DETAILED ACTION
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 response to communication: response to $$$ filed on 06/13/2016.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
No IDS was received for this application.
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Thomas Froats (66,609) on 06/19/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 2, claims 8-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodbury II et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0110634 (Woodbury), in view of Targosky WO 2005/069104A1 (Targosky).
As per claim 8, Woodbury teaches a keyboard, video display, and mouse (KVM) dongle device, comprising: communication circuitry configured to receive wireless signals from at least one of a remote keyboard, a remote video display, or a remote mouse (paragraph 75 with wireless KVM switch); and processing circuitry configured to: authenticate a user of the at least one of the remote keyboard, the remote video display, or the remote mouse (paragraph 75 wherein KVM may receive wireless authentication request from a user); and based on the authentication, grant access (paragraph 75).
Woodbury does not explicitly teach based on the authentication, send, via at least one cable, to a device, commands based on inputs received from the at least one of the remote keyboard, the remote video display, or the remote mouse. However, this would have been inherent, if not obvious. Paragraph 75 of Woodbury teaches wireless authenticating a user to provide access via a KVM switch. It would have been inherent, if not obvious, that such access includes receiving input signals from the keyboard, video, or mouse. As seen in paragraph 53 of Woodbury, data egress/ingress to an enclosure includes utilizing a KVM switch. However, for a more explicit teaching on based on the authentication, send, vi a at least one cable, to a device, commands based on inputs received from the at least one of the remote keyboard, the remote video, display, or the remote mouse, see Targosky. (see page 6 with KVM switch coupled to system; page 8 with user accessing KVM system upon authentication and KVM providing input to the device; see also page 4 last paragraph with KVM system with input station and page 5 first paragraph with allowing access to input based upon authentication).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Woodbury with Targosky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to increase security by providing access to a KVM system upon authentication (page 3).
As per claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the at least one cable comprises a video cable or a USB cable connecting the KVM dongle device to the device (inherent, if not obvious, over Woodbury; see paragraph 75 with wireless KVM mounted on device; KVM includes video, and thus would require a video connection; also obvious to utilize different types of devices, such as USB for connection, as seen in Targosky page 11).
As per claim 10, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination wherein the device is a headless server, and wherein the commands are control commands (see Woodbury Figure 1A; see paragraph 53 wherein data ingress/egress is provided to environment proof enclosure via wireless KVM; see paragraph 53 wherein the KVM allows access to the system, which control the system).
As per claim 11, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination wherein the wireless signals are received from an access point (see Woodbury paragraph 52 with environment proof enclosure receiving signals via a WAP).
As per claim 12, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination wherein the wireless signals are 802.11 WiFi signals (paragraph 52 with 802.11).
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 10 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 11 above.
As per claim 17, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination with presenting, using the processing circuitry, a page associated with the authenticating (Targosky page 10 with computer monitor prompting user for authentication).
As per claim 18, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination with presenting, using the processing circuitry, a page associated with receiving the inputs (obvious over Targosky; see page 10 with computer monitor promprting user to provide identification input; )
As per claim 19, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination wherein the commands comprise server resource commands (Targosky page 10 with access control; users are granted access based on access rights and privileges; for example, suer may access application server).
As per claim 20, it would have been obvious over the Woodbury combination wherein the commands comprise global commands (Targosky page 12, wherein users may access multiple hosts after authentication).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights