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 .
This action is in response to the claims filed 10/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 (a method)), 12 (a machine), and 20 (a method) are independent.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 each require: “wherein the first video is associated with a digital rights management technology”
It is unclear what “associated with a digital rights management technology” clause requires. The clause sets forth no acts to be performed nor does it specify any structure of the “computing device”, the “application server” or the video itself. The clause “wherein the first video is associated with a digital rights management technology” does not clearly set forth any limitations/requirements.
Claims 3, 14, and 20 require “sensitive information” it is unclear if the inclusion of sensitive information requires any actions by the claimed elements or if this is non-functional descriptive material/intended use of the system. See MPEP 2111.05 and 2111.04: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
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(s) 1-6, 12-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CrownLabs as disclosed in Iorio – “CrownLabs - a Collaborative Environment to Deliver Remote Computing Laboratories” and Risso - “Getting started with CrownLabs (for users)”.
As to claims 1, and 12, CrownLabs discloses a method/machine comprising:
(regarding the processor and memory of claim 12, see Iorio § V.C, discussing a local machine relaying keyboard/mouse events. See also the demonstration of Risso)
receiving, using a computing device, a document including a first page; (see Risso at 9:30 minutes showing downloading of a file to a local terminal and stating that files can be uploaded as well)
transmitting, using the computing device, the document to an application server; (“web-based personal storage is assigned to each student.” Iorio § III.A. see Risso at 9:30 minutes showing downloading of a file to a local terminal and stating that files can be uploaded as well)
receiving, using the computing device, a first video from the application server, (“Remote desktop access would then be guaranteed by means of a sidecar container, in charge of relaying the inputs and the video connection” Iorio § IV.C) wherein the first video is associated with a digital rights management technology (“providing access to the login portal. Each authenticated student is presented a personal dashboard, displaying the courses she is currently enrolled in and the list of available laboratories.” Iorio §III.A) and includes a single image frame, (the remote desktop: “we describe in greater detail the most relevant aspects of both components, present the technology adopted for remote desktop interaction,” Iorio § V) wherein the single image frame represents the first page of the document;
forming, using a browser module of the computing device, a first Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) element including the first video; and (“This factor, coupled with the availability of a more feature-rich HTML5 client, justified the adoption of the VNC-based solution” Iorio § V.C. See Risso at 8:30 minutes showing the creation and viewing of a document on a remote desktop, also a PDF is visible)
outputting, using an operating system of the computing device, the first video of the first HTML element to a display screen associated with the computing device. (see Iorio Figure 2 showing a web browser display of a remote desktop. See Risso at 5 minutes showing a browser executing on an OS connecting to a remote desktop and Risso at 8:30 minutes showing the creation and viewing of a document on a remote desktop, also a PDF is visible)
While CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso do not explicitly show a file on a local terminal being uploaded to and viewed by the remote desktop, the system is clearly capable of such a use case and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to both upload and download files from the share drive shown at Risso at 8:30 minutes to back up data, collaborate on files with peers, or to iterate on presentations and projects as is typical in collaborative settings.
As to claim 20, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the features of claim 20 as discussed above in claim 1. Regarding the further statement that the “document including a page” contains “sensitive information”.
Sensitive information is explicitly defined in Applicant’s ¶ 22 as: “As used herein, the term “sensitive information” may refer to data that is intended for, or restricted to the use of, one or more users or entities.” In other words, any information that is not made publicly available. This feature is shown in: (“providing access to the login portal. Each authenticated student is presented a personal dashboard, displaying the courses she is currently enrolled in and the list of available laboratories.” Iorio §III.A. Risso at 5:20 minutes showing the requirement of a login to access the system.)
As to claims 2 and 13, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 and further discloses:
wherein the document represents one of: a text document; an image document; a presentation; a spreadsheet; a Portable Document Format (PDF) file; or a multimedia file. (Risso at 8:30 minutes showing the creation and viewing of a text document on a remote desktop, also a PDF document is visible)
As to claims 3 and 14, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 and further discloses: wherein the first page includes sensitive information. (Sensitive information is explicitly defined in Applicant’s ¶ 22 as: “As used herein, the term “sensitive information” may refer to data that is intended for, or restricted to the use of, one or more users or entities.” In other words, any information that is not made publicly available. This feature is shown in: “providing access to the login portal. Each authenticated student is presented a personal dashboard, displaying the courses she is currently enrolled in and the list of available laboratories.” Iorio §III.A. Risso at 5:20 minutes showing the requirement of a login to access the system.)
As to claims 4 and 15, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 and further discloses:
outputting, using the computing device, a portal to the display screen, wherein the outputted first video is configured to be overlaid on the portal on the display screen. (“the central access point to CrownLabs is represented by an introductory web page, providing access to the login portal.” Iorio § III.A. See operation of CrownLabs in Risso at 5:30 through 6:30 minutes illustrating launching of the remote desktop where the video of the remote desktop is “overlaid” in a number of contexts)
As to claims 5 and 16, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 4 and 12 and further discloses:
wherein the portal represents a webpage or an application associated with the computing device. (“the central access point to CrownLabs is represented by an introductory web page, providing access to the login portal.” Iorio § III.A. See operation of CrownLabs in Risso at 5:30 through 6:30 minutes illustrating launching of the remote desktop where the video of the remote desktop is “overlaid” in a number of contexts).
As to claims 6 and 17, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 4 and 12 and further discloses:
authenticating, using the computing device and prior to receiving the document, a user associated with the computing device, wherein the authentication is associated with the portal. (“the central access point to CrownLabs is represented by an introductory web page, providing access to the login portal.” Iorio § III.A. See operation of CrownLabs in Risso at 5:20 through 6:30 minutes illustrating launching of the remote desktop where the video of the remote desktop is “overlaid” in a number of contexts).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CrownLabs as disclosed in Iorio – “CrownLabs -a Collaborative Environment to Deliver Remote Computing Laboratories” and Risso - “Getting started with CrownLabs (for users)” (collectively published in 2020), in view of Hsu, US 9,430,134 (published 2016).
As to claims 7 and 18, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 and further discloses:
a second HTML element (“This factor, coupled with the availability of a more feature-rich HTML5 client, justified the adoption of the VNC-based solution” Iorio § V.C. See Risso at 8:30 minutes showing the creation and viewing of a document on a remote desktop. See also Risso at 14 minutes showing a second virtual desktop session.)
the second HTML element (“This factor, coupled with the availability of a more feature-rich HTML5 client, justified the adoption of the VNC-based solution” Iorio § V.C. See Risso at 8:30 minutes showing the creation and viewing of a document on a remote desktop. See also Risso at 14 minutes showing a second virtual desktop session.)
CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the document further includes a second page, the method further comprising:
receiving, using the computing device, a second video from the application server, wherein the second video is associated with the digital rights management technology and includes a single image frame, wherein the single image frame represents the second page of the document;
forming, using the browser module of the computing device, a second … including the second video; and
outputting, using the operating system of the computing device, the second video of the … to the display screen.
Hsu discloses:
(“The functionality of server application may be visible to and accessible by client 120 via application publishing over the cloud (e.g., communication network 110), such as that supported by GraphOn GO-Global, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, and Citrix XenApp.” Hsu col. 4, ln. 44)
wherein the document further includes a second page, the method further comprising: (“one split window may display one particular page, while another split window may display another page of a multi-page document.” Hsu col. 5, ln. 53)
receiving, using the computing device, a second video from the application server, wherein the second video is associated with the digital rights management technology and includes a single image frame, wherein the single image frame represents the second page of the document; (“In step 240, the client device 120B processes information regarding a second split window to stitch a display image corresponding to the second split window to the display image corresponding to the first split window.... an image display corresponding that next portion may be stitched to the preceding image display in order to provide for seamless scrolling through the additional next portion on client device 120B. Such background communication and processing may repeat until image displays have been stitched together to form a cohesive image display corresponding to the entire content file (or a predetermined segment thereof).” Hsu col. 6)
forming, using the browser module of the computing device, a second … including the second video; and (Hsu col. 6)
outputting, using the operating system of the computing device, the second video of the second … to the display screen. (Hsu col. 6. The multiple windows to display the plurality of portions of the document.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso with Hsu by utilizing the multi-remote-dekstop system of Hsu to display a plurality of portions of a document viewable in CrownLabs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CrownLabs with Hsu in order to provide an improved system for remote-desktop document viewing, Hsu col. 2, ln. 1.
As to claims 8, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso in view of Hsu discloses the method/machine of claims 7 and 12 and further discloses:
wherein the first video and the second video are configured to be presented on the display screen using a display module. (Hsu col. 6, as cited above)
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CrownLabs as disclosed in Iorio – “CrownLabs -a Collaborative Environment to Deliver Remote Computing Laboratories” and Risso - “Getting started with CrownLabs (for users)” (collectively published in 2020), in view of Chauhan, US 2020/0151345 (published 2020).
As to claims 9 and 19, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 but does not disclose:
wherein the first video is configured to play on the display screen when the display screen is not being screenshared or screenshotted.
