DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/924227 filed on 10/23/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 has been acknowledged and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “network connects a host domain” should be --network connecting a host domain—
Claims 4-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim depends from Claim and recites “the bridge” but claim 1 does not include “a bridge”, so “the bridge” in these claims should be --a bridge--.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to be a duplicate of claim 11. The examiner believes that the claim should be dependent on claim 12 (and not claim 1 as listed). 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 1-11 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.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “prohibits other data transmission…”. It is unclear to the examiner what exactly “prohibits” entails. Is the software application the entity that “prohibits other data transmission,” or is it the remote desktop protocol doing that? Applicant’s specification reiterates the claim language and also states:
[0036] The invention provides ephemeral access to remote phones that leave no data or information on the Host Device 2. The only data that leaves the Target Device 4 is streaming audio and video data. All file transfer, clipboard sharing, etc. is disallowed by default within the RDP protocol and can be further restricted using an enterprise Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution to prevent screen shots on the Host Device. Data transmitted from Host Device to Target Device includes video, audio, and touch initiated information. Data transmitted from the Target Device to the Host Device is limited to streaming audio and video. This is an improvement over existing solutions that must mitigate data transfer through policy, while the Application avoids it through architecture.
Therefore, in line with applicant’s specification, if RDP protocol is used, then all other forms of data are “disallowed by default.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinaman et al. (US 2017/0208038) in view of Bingol et al. (US 2017/0126842).
Regarding claim 1, Hinaman disclosed:
A mobile communications system (Figure 1, network 100), comprising:
a host device (Figure 1, remote device 102),
a target device (Figure 1, network endpoints 132a-c),
a software application (Figure 3, application software 322; Paragraph 63) controlled from the host device,
wherein the software application establishes a connection between the host device and the target device (Paragraph 52, establish routing of traffic to allow remote device to participate in Stealth network 130. Paragraph 53, establishing secure communications between remote device 102 and Stealth network endpoints 132a-c),
While Hinaman disclosed allowing clients to have secure remote access to data across public and private networks (Paragraphs 18-19), Hinaman did not explicitly disclose having remote desktop protocol initiates mirroring of audio and video of the target device on the host device, and prohibits other data transmission from the target device to the host device.
However, in an analogous art, Bingol disclosed having remote desktop protocol initiates mirroring of audio and video of the target device on the host device, and prohibits other data transmission from the target device to the host device (Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306. As there are two separate channels and only channels for audio/video and nothing else, other data transmission is prohibited).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman with Bingol because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the remote desktop protocol of Bingol with the teachings of Hinaman in order to efficiently and quickly process information (Bingol, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
further comprising a bridge (Hinaman, Figure 1, VPN server 104), wherein remote desktop protocol of the bridge permits mirroring of audio and video of the target device on the host device, and prohibits non-video and non-audio data transmission from the target device to the host device (Bingol, Paragraph 36, web socket proxy server 302 (i.e., bridge) facilitates communications from an RDP client to an RDP server. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306. As there are two separate channels and only channels for audio/video and nothing else, other data transmission is prohibited).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
further comprising a virtual private network connects a host domain of the host device to a target domain of the target device (Hinaman, Paragraph 48, VPN server allows for communication via a trusted subnet 120 (i.e., host domain) to a secure remote access gateway 106 that connects to the Stealth network 130 (i.e., target domain)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
the software application establishes a virtual private network connection with the target device (Hinaman, Paragraph 48, VPN server allows for communication via a trusted subnet 120 to a secure remote access gateway 106 that connects to the Stealth network 130), and establishes a remote desktop connection from the host device to the bridge (Bingol, Paragraph 36, web socket proxy server 302 (i.e., bridge) facilitates communications from an RDP client to an RDP server. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
wherein target device is accessed and controlled by the host device (Bingol, Paragraph 46, establishing a virtual channel so that an application can request to play audio on the client. The application residing on the remote machine and using RDP to control the application).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
wherein access and data transfer from the target device to the host device is controlled by enterprise identity, credentialing, and access management protocol (Hinaman, Paragraph 20, utilizing IPsec that allows for authenticating and encrypting each IP packet and establishes authentication between agents at the beginning of the session and negotiating cryptographic keys to be used during the session).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
wherein limiting transfer from the target device to the host device to audio and video images is controlled by enterprise identity, credentialing, and access management protocol (Bingol, Paragraph 31, only allowing a client access to resources provided by the server after providing suitable authentication information. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306. As there are two separate channels and only channels for audio/video and nothing else, other data transmission is prohibited).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
wherein limiting transfer from the target device to the host device to audio and video images is controlled by enterprise identity, credentialing, and access management protocol (Bingol, Paragraph 31, only allowing a client access to resources provided by the server after providing suitable authentication information. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306. As there are two separate channels and only channels for audio/video and nothing else, other data transmission is prohibited).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinaman et al. (US 2017/0208038) in view of Bingol et al. (US 2017/0126842) and Beveridge et al. (US 2016/0364200).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and wherein screen copy mirrors the target device's user interface and the mirrored user interface is provided to the host device.
However, in an analogous art, Beveridge disclosed wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and wherein screen copy mirrors the target device's user interface and the mirrored user interface is provided to the host device (Paragraph 18, giving users the ability to select their desktop screens and mirror them to mobile devices (i.e., screen copy). Paragraph 28, upon selection of the UI to be mirrored, the remote desktop (i.e., target device’s UI) pushes real time images of the UI as they appear on the remote desktop to the proxy services agent 110 (i.e., bridge) and then to the client device (i.e., host device). Paragraph 68, the exporting session is an accurate and complete copy of the appropriate desktop service on the client device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol with Beveridge because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mirroring the target device’s user interface of Beveridge with the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol in order to augment user productivity and enhance the user experience (Beveridge, Paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
the mirrored user interface is provided to the host device via remote desktop protocol (Bingol, Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data. There are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306) and a virtual private network (Hinaman, Paragraph 25, establishing a VPN connection).
Hinaman and Bingol did not explicitly disclose wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and wherein screen copy mirrors the target device’s user interface.
However, in an analogous art, Beveridge disclosed wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and wherein screen copy mirrors the target device’s user interface (Paragraph 18, giving users the ability to select their desktop screens and mirror them to mobile devices (i.e., screen copy). Paragraph 28, upon selection of the UI to be mirrored, the remote desktop (i.e., target device’s UI) pushes real time images of the UI as they appear on the remote desktop to the proxy services agent 110 (i.e., bridge) and then to the client device (i.e., host device). Paragraph 68, the exporting session is an accurate and complete copy of the appropriate desktop service on the client device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol with Beveridge because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mirroring the target device’s user interface of Beveridge with the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol in order to augment user productivity and enhance the user experience (Beveridge, Paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol disclosed:
the application establishes the remote desktop protocol session between the host device and a bridge (Bingol, Paragraph 36, web socket proxy server 302 (i.e., bridge) facilitates communications from an RDP client to an RDP server. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP (i.e., mirroring) connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data).
Hinaman and Bingol did not explicitly disclose the bridge launches screen copy and mirrors the target device user interface to the bridge.
However, in an analogous art, Beveridge disclosed the bridge launches screen copy and mirrors the target device user interface to the bridge (Paragraph 18, giving users the ability to select their desktop screens and mirror them to mobile devices (i.e., screen copy). Paragraph 28, upon selection of the UI to be mirrored, the remote desktop (i.e., target device’s UI) pushes real time images of the UI as they appear on the remote desktop to the proxy services agent 110 (i.e., bridge) and then to the client device (i.e., host device). Paragraph 68, the exporting session is an accurate and complete copy of the appropriate desktop service on the client device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol with Beveridge because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mirroring the target device’s user interface of Beveridge with the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol in order to augment user productivity and enhance the user experience (Beveridge, Paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 12, Hinaman disclosed:
A mobile communications system (Figure 1, network 100), comprising:
a host device (Figure 1, remote device 102),
a target device (Figure 1, network endpoints 132a-c),
a bridge (Figure 1, VPN server 104),
a communications link (Figure 1, showing links between remote device 102 and network endpoints 132a-c),
a software application (Figure 3, application software 322) controlled from the host device,
wherein the software application initiates a virtual private connection to an administrative domain that initiates an identification challenge using identity, credentialing, and access management protocol (Paragraph 20, authentication/encryption) to establish a virtual private network between the host device and the bridge (Paragraph 20, utilizing IPsec that allows for authenticating and encrypting each IP packet and establishes authentication between agents at the beginning of the session and negotiating cryptographic keys to be used during the session. Paragraph 48, VPN server allows for communication via a trusted subnet 120 to a secure remote access gateway 106 that connects to the Stealth network 130. Figure 1 showing all communications going through VPN server 104).
While Hinaman disclosed allowing clients to have secure remote access to data across public and private networks (Paragraphs 18-19), Hinaman did not explicitly disclose wherein the software application initiates a remote desktop connection with the bridge, and a remote desktop protocol session is established between the host device and the target device; and wherein only communications channels for audio and video data are streamed to the host device.
However, in an analogous art, Bingol disclosed wherein the software application initiates a remote desktop connection with the bridge, and a remote desktop protocol session is established between the host device and the target device (Paragraph 36, web socket proxy server 302 (i.e., bridge) facilitates communications from an RDP client to an RDP server. Paragraph 37, RDP client (i.e., host device) creates one or more RDP virtual channels between RDP server (i.e., target device) over an established RDP connection. The virtual channel is used to stream video data and audio data); and
wherein only communications channels for audio and video data are streamed to the host device (Paragraph 37, there are two separate channels, one for video, virtual channel 308, and one for audio, virtual channel 306. As there are two separate channels and only channels for audio/video and nothing else, only audio/video is streamed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman with Bingol because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the remote desktop protocol of Bingol with the teachings of Hinaman in order to efficiently and quickly process information (Bingol, Paragraph 2).
Hinaman and Bingol did not explicitly disclose wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and screen copy and mirrors the user interface of the target device over the communications link and output from screen copy output is communicated to the host device.
However, in an analogous art, Beveridge disclosed wherein the software application initiates screen copy on the bridge, and screen copy and mirrors the user interface of the target device over the communications link and output from screen copy output is communicated to the host device (Paragraph 18, giving users the ability to select their desktop screens and mirror them to mobile devices (i.e., screen copy). Paragraph 28, upon selection of the UI to be mirrored, the remote desktop (i.e., target device’s UI) pushes real time images of the UI as they appear on the remote desktop to the proxy services agent 110 (i.e., bridge) and then to the client device (i.e., host device). Paragraph 68, the exporting session is an accurate and complete copy of the appropriate desktop service on the client device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol with Beveridge because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mirroring the target device’s user interface of Beveridge with the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol in order to augment user productivity and enhance the user experience (Beveridge, Paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed. Hinaman, Bingol, and Beveridge disclosed:
wherein access and data transfer from the target device to the host device is controlled by enterprise identity, credentialing, and access management protocol (Hinaman, Paragraph 20, utilizing IPsec that allows for authenticating and encrypting each IP packet and establishes authentication between agents at the beginning of the session and negotiating cryptographic keys to be used during the session).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinaman et al. (US 2017/0208038) in view of Bingol et al. (US 2017/0126842) and Liu et al. (US 2024/0028355).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Hinaman and Bingol did not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a mobile device management application that prohibits saving screen shots of mirrored video on the host device.
However, in an analogous art, Liu disclosed further comprising a mobile device management application that prohibits saving screen shots of mirrored video on the host device (Paragraph 16, client device accessing a remote desktop using RDP. Paragraph 63, it is preferable to block screen capture for security reasons such as when a device is on an unsecure network. An instruction is sent to block screen capturing of the virtual desktop GUI).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol with Liu because the references involve access to remote computing systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the prohibit saving screen shots of Liu with the teachings of Hinaman and Bingol in order to dynamically implement security features (Liu, Paragraph 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451