a first server of the subset of servers, the first server having an expected utilization level that satisfies a threshold condition, wherein the expected utilization level of the first server reflects a subsequent addition of the client session between the client device and the requested application to the first server; and directing the request from the client device to the first server to establish the client session and to execute the requested application as part of the client session.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a gateway server of a network, a request from a client device, wherein the network comprises a plurality of servers each capable of providing a remote desktop environment to the client device, and wherein the remote desktop environment provided by each server of the plurality of servers hosts a plurality of applications; determining a priority level for a client session to be established between the client device and the requested application; determining in dependence upon a capacity and a utilization level of each server of a subset of the plurality of servers a first server of the plurality of servers; directing the request from the client device to the first server of the plurality of servers to establish the client session and to execute the requested application as part of the client session; wherein selecting the subset of the plurality of servers comprises selecting those servers of the plurality of servers that each provide a remote desktop environment that hosts a requested application associated with the request from the client device; the capacity of each server of the subset of the plurality of servers is determined by characterizing system resources of the respective server independent of a number of client sessions; and the utilization level of each server of the subset of the plurality of servers in determined in dependence upon a number and priority levels of client sessions currently supported by the respective server, the utilization level characterizing systems resources employed by active client sessions; wherein the request relates to an idle client session or disconnected client session which was executing the requested application; and the first server of the plurality of servers has an expected utilization level that satisfies a threshold condition, wherein the expected utilization level of the first server of the plurality of servers reflects a subsequent addition of the idle client session or disconnected client session to the first server of the plurality of servers.
6. Claims 16-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22, 1-8 and 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.(s) 10,992,744; 11,665,229 and 11,949,737, to Kutuzov. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison between the set of claims shows that the instant claims 1-11 are anticipated by claims 1-22, 1-8 and 1-11 of patent(s) ‘744, ‘229 and ‘737, respectively.
Based on the 112 rejection above, Examiner is using the following prior art below to reject claim 16 as best he understood it.
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.
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Talwar et al. U.S. 20060218285.
Talwar teaches the invention as claimed including Remote Desktop Performance Model For Assigning Resources (see abstract)
As to claim 16, Talwar teaches a method comprising:
determining and allocating a server of a plurality of servers with a process upon a system (paragraph 51, Talwar discloses server 140A allocation resources such as a portion of the compute node 120A (i.e. a server) from a plurality of nodes 120A…120N);
establishing a remote desktop environment comprising a plurality of applications within the allocated server (paragraph 31, Talwar discloses after a remote desktop session is established, a user may subsequently interact with the launched applications through one or more per-application sessions. A per-application interactive session for an application executing on a remote compute node, such as the compute node 120A, may include an association between a user and an executing application wherein the user interacts directly with the application) ; and
providing the remote desktop environment comprising the plurality of applications to a client device (paragraph 52, Talwar discloses the session is started, the user interactively starts applications 160 through the established remote desktop session connection. This is shown as middle level requests in FIG. 2, such as a request for starting an application within the remote desktop session 165 and desktop session data sent to the node 105. These middle level requests go through the session admission control module 125, shown in FIG. 1, at the compute node 120A).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 17-29 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.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL HADJI SALL whose telephone number is (571)272-4010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-8:30 (flexible).
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 5712724001. 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.
/EL HADJI M SALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457