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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 304 in paragraph [0072]; 204 in paragraph [0077]; 334 in paragraph [0079]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 335 in Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0016] reads “to view on a second UI the remote second device” should read “to view on a second UI of the remote second device.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a second UI the remote second device” should read “a second UI of the remote second device.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 and 18 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.
Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation “wherein the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1, from which claims 17 and 18 depend on, recite “data analysis”, “data that is collected”, “a set of data”, and “analysis results of data” so it is unclear where data is being defined or introduced. The references to “the data” are, therefore, ambiguous. For examination purposes, “the data” will be interpreted as “the set of data”.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2023/0185589) and further in view of Hayes (US 2020/0326967).
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches: a method comprising: at a remote second device used by a remote user at a remote second location (¶ 18, “Computing device 110 via user interface 106 may enable a user and/or a client to interact with RDS-R component 122;” ¶ 24, “RDS-R component 122 and remote desktop 107.sub.1 each execute on computing device 110 and are each interacting with user 140;” and Fig. 1B, computing device element 110 corresponds to a remote second device; element 140 corresponds to a remote user):
accessing over a network, a first VM executing on the first device (¶ 21, “In the depicted embodiment, virtual machine 102.sub.1-virtual machine 102.sub.N, collectively referred to as virtual machine(s) 102, execute on server computer 120;” and Fig. 1B, virtual element 102_1 corresponds to a first VM), the first VM allowing remote use of a second VM executing on the first device (¶ 22, “target machine 108 may be executed on computing device 110;” and Fig. 1B, target machine element 108 corresponds to a second VM);
and using the first VM (i) to direct the second VM, (ii) to generate a rendered image (¶ 24, “generates and implement an overlay”), and (iii) to forward the rendered image through the network to the remote second device for the remote user (¶ 38, “In step 312, RDS-R component 122 streams embedded remote desktop window images to an overlay;” and Fig. 3, Step 312, “stream embedded rdw pictures to overlay”).
Jenkins does not teach, however, Hayes discloses: a device to produce analysis results of data that is collected and stored at the vehicle (¶ 17, “The automation computing system 116 may also capture and store sensor data;” ¶ 25, “Further stored in RAM 206 is a data collection module 224 configured to process and/or store sensor data;” and Fig. 2, Data collection module element 224 corresponds to device to produce analysis results of data that is collected and stored at the vehicle);
and [using] the second VM to analyze the set of data to produce a set of analysis results (¶ 20, “The results or output of the given process may be output from the primary processing unit to a receiving process or service.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of [using] a second VM executing on the first device to produce analysis results of data that is collected and stored at the vehicle and [using] the second VM to analyze the set of data to produce a set of analysis results as taught by Hayes to the second VM, as taught by Jenkins. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “producing real-time data analysis results from a remote user”, as indicated by Hayes (¶ 25, ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 2, Jenkins teaches: wherein the first VM is a virtual desktop VM executing on the first device (¶ 21, “In the depicted embodiment, remote desktop 107.sub.1-107.sub.N, collectively referred to as remote desktop(s) 107, execute on server computer 120, via virtual machine(s) 102;” and Fig. 1B, remote desktop 107_2 corresponds to a virtual desktop VM).
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins and Hayes teach: wherein the second VM is a data collection and analysis VM (Hayes, ¶ 28, “Each of the virtual machines 229 may be configured to execute one or more of the automation module 220, the data collection module 224, the data processing module 226, or combinations thereof;” and Fig. 2, virtual machine(s) element 229 corresponds to second VM, data collection module element 224 corresponds to data collection VM, and data processing module 226 corresponds to analysis VM) executing on the first device that is able to be accessed by remote devices, including the remote second device, through the virtual desktop VM (Jenkins, ¶ 21, “In various embodiments, remote desktop(s) 107 may be located and/or executed anywhere within distributed data processing environment 100 as long as remote desktop(s) 107 are connected to and/or communicate with, computing device 110, virtual machine(s) 102, and/or server computer 120, via network 130.”).
Regarding claim 4, Jenkins and Hayes teaches: wherein: the rendered image is a first rendered image (Jenkins, ¶ 12, “(iv) generating an overlay on the open remote desktop window”),
the virtual desktop VM provides a second rendered image of a user interface (UI) of the first device (Jenkins, ¶ 12, “wherein the overlay comprises the target remote desktop window and displays a remote desktop screen corresponding to the target virtual machine”), and
using the virtual desktop VM to direct the data collection and analysis VM (Jenkins, ¶ 29, “Overlay 128 displays visuals (e.g., text and/or images) transmitted by the RDS-R component 122 at a predetermined interval to enable user 140 to see the Remote Desktop screen (e.g., remote desktop window 109) of the target virtual machine and enable the capturing of the actions performed by user 140”) to produce the set of analysis results (Hayes, ¶ 26, “The data processing module 226 is configured to perform one or more processes on stored sensor data (e.g., stored in data storage 218 by the data collection module 218) prior to upload to a server 227. Such operations can include filtering, compression, encoding, decoding, or other operations as can be appreciated.”).
