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 § 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) 10-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priest (pub #US 20150254193 A1) in view of Sprigg (#US 20110205965 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Priest discloses a system (system shown in figure 8, simplified system shown in figure 2) comprising: a first computing device including a network interface (host A 802a connected to the network, figure 8, paragraph 96), the first computing device configured to: obtain, from a server rebalancing system via the network interface (local server 832, figure 8), an indication of a peripheral device available over the network interface for processing (touchscreen 822a, keyboard 822b, mouse 822c, SSD drive, etc..), the peripheral device located at a second computing device (terminal A 812a); issue a request to access the peripheral device to the server rebalancing system over the network interface (paragraph 97); based on a response from the server rebalancing system issue data traffic for processing by the peripheral device to the server rebalancing system via the network interface (paragraph 95).
Priest suggests (host devices may believe USB communication signals having the USB data originated with their associated Device Mode USB-X devices 804, paragraph 95) but does not disclose explicitly emulating the peripheral device as a local device installed into the first computing system. However, Sprigg discloses emulate network peripheral devices as local devices (paragraph 41). Furthermore, teachings of Priest and Sprigg are from the same field of peripheral control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine teachings of Priest with Sprigg by using virtualized peripheral software for the benefit of simplifying the access process of host computers.
Regarding claim 11, the above combination discloses the system of claim 10, further comprising: the first computing device further includes: a network stack configured to exchange data over the network interface (packetized data by the USB-X devices for transmission, paragraph 93, Priest); a local peripheral interconnect interface configured to exchange signals with local peripheral devices (host A device mode USB-X 804a coupled to the host A 822a) paragraph 98); the first computing device configured to emulate the peripheral device as a local device (see rejection of claim 1 above), further including: interwork traffic for the peripheral device between the network stack and the local peripheral interconnect interface (from peripherals to the device mode USB-X 804a, paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses the system of claim 11 further comprising: the first computing device configured to emulate the peripheral device as a local device (see rejection of claim 1 above), further including: intercept traffic from the first computing device for the peripheral device from the local peripheral interconnect interface (paragraph 93); interpret the traffic from the first computing device to convert from a native peripheral format into a packet format suitable for transfer over the network interface (packetize the data according to network protocols, paragraph 93); and route the traffic from the first computing device in the packet format over the network interface for delivery to the peripheral device (paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the system of claim 11 comprising the first computing device further configured to: receive peripheral device-originated traffic in a packet format from the server rebalancing system via the network interface (packetized data, paragraph 93); and emulate the peripheral device as a local device (see rejection of claim 1 above), further including: interpret the peripheral device-originated traffic in the packet format to convert to a native peripheral format suitable for the local peripheral interconnect interface (reconstruct the network packets to USB signals, paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination discloses the system of claim 10, further comprising: the server rebalancing system, including a second network interface and a processor (see figure 8 including multiple/scalable hosts and peripherals, as well as servers) configured to: receive, over the second network interface (any one of the other network connections shown in figure 8), the indication of the peripheral device available for processing located at the second computing device; receive, over the second network interface, the request from the first computing device to access the peripheral device; based on the request, direct the first computing device, via the second network interface, to emulate the peripheral device as a local device installed into the first computing device; and route data traffic from the first computing device to the second computing device for processing by the peripheral device (same as rejection 1, just applied to a different pair of devices in the system).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination discloses the system of claim 10, further comprising: the second computing device including: a third network interface (figure 8 includes multiple hosts and peripheral, same rationale as rejection of claim 15 above); the peripheral device; the second computing device configured to: issue, to the server rebalancing system over the third network interface, the indication that the peripheral device located at the second computing device is available for processing; receive, from the server rebalancing system via the third network interface, a second indication that the peripheral device is assigned to the first computing device; receive, from the server rebalancing system via the third network interface, the data traffic from the first computing device for processing by the peripheral device; and provide, from the second computing device to the server rebalancing system via the third network interface, a result of processing the data traffic by the peripheral device (similar to rejection of claim 1, just applied to different pair of devices in the system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record discloses peripheral sharing amongst multiple computing devices, including using a network to share remotely located peripherals, and emulating the peripherals as local peripherals. However, prior art of record does not teach or suggest, inter alia, triggering an entry point process in a peripheral interconnect interface to emulate a hardware plugging process for the peripheral devices with the peripheral interconnect interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8:30 PM.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/SCOTT C SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights