DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 11/18/25. Claims 1-24 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner notes that the claims recite two separate and distinct instances of elements (8) and (9); thus, should be amended into a more sequential format. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments and/or arguments submitted by Applicant have been considered and are persuasive; thus, the previous rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
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 1-24 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.
The new introduced claim limitation of “wherein the peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprises from one or more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console” is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Amongst other things, Examiner respectfully submits that it is unclear if the peripheral sharing device itself is to be interpreted as a “coupling” or if it is performing an act of coupling; and it is unclear what it is coupling “between” as one of ordinary skill could understand this to be between just the hosts, or between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles, or the likes.
Additionally, Examiner notes that it is also unclear precisely what “that” comprises from one or more peripheral devices is in reference to; and what preceding element enables each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendments and/or arguments submitted by Applicant have been considered and are persuasive; thus, the previous rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
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, 2, 4-17, 19-21, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Flores et al. (2015/0326575) in view of Dowd et al. (2014/0267339).
Claim 1: Ramirez Flores et al. discloses a peripheral sharing device for supporting secure copy-paste operations between hosts, comprising:
a plurality of copy-emulators and a plurality of paste emulators, each one of the copy emulators and each one of the paste emulators is configured to be connected to a single copy-paste driver of one of the hosts, wherein each one of the copy-paste drivers is running on one of the plurality of hosts, each one of the hosts is connected to the peripheral sharing device, and each one of the copy-paste drivers is configured to fetch or store clipboard objects from a clipboard of the corresponding host(logic sense cut or copy command and/or paste command implemented across multiple devices and/or multiple user’s devices) [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8]; and
a security bridge that is configured to securely pass the clipboard objects between pairs of one of the copy emulators and one of the paste emulators(cloud computing environment and/or cloud clipboard) [page 5, paragraph 0054],
wherein the security bridge performs one or more of (1) enforcing unidirectional data transfer of the clipboard objects, (2) monitoring the clipboard objects and enabling or disabling any one of the copy-paste operations according to a security policy or a set of security rules, (3) enabling or disabling only one of the copy-paste operations according to a security policy comprising from at least the identity of source host, the identity of the target host, the type of the clipboard object, time delays and time of day of the copy-paste operation, (4) modifying the clipboard object to prevent sensitive data leakage, (5) building a profile of copy-paste operation patterns of users, (6) analyzing clipboard object traffic to detect cyber-security events, (7) logging, auditing and archiving copy-paste operations or clipboard object traffic history, (8) scanning virus existence in the clipboard objects, (9) sanitizing or removing some information from the clipboard objects, (8) encrypting and decrypting of the clipboard objects, (9) locking suspicious peripheral sharing devices, and (10) preventing clipboard object transfer between pairs of copy-paste controllers according to security rules [page 4, paragraphs 0041 & 0046 | page 5, paragraphs 0050 & 0052-0055 | page 6, paragraphs 0058-0064 | page 7, paragraph 0069-0071 & 0074 | page 8, paragraphs 0076-0080 | page 9, paragraphs 0083-0086] [Examiner notes that several of these optional limitations are also found in both Worley et al. and Dowd et al.; thus, Applicant is kindly requested to review the references in their entirety, as they can also be applied as prior art to reject these limitations],
wherein the copy emulator receives the clipboard object from the copy-paste driver of a first host, transfer the clipboard object to the security bridge and conditioned upon passing the security conditions the security bridge transfer the clipboard object to the paste emulator that further pass the clipboard object to a second host's copy-paste driver(hosting a cloud clipboard accessible to devices for cut, copy and paste data for transfer between devices) [page 3, paragraph 0035];
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprise from one or more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console.
However, Dowd et al. discloses a similar invention [pages 2-3, paragraph 0030] and further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprise from one or more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console(server-based clipboard is in essence a coupling between multiple applications executing on the same device and/or different devices, which acts as a digital hub for sharing content between these applications) [pages 3-5, paragraphs 0036 & 0043-0044 | page 6, paragraphs 0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. with the additional features of Dowd et al., in order to facilitate a more secure technique for cross-device and cross-application transfer of assets, as suggested by Dowd et al. [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 2: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the security bridge is further configured to perform security functions from at least one of or any combination of (1) enforcing unidirectional communication between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers, (2) authenticating the pairs of copy-and-paste controller, (3) blocking or filtering out undesired data transmission between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers, (4) blocking, locking, neutralizing or stopping the communication between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers; (5) encrypting and decrypting the communication between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers; (6) logging, auditing or alerting clipboard transfer event, (7) auditing the clipboard context of clipboard transfer events, (8) analyzing the context of clipboard transfer events, (9) preventing data transfer between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers according to security rules, (10) preventing signal leakage between different pairs of copy-and-paste controllers, (11) allowing passage of only specific types of clipboard object types, (12) scanning for viruses and malicious codes in files/objects clipboards, (13) isolating the communication between the pairs of copy-and-paste controllers, (14) allowing only specific copy-and-paste usage, (15) and using Artificial Intelligence (AI) processing to detect suspicious pattern of copy-paste operations [page 4, paragraphs 0041 & 0046 | page 5, paragraphs 0050 & 0052-0055 | page 6, paragraphs 0058-0064 | page 7, paragraph 0069-0071 & 0074 | page 8, paragraphs 0076-0080 | page 9, paragraphs 0083-0086] [Examiner notes that several of these optional limitations are also found in both Worley et al. and Dowd et al.; thus, Applicant is kindly requested to review the references in their entirety, as they can also be applied as prior art to reject these limitations];
but does not explicitly disclose the security bridge further comprises one or more copy controllers and one or more paste controllers, each one of the copy controllers is configured to be connected to one or more copy emulators, and each one of the paste controllers is configured to be connected to one or more paste emulators, wherein the copy controllers are coupled to the paste controller through a security agent to provide one or more pairs of copy-and-paste controllers.
However, Dowd et al. discloses a similar invention [pages 2-3, paragraph 0030] and further discloses the security bridge further comprises one or more copy controllers and one or more paste controllers, each one of the copy controllers is configured to be connected to one or more copy emulators, and each one of the paste controllers is configured to be connected to one or more paste emulators, wherein the copy controllers are coupled to the paste controller through a security agent to provide one or more pairs of copy-and-paste controllers(enable copying from one application and pasting into a different application, where the applications can be on the same device or different devices and connect through the sever based-clipboard) [pages 3-5, paragraphs 0036 & 0043-0044 | page 6, paragraphs 0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. with the additional features of Dowd et al., in order to facilitate a more secure technique for cross-device and cross-application transfer of assets, as suggested by Dowd et al. [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 4: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the security bridge further comprises an external/remote security agent attached to the peripheral sharing device and the external/remote security agent is a local external device connected to the peripheral sharing device or a remote device or server connected to the peripheral sharing device using a data network comprising from at least an intranet or the Internet [page 3, paragraph 0035 | figure 2].
Claim 5: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device is configured to communicate with the external/remote security agent via one or more Ethernet ports [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 6: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein communication with the external/remote security agent is performed using Virtual Private Network (VPN) or Internet Protocol Security (IPSEC) tunneling protocols.
However, Dowd et al. discloses a similar invention [pages 2-3, paragraph 0030] and further discloses wherein communication with the external/remote security agent is performed using Virtual Private Network (VPN) or Internet Protocol Security (IPSEC) tunneling protocols [page 5, paragraph 0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. with the additional features of Dowd et al., in order to facilitate a more secure technique for cross-device and cross-application transfer of assets, as suggested by Dowd et al. [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 7: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the security bridge is comprising a copy controller communicating with the one or more copy emulators and a paste controller communicating with the one or more paste emulators [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8].
Claim 8: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device comprises at least one unidirectional enforcing device that enable only copy operations and block all paste operations from a particular host.
Claim 9: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device comprises at least one unidirectional enforcing device that enable only paste operations and block all copy operations from a particular subset of all the hosts [page 4, paragraphs 0041 & 0046 | page 5, paragraphs 0050 & 0052-0055].
Claim 10: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device comprises one or more memories to store the clipboard objects, and the memories are at least any one of or any combination of: internal memories, add-on memories, external storage devices, volatile memories, non-volatile memories [page 4, paragraph 0042 | pages 2-3, paragraphs 0029-0030].
Claim 11: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device comprises user interface means to trigger and control the copy-paste operations [figure 8].
Claim 12: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device is a secure peripheral sharing device [page 3, paragraph 0030 | figure 1].
Claim 13: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein communication between at least one of the copy-paste drivers and at least one of the copy emulators is performed over Universal Serial Bus (USB) [pages 2-3, paragraphs 0028-0029].
Claim 14: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein communication between at least one of the copy-paste drivers and at least one of the paste emulators is performed over Universal Serial Bus (USB) [pages 2-3, paragraphs 0028-0029].
Claim 15: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein a keyboard and mouse device emulator, one of the copy emulators, and one of the paste emulators, share the same Universal Serial Bus (USB) port and enumerate as a plurality of composite Universal Serial Bus (USB) devices [pages 2-3, paragraphs 0028-0029].
Claim 16: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device further comprises network switches to share data communication of the hosts and the security bridge over one or more external network ports [page 2, paragraph 0028 | figure 2].
Claim 17: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the clipboard objects comprise at least one of the following types: text string, picture, file, and Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) objects [page 4, paragraph 0043].
Claim 19: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device comprises copy-paste User Interface (UI), the copy-paste user interface comprises at least one of or any combination of (1) pushbuttons to trigger the copy-paste operations or steps of the copy-paste operations, and (2) one or more indicators to provide progress and status information to the user regarding the copy-paste operation [page 3, paragraph 0029 | figure 8].
Claim 20: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device capture copy-paste triggering commands from a keyboard data stream [page 3, paragraphs 0029 & 0036 | figure 8].
Claim 21: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, and Ramirez Flores et al. further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device receives copy-paste triggering commands from the host’s copy-paste driver [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8].
Claim 23: Ramirez Flores et al. discloses a system for secure copy-and-paste operations between hosts comprising:
a plurality of hosts [figure 2]; and
s secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device for supporting secure copy-paste operations between hosts [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8],
wherein each host is connected to the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device and comprises copy-paste driver configured to fetch or store clipboard objects from the clipboard of the host [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8]
wherein the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device includes
a plurality of copy-emulators and a plurality of paste emulators, each one of the copy emulators and each one of the paste emulators is configured to be connected to one of the host’s copy-paste drivers [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8], and
a security bridge that is configured to securely pass the clipboard objects between pairs of one of the copy emulators and one of the paste emulators [page 5, paragraph 0054],
wherein the security bridge performs at least one of or any combination of (1) enforce unidirectional data transfer of the clipboard objects, (2) monitor the clipboard objects and enable or disable the any one of the copy-paste operations according to a security policy or a set of security rules, (3) enable or disable any of the copy-paste operations according to a security policy comprising from at least the identity of source host, the identity of the target host, the type of the clipboard object, time delays and time of day of the copy-paste operation, (4) modify the clipboard object to prevent sensitive data leakage, (5) build a profile of copy-paste operation patterns of users, (6) analyze clipboard object traffic to detect cybersecurity events, (7) log, audit and archive copy-paste operations or clipboard object traffic history, (8) scan virus existence in the clipboard objects, (9) sanitize or remove some information from the clipboard objects, (8) encrypt and decrypt of the clipboard objects, (9) lock suspicious peripheral sharing devices, and (10) prevent clipboard object transfer between pairs of copy-paste controllers according to security rules [page 4, paragraphs 0041 & 0046 | page 5, paragraphs 0050 & 0052-0055 | page 6, paragraphs 0058-0064 | page 7, paragraph 0069-0071 & 0074 | page 8, paragraphs 0076-0080 | page 9, paragraphs 0083-0086] [Examiner notes that several of these optional limitations are also found in both Worley et al. and Dowd et al.; thus, Applicant is kindly requested to review the references in their entirety, as they can also be applied as prior art to reject these limitations], and
wherein the copy emulator that receives the clipboard object from a source host’s copy-paste driver, transfer the clipboard object to the security bridge and conditioned upon passing security conditions, the security bridge transfers the clipboard object to one of the paste emulators that further passes the clipboard object to a target host’s copy-paste driver [page 3, paragraph 0035];
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprises from one of more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console.
However, Dowd et al. discloses a similar invention [pages 2-3, paragraph 0030] and further discloses wherein the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprises from one of more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console [pages 3-5, paragraphs 0036 & 0043-0044 | page 6, paragraphs 0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. with the additional features of Dowd et al., in order to facilitate a more secure technique for cross-device and cross-application transfer of assets, as suggested by Dowd et al. [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 24: Ramirez Flores et al. discloses a method for performing secure copy-paste operations between hosts through a peripheral sharing device, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a clipboard object from a source host [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8];
transferring the clipboard to a security bridge [page 5, paragraphs 0050-0052 | page 8, paragraph 0078 | figures 2 & 8];
receiving the clipboard from the security bridge [page 5, paragraph 0054]; and
sending the clipboard to the target host [page 3, paragraph 0035],
wherein the security bridge performs at least one of or any combination of (1) enforcing unidirectional data transfer of the clipboard object, (2) monitoring the clipboard object and enabling or disabling the copy-paste operation according to a security policy or a set of security rules, (3) enabling or disabling the copy-paste operation according to security policy comprising from at least the identity of source host, the identity of the target host, the type of the clipboard object, time delays and time of day of the copy-paste operation, (4) modifying the clipboard object to prevent sensitive data leakage, (5) building a profile of copy-paste operation patterns of users, (6) analyzing clipboard object traffic to detect cyber-security events, (7) logging, auditing and archiving copy-paste operation or clipboard object traffic history, (8) scanning virus existence in clipboard object, (9) sanitizing or removing some information from clipboard objects, (8) encrypting and decrypting of clipboard objects, (9) locking suspicious peripheral sharing devices, and (10) preventing clipboard object transfer between pairs of hosts according to security rules [page 4, paragraphs 0041 & 0046 | page 5, paragraphs 0050 & 0052-0055 | page 6, paragraphs 0058-0064 | page 7, paragraph 0069-0071 & 0074 | page 8, paragraphs 0076-0080 | page 9, paragraphs 0083-0086] [Examiner notes that several of these optional limitations are also found in both Worley et al. and Dowd et al.; thus, Applicant is kindly requested to review the references in their entirety, as they can also be applied as prior art to reject these limitations];
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprises from one or more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console.