Regarding claim 5, Jenkins teaches: wherein the UI of the first device is a first UI, and the second rendered image includes the set of data to view on a second UI of the remote second device (¶ 24, “The overlay may stream the picture from the second remote desktop in maximized mode so that the main window appears as it is displaying just one remote desktop session.”).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins and Hayes teaches: using the virtual desktop VM (Jenkins, ¶ 29, “Overlay 128 displays visuals (e.g., text and/or images) transmitted by the RDS-R component 122 at a predetermined interval to enable user 140 to see the Remote Desktop screen (e.g., remote desktop window 109) of the target virtual machine and enable the capturing of the actions performed by user 140”) to direct the data collection and analysis VM to store the set of analysis results at the vehicle (Hayes, ¶ 25, “For example, the data collection module 224 may store the sensor data as captured by the one or more sensors 212, or processed sensor data 212”).
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins teaches: wherein the first device executes a connection broker module that is configured to facilitate interaction between the remote user and the first VM (¶ 18, “User interface (interface) 106 provides an interface to remote desktop session—rewrite (RDS-R) component 122. Computing device 110, via user interface 106, may enable a user and/or a client to interact with RDS-R component 122;” ¶ 29, “Overlay 128 displays visuals (e.g., text and/or images) transmitted by the RDS-R component 122 at a predetermined interval to enable user 140 to see the Remote Desktop screen (e.g., remote desktop window 109) of the target virtual machine and enable the capturing of the actions performed by user 140;” and Fig. 1A, remote desktop session – rewrite component element 122 corresponds to connection broker module).
Regarding claim 17, Hayes teaches: wherein the data, including the set of data, is stored on a set of data storages of the first device (¶ 25, “The data collection module 224 may store the sensor data in data storage 218.”).
Regarding claim 18, Hayes teaches: wherein the data, including the set of data, is stored on a particular storage device connected to the first device (¶ 32, “many components of such software typically are stored in non-volatile memory also, such as, for example, on data storage 218, such as flash storage”).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Hayes in further view of Mazzaferri (US 2007/0198656).
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins and Hayes do not teach; however, Mazzaferri teaches: wherein the first VM executes a micro-broker module that is configured to facilitate interaction between the remote user and the first VM (¶ 604, “the virtual machine service component receives authentication information associated with a user of the client machine 10;” and ¶ 605, “The virtual machine service component automatically reconfigures the display settings of the guest operating system to match those of the ICA client”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of [using] the received authentication information to authenticate the user of the client machine to the computing environment provided by the virtual machine as taught by Mazzaferri to the first VM as taught by Jenkins. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “identifying and providing access to virtualized resources available to a user of the client machine”, as indicated by Mazzaferri (¶ 6).
Regarding claim 8, Mazzaferri teaches: further comprising, before accessing the first VM: sending to the micro-broker module, a first data message requesting access to the VM (¶ 287, “Still referring to FIG. 8, and in more detail, a request for access to a resource is received (step 802). In one embodiment, a remote machine 30 receives the request. In some embodiments, the remote machine 30 is an intermediate broker server;” and Fig. 8, step 802, “receiving a request for access to a resource”); and
receiving, from the micro-broker module, a second data message allowing access to the first VM (¶ 286, “A virtual machine is selected (step 812). The virtual machine is configured (step 814). Access to the resource is provided (step 818);” and Fig. 8, step 818, “provide access to resource”).
Regarding claim 9, Mazzaferri teaches: wherein the micro-broker module allows access to the first VM based on a set of user authentication credentials associated with the remote user (¶ 613, “The authentication module 1710 receives user authentication credentials provided for the purposes of authenticating a user to the client machine 100, the remote machine 30, or both.”).
Regarding claim 10, Mazzaferri teaches: wherein the set of user authentication credentials comprises a username and a password associated with the remote user (¶ 613, “Received authentication credentials can include username-password combinations”).
Regarding claim 11, Mazzaferri teaches: wherein the micro-broker module allows access to the first VM also based on a set of device authentication credentials associated with the remote second device (¶ 480, “In yet another embodiment, the mobile computing device 9005 may store a key that is used by the computing device 8910 to authenticate the user and/or generate a decryption key;” and ¶ 911).