Chauhan discloses:
wherein the first video is configured to play on the display screen when the display screen is not being screenshared or screenshotted.
(“Screenshot protection is another feature, where an application may prevent any data from being stored in screenshots. For example, the key window's hidden property may be set to YES. This may cause whatever content is currently displayed on the screen to be hidden, resulting in a blank screenshot where any content would normally reside.” Chauhan ¶ 82. “Screenshots that do not include such information may be deemed to be unmolested screenshots. If the screenshot includes content that the client application determines to be sensitive, either based on the information in the screenshot, the underlying application on which the screenshot was captured, or via other policies or rules, the mediation actions can include modifying the screenshot or applying certain restrictions on the screenshot so as to prevent a user from transferring the screenshot to another device or location. The mediation actions can include adding visible digital watermarks to screenshots, adding invisible watermarks to screenshots, applying redaction and/or privacy screen policies to blank out selective content before taking screenshots” Chauhan ¶ 164)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso with Chauhan by including the screenshotting policy determination and control of Chauhan in the system of CrownLabs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CrownLabs with Chauhan in order to prevent data leakage due to screenshotting of content, Chauhan ¶ 4.
As to claims 10, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 but does not disclose:
wherein the first video is configured to not play on the display screen when the display screen is being screenshared or screenshotted.
Chauhan discloses:
wherein the first video is configured to not play on the display screen when the display screen is being screenshared or screenshotted.
(“Screenshot protection is another feature, where an application may prevent any data from being stored in screenshots. For example, the key window's hidden property may be set to YES. This may cause whatever content is currently displayed on the screen to be hidden, resulting in a blank screenshot where any content would normally reside.” Chauhan ¶ 82. “Screenshots that do not include such information may be deemed to be unmolested screenshots. If the screenshot includes content that the client application determines to be sensitive, either based on the information in the screenshot, the underlying application on which the screenshot was captured, or via other policies or rules, the mediation actions can include modifying the screenshot or applying certain restrictions on the screenshot so as to prevent a user from transferring the screenshot to another device or location. The mediation actions can include adding visible digital watermarks to screenshots, adding invisible watermarks to screenshots, applying redaction and/or privacy screen policies to blank out selective content before taking screenshots” Chauhan ¶ 164)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso with Chauhan by including the screenshotting policy determination and control of Chauhan in the system of CrownLabs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CrownLabs with Chauhan in order to prevent data leakage due to screenshotting of content, Chauhan ¶ 4.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CrownLabs as disclosed in Iorio – “CrownLabs - a Collaborative Environment to Deliver Remote Computing Laboratories” and Risso - “Getting started with CrownLabs (for users)” (collectively published in 2020), in view of Reskusich et al., US 2017/0046013 (published 2017).
As to claims 11, CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso discloses the method/machine of claims 1 and 12 but does not disclose:
wherein the first video is configured to play the single image frame in a loop.
Reskusich discloses:
(“Operational environment 200 includes client 220 that is comprised of circuitry configured to effectuate REMOTE DESKTOP PROTOCOL (RDP)” Reskusich ¶ 28)
wherein the first video is configured to play the single image frame in a loop. (“In using previously encoded frame of GUI data to encode frame 450, the computing resources necessary to encode frame 450 may be reduced, allowing a server or proxy that is encoding the frame to concurrently encode more frames (and thus, concurrently conduct more remote presentation sessions) than it would otherwise be able to concurrently encode.” Reskusich ¶ 53. “encoding the graphical data as video based on having previously encoded a second graphical data as second video. That is, the current video being encoded may have commonalities with previously encoded video, and the server may exploit these commonalities to reduce the processing resources used to encode the GUI data as video.” Reskusich ¶ 57. “the server sends the plurality of packets to the client for decoding by the web browser using the browser-native program code to display the GUI data. In an embodiment, the plurality of packets encoded according to the remote presentation protocol is natively decoded and displayed within the web browser. In an embodiment, the client displays the GUI data as a video element embedded in a web page.” Reskusich ¶ 56)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined CrownLabs as shown by Iorio and Risso with Reskusich by incorporating the previously encoded frame re-use of Reskusich in the remote-desktop video of CrownLabs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CrownLabs with Reskusich in order to re-use video data frames when no change is detected, thereby saving processing power and transmission bandwidth, Reskusich ¶ 53.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, particularly:
Zhang et al., US 2018/0129510, disclosing extending desktops in virtual remote desktop environments.
Burke et al., US 2006/0224951, discloses multiple window browser interface and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 8-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492