However, Dowd et al. discloses a similar invention [pages 2-3, paragraph 0030] and further discloses wherein the secure copy-paste peripheral sharing device is coupling between the hosts and one or more user’s consoles that comprises from one or more peripheral devices to enable each one of the users to operate the hosts using a single console [pages 3-5, paragraphs 0036 & 0043-0044 | page 6, paragraphs 0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. with the additional features of Dowd et al., in order to facilitate a more secure technique for cross-device and cross-application transfer of assets, as suggested by Dowd et al. [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim(s) 3, 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez Flores et al. (2015/0326575) in view of Dowd et al. (2014/0267339) and further in view of Worley et al. (2018/0039385).
Claim 3: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the clipboard object received by the target host is modified version of the clipboard object transferred by the source host.
However, Worley et al. discloses a similar invention [page 5, paragraphs 0059-0060] and further discloses wherein the clipboard object received by the target host is modified version of the clipboard object transferred by the source host [page 5, paragraphs 0061-0062].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. with the additional features of Worley et al., in order to facilitate efficient adaptation and use of a multi-item clipboard store, as suggested by Worley et al. [page 1, paragraph 0002].
Claim 18: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the peripheral sharing device adds metadata information to the clipboard objects and wherein the metadata information comprises at least one of or any combination of: Time Of Day (TOD) of the copy operation, copy operation host identification (host ID), Time Of Day (TOD) of the paste operation, and paste operation host identification (host ID).
However, Worley et al. discloses a similar invention [page 5, paragraphs 0059-0060] and further discloses wherein the peripheral sharing device adds metadata information to the clipboard objects and wherein the metadata information comprises at least one of or any combination of: Time Of Day (TOD) of the copy operation, copy operation host identification (host ID), Time Of Day (TOD) of the paste operation, and paste operation host identification (host ID) [page 5, paragraphs 0063-0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. with the additional features of Worley et al., in order to facilitate efficient adaptation and use of a multi-item clipboard store, as suggested by Worley et al. [page 1, paragraph 0002].
Claim 22: Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. disclose the peripheral sharing device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein only text string clipboard objects, with length that is less than a predefined maximum length, are allowed to be transferred in the copy-paste operations.
However, Worley et al. discloses a similar invention [page 5, paragraphs 0059-0060] and further discloses wherein only text string clipboard objects, with length that is less than a predefined maximum length, are allowed to be transferred in the copy-paste operations [page 9, paragraphs 0105-0107].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosures of Ramirez Flores et al. and Dowd et al. with the additional features of Worley et al., in order to facilitate efficient adaptation and use of a multi-item clipboard store, as suggested by Worley et al. [page 1, paragraph 0002].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly introduced features of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose a separate copy emulators and paste emulators because it is performed by the same entity.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Ramirez Flores et al. describes the copy command as separate and distinct from the paste command, and not just a single command that is called upon to perform both actions; thus, each command being executed at its respectively application and/or device can be reasonably understood as a corresponding emulator (ie. when copying in one application from a first device vs. when pasting in another application at a second device).
Second, Applicant generally argues that various optional aspects of the claimed invention have not been met by the applied prior art of record.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the current claim language simply requires that the security bridge perform “one” or more of the recited features; thus, whether or not Ramirez Flores et al. meets all or none of the disputed limitations is irrelevant because they may or not be part of the actual claim scope.
Third, Applicant generally argues that the prior art of record does not disclose anything that “securely” passes clipboard objects, nor any actual security functions.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the current claim language does not necessarily clarify what doing something “securely” entails beyond the fact that it is done securely; thus, whether or not the disclosed elements of Ramirez Flores et al. are secure enough to meet the claims is irrelevant because the claims do not establish an exact requirement for something to be considered secure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435