Regarding claim 12, Mazzaferri teaches: wherein the set of device authentication credentials comprises at least one of a Media Access Control (MAC) address and an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the remote second device (¶ 183, “the remote machine 30 may be selected responsive to an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the client machine 10;” and ¶ 270, “This also expands the types of access control decisions that the policy engine 706 can make, due to the greater control over the type of information collected. The collection agent 704 gathers information 712 including, without limitation, machine ID of the client machine 10, operating system type, existence of a patch to an operating system, MAC addresses of installed network cards”).
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Hayes in further view of Fotheringham (US 2020/0245210).
Regarding claim 14, Jenkins and Hayes do not teach; however, Fotheringham teaches: wherein the network is a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) (¶ 20, “FIG. 4A illustrates a network framework that includes a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).”), and accessing the first VM over the network comprises accessing the first VM using a set of one or more wireless network links (¶ 60, “In one embodiment, the edge appliance, using its router or routing logic, is able to divide up the data for routing and route that traffic using multiple communication links.”) associated with an edge router in the vehicle that connects the vehicle to the SD-WAN (¶ 71. “In one embodiment, the edge router of the edge appliance is implemented in a vehicle and uses a software-defined WAN router (SD-WAN) to make routing decisions to determine which path to route user data to a public data network (e.g., Internet).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of [using] a software-defined WAN router to make routing decisions to determine which path to route user data to a public network as taught by Fotheringham to the network as taught by Jenkins. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in an edge router that facilitates access to the first VM over a software-defined wide area network.
Regarding claim 15, Fotheringham teaches: wherein the set of wireless network links comprises at least two wireless network links provided by at least two different service providers (¶ 156, “the connectivity platform comprising a broker/integrator component configured to operate as a broker and an integrator between the edge appliance and both connectivity service providers and business support systems that perform subscription management to enable the edge appliance access to the satellite and terrestrial cellular links.”).
Regarding claim 16, Fotheringham teaches: wherein the edge router is one of (i) an edge router appliance (¶ 67, “the edge appliance includes an edge router and routing logic to perform backhaul-aware routing”), (ii) an edge router that executes on a computer that operates in the vehicle, or (iii) an edge router that executes on a machine that executes on the computer (¶ 71, “the edge router of the edge appliance is implemented in a vehicle”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Hayes in further view of Krutzik (US 2014/0022849).
Regarding claim 19, Jenkins and Hayes do not teach; however, Krutzik teaches: wherein the particular storage device is a secure solid-state drive (SSD) (¶ 54, “Applicant’s secure SSD utilizes an “always-on” AES-256 encryption with internally-generated and protected keys.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of [using] the secure SSD to provide full support for multiple verifiable military erase algorithms as taught by Krutzik to the particular storage device as taught by Hayes. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “a solid state memory device in which memory contents are securely erasable”, as indicated by Krutzik (¶ 4).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,689,623 and further in view of Jenkins US 2023/0185589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent in view of Jenkins US 2023/0185589 teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,689,623 in view of Jenkins US 2023/0185589
Claim 1: A method for remotely performing data analysis on a set of data collected using a first device operating in a vehicle at a first location, the method comprising:
Patent No. 12689623 Claim 1: A method for analyzing data collected by a vehicle at a first location, the method comprising: on a first device operating in the vehicle:
at a remote second device used by a remote user at a remote second location: accessing, over a network, a first VM executing on the first device, the first VM allowing remote use of a second VM executing on the first device to produce analysis results of data that is collected and stored at the vehicle;
instantiating a virtual desktop first virtual machine (VM), the virtual desktop first VM for allowing remote use of the first device by a remote user that uses a remote second device at a remote second location; instantiating a data collection second VM, the data collection second VM for local use of the first device to collect a set of data at the first location and store the set of data at the vehicle;
and using the first VM (i) to direct the second VM to analyze the set of data to produce a set of analysis results,
and facilitating interaction between the virtual desktop first VM and the remote user over a network for the remote user to access the data collection second VM to analyze the set of data without needing to forward the set of data over the network to the remote second device,
(ii) to generate a rendered image that shows the set of analysis results,
Jenkins, ¶ 24, “generates and implement an overlay”
and (iii) to forward the rendered image through the network to the remote second device for the remote user to view the set of analysis results.
Jenkins, ¶ 38, “In step 312, RDS-R component 122 streams embedded remote desktop window images to an overlay;” and Fig. 3, Step 312, “stream embedded rdw pictures to overlay”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelly (US 2022/0417319) teaches “the edge device may establish a virtual channel within an existing VDI connection for data transmission purposes” (¶ 19), which relates to the disclosed remotely performing data analysis using a virtual desktop.
Ritesh (US 2015/0052447) teaches “The graphics sharing module 134 may share the representation 136 of the graphical user interface 114 using any desktop or graphical user interface sharing system 142” (¶ 32), which relates to the disclosed streaming a remote display from a vehicle to a user device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights