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 .
The Application number 18/633,013 filed on 4/11/2024 has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sienicki et al. (US 2022/0255966 hereinafter Sienicki).
Regarding claim 12, Sienicki discloses a distributed computing system comprising:
a client agent that resides on a network and is communicably coupled to a server that resides outside of the network (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0044]-[0045], [0055]-[0059]; i.e. the edge computing gateway (ECG) communicates with the image server or container server through the internet), the client agent comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the client agent to perform a process operable to:
receive a software container image from the server via an encrypted communication channel, the container image comprising code to be executed and a user interface component (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0050]-[0051], [0058]-[0060]; i.e. receiving encrypted application-based container from the image server or container server);
execute the container image in an isolated manner (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0050]-[0051], [0058]-[0060]; i.e. running the application-based containers isolated from each other);
receive a connection to a user device via the encrypted communication channel; receive, by the isolated container, signals from the user device (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0046], [0058]-[0060], [0101]-[0106], [0151]; i.e. receiving a user communication to inform or request the start of the application-based container); and
manipulate a user interface displayed on the user device based on the signals received from the user device (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0050]-[0051], [0058]-[0060], [0101]-[0106]; i.e. executing the application-base container which interpreted as displaying the content and or functionalities of the application on the user device).
Regarding claim 13, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein passing the signals comprises at least one of mouse movements, clicks, and keyboard key presses at the user device (FIG. 1A, ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein the system comprises a network policy on the isolated container that blocks outgoing access (¶ [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein the server communicates with the client agent via an asynchronous message queue mechanism or via a synchronous communication mechanism (FIG. 1A, ¶ [0182]).
Regarding claim 16, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein the user interface component comprises a containerized application (¶ [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 17, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein the encrypted communication channel is configured to encrypt all data sent over the connection (¶ [0046], [0055], [0151]).
Regarding claim 18, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 17, wherein the encrypted communication channel comprises a Transport Layer Security (TLS) tunnel (¶ [0046], [0055], [0151]).
Regarding claim 19, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 12, wherein the client agent comprises at least one of a cloud-based server in a virtual private cloud, an on-site provisioned virtual machine, or an on-site server with access to data in a network and compute processing devices including one or more of CPUs or GPUs (FIG. 1A, 5A-C, 8A-C, ¶ [0044]-[0045], [0055]-[0059].
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sienicki et al. (US 2022/0255966 hereinafter Sienicki) in view of Xie et al. (US 2025/0020481 hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claim 20, Sienicki discloses the distributed computing system of claim 16.
Sienicki does not explicitly disclose wherein the containerized application comprises at least one of a viewing or annotation tool.
However, Xie discloses wherein the containerized application comprises at least one of a viewing or annotation tool (¶ [0567], [0577]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sienicki and Xie in order to determine information about a physical environment in which an operation is to be performed (¶ [0001]-[0002], [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1, when considered as a whole, is allowable over the prior art of record. Specially, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest “the server to perform a process operable to create a project based on an indication received from a user device external from the network of the client agent; receive a software container image from the user device, the container image comprising code to be executed and a user interface component; identify a dataset accessible by the client agent; associate at least a subset of the dataset with the project; trigger execution of the container image by the client agent, wherein the client agent executes a software container based on the software container image in an isolated manner; transmit a link to access a user interface (UI) of the container image to the user device; in response to receiving an indication that the user device has accessed the link, authenticating the user device and validating an authorization of the user device to access the UI of the container image; establish a connection between the user device and the isolated container, the connection comprising an encrypted communication channel; pass signals from the user device to the isolated container; and pass signals from the isolated container to the user device.”
The dependent claims 2-11 further add limitations to the allowable subject matters of the corresponding independent claims, thus are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Joseph P Hirl can be reached at (571)272-3685. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435