DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 1-10 are processes and Claims 11-20 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 11) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
receiving first clock-punching data sent by a terminal device, wherein the first clock-punching data comprises a first clock-punching time and a clock-punching location of a user, and the clock-punching location is a geographical location of the terminal device at the first clock-punching time (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions, granting software access to particular services was ineligible for being directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020),);
determining a start time of the cloud desktop service application based on the first clock- punching data and a first location of the first electronic device (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions, granting software access to particular services was ineligible for being directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020),); and
starting, based on the start time, the cloud desktop service application on a first desktop of the first electronic device (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions, granting software access to particular services was ineligible for being directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020),).
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) is directed to a series of steps for controlling access to resources, which is a commercial interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The mere nominal recitation of a first electronic device, a terminal device, and a first desktop does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human interactions. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a first electronic device, a terminal device, and a first desktop that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) receiving first clock-punching data sent by a terminal device, b) determining a start time of the cloud desktop service application, and c) starting the cloud desktop service application on a first desktop of the first electronic device, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 11) is ineligible.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claim 12) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 3 (and similarly Claim 13) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 4 (and similarly Claim 14) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 5 (and similarly Claim 15) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 6 (and similarly Claim 16) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 7 (and similarly Claim 17) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 8 (and similarly Claim 18) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 9 (and similarly Claim 19) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 10 (and similarly Claim 20) recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2016/0094622 “Thomas”, in view of US Pat Pub 2018/0308063 “Jan”.
As per Claims 1 and 11, Thomas discloses a method performed by a first electronic device for controlling a cloud desktop service application and an electronic device, comprising:
determining a start time of the cloud desktop service application based on a first location of the first electronic device (Thomas: [0027] The startup time may be when the user starts work or turns on their user device. And [0028] The usage pattern may also be times at which the user is likely away from their office or desk, or locations where the user is unlikely to access their cloud desktop. Alternately, the usage pattern may be any determination of when the user may and may not be using the cloud desktop instance. [0033] The shutdown and startup times may be determined by the location of the user. For example, the shutdown and startup times may be determined according to a user's location as indicated by a satellite positioning system (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS)) or other positioning system. As the user approaches a user device running a cloud desktop client application (e.g., as part of a commute or other type of travel), the startup time may be set so that a cloud desktop instance is running when the user reaches the user device.); and
starting, based on the start time, the cloud desktop service application on a first desktop of the first electronic device (Thomas: [0027] The startup time may be when the user starts work or turns on their user device. And [0028] The usage pattern may also be times at which the user is likely away from their office or desk, or locations where the user is unlikely to access their cloud desktop. Alternately, the usage pattern may be any determination of when the user may and may not be using the cloud desktop instance. [0033] The shutdown and startup times may be determined by the location of the user. For example, the shutdown and startup times may be determined according to a user's location as indicated by a satellite positioning system (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS)) or other positioning system. As the user approaches a user device running a cloud desktop client application (e.g., as part of a commute or other type of travel), the startup time may be set so that a cloud desktop instance is running when the user reaches the user device.).
Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method performed by a first electronic device for controlling a cloud desktop service application and an electronic device, comprising:
receiving first clock-punching data sent by a terminal device, wherein the first clock-punching data comprises a first clock-punching time and a clock-punching location of a user, and the clock-punching location is a geographical location of the terminal device at the first clock-punching time (Jan: [0019] There are many actions that can be taken in response to detection of a beacon ID. For example, the server may automatically log the employee's location to effectively “punch-in” the employee for work. If the predefined action is to “punch-in” the employee, decision block 212 is answered in the affirmative and the current time entered on the employee's timecard.); and
determining a start time based on the first clock-punching data (Jan: [0019] There are many actions that can be taken in response to detection of a beacon ID. For example, the server may automatically log the employee's location to effectively “punch-in” the employee for work. If the predefined action is to “punch-in” the employee, decision block 212 is answered in the affirmative and the current time entered on the employee's timecard.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 2 and 12, Thomas discloses a method and device, wherein after the step of starting the cloud desktop service application, the method further comprises:
obtaining a second desktop from a second electronic device (Thomas: [0017]); and
displaying the second desktop in the cloud desktop service application (Thomas: [0017]).
As per Claims 3 and 13, Thomas discloses a method and device, further comprising:
receiving second clock-punching data sent by the terminal device; and
closing the cloud desktop service application (Thomas: [0027]-[0029]).
Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method and device, further comprising:
receiving second clock-punching data sent by the terminal device (Jan: [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Thomas discloses a method and device, further comprising:
controlling the second electronic device to save working data corresponding to the second desktop, wherein the working data exists when the cloud desktop service application is closed (Thomas: [0018] and [0025]).
Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method and device, further comprising:
receiving second clock-punching data sent by the terminal device (Jan: [0019])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method and device, wherein the step of determining the start time comprises:
determining the start time based on a distance between the first location and the clock-punching location, a travel manner of the user, and the first clock-punching time (Jan: [0019] and [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Thomas discloses a method and device, further comprising:
saving closing duration consumed for closing the cloud desktop service application (Thomas: [0017]).
As per Claims 7 and 17, Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method and device, wherein the step of determining the start time comprises:
determining the start time based on a distance between the first location and the clock-punching location, a travel manner of the user, the first clock-punching time, and the closing duration (Jan: [0019] and [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Thomas fails to disclose but Jan teaches a method and device, wherein before the step of determining the start time of the cloud desktop service application, the method further comprises:
determining that the first clock-punching time is a current-day on-work time of the user, wherein a difference between the current-day on-work time and a first preset time is less than a first threshold (Jan: [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to include clock-punching time and location as taught by Jan, when controlling a cloud desktop service application as taught by Thomas with the motivation to automatically collect and record data pertaining to employee location and work time (Jan: [0012]).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Thomas discloses a method and device, wherein the second clock-punching data comprises a second clock-punching time of the user, and wherein before the step of closing the cloud desktop service application, the method further comprises:
determining that the second clock-punching time is a current-day off-work time of the user, wherein a difference between the current-day off-work time and a second preset time is less than a second threshold (Thomas: [0028]).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Thomas discloses a method and device, further comprising:
determining that second clock-punching data is not received within a preset length of time after a second preset time (Thomas: [0013] and [0030]); and
closing the cloud desktop service application (Thomas: [0013] and [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights