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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 41-60 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,287 (Morgan et al hereinafter Morgan). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Referring to Claim 41. Morgan discloses a method, comprising:
establishing, by a remote management server, a connection between a remote computing device and a host computing device (refer to claim 8);
generating, by the remote management server, a hidden desktop executing on the remote
computing device, the hidden desktop separate from a user desktop displayed to an end user of the remote computing device (refer to claim 1, 6 and 7);
displaying, by the remote management server on the host computing device, the generated hidden desktop (refer to claim 1); and
presenting, by the remote management server, a user interface on the generated hidden
desktop, the user interface comprising an icon that launches a second application of the remote
computing device (refer to claim 1, 6, 7 and 10).
Referring to Claim 42. Morgan disclosed the e method of claim 41, Morgan discloses the user interface comprising a taskbar presenting a plurality of icons that each launch a respective application of the remote computing device within the hidden desktop (refer to claim 10).
Referring to Claim 43. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a menu comprising a list of files stored on the remote computing device (refer to claim 10).
Referring to Claim 44. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a search interface comprising a field that accepts text input (refer to claim 9).
Referring to Claim 45. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting a contextual menu within the hidden desktop having entries to terminate the second application, launch a second instance of the second application, and close the contextual menu (refer to claim 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 46. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising determining that a permission associated with the host computing device permits access to the hidden desktop (refer to claim 4).
Referring to Claim 47. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising identifying, by the remote management server, the remote computing device based on a support ticket (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 48. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 47, Morgan discloses comprising updating a status of the support ticket based on instructions executed within the hidden desktop on the remote computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 49. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses generating the hidden desktop comprising transitioning a system session executing on the remote computing device from a non-interactive state to an interactive state by modifying a registry of an operating system of the remote computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 50. (New) The method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising terminating the hidden desktop in response to a command from the host computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claims 51-60 are rejected under similar rational as claims 41-50.
Claims 41-60 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289359 (Morgan et al hereinafter Morgan). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Referring to Claim 41. Morgan discloses a method, comprising:
establishing, by a remote management server, a connection between a remote computing device and a host computing device (refer to Claim 1);
generating, by the remote management server, a hidden desktop executing on the remote
computing device, the hidden desktop separate from a user desktop displayed to an end user of the remote computing device (refer to claim 1);
displaying, by the remote management server on the host computing device, the generated hidden desktop (refer to claim 1); and
presenting, by the remote management server, a user interface on the generated hidden
desktop, the user interface comprising an icon that launches a second application of the remote
computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 42. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses the user interface comprising a taskbar presenting a plurality of icons that each launch a respective application of the remote computing device within the hidden desktop (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 43. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a menu comprising a list of files stored on the remote computing device (refer to claim 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 44. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a search interface comprising a field that accepts text input (refer to Fig 4).
Referring to Claim 45. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting a contextual menu within the hidden desktop having entries to terminate the second application, launch a second instance of the second application, and close the contextual menu (refer to Claim 1 and 5).
Referring to Claim 46. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising determining that a permission associated with the host computing device permits access to the hidden desktop (refer to Fig 6).
Referring to Claim 47. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising identifying, by the remote management server, the remote computing device based on a support ticket (refer to Claim 8).
Referring to Claim 48. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 47, Morgan discloses comprising updating a status of the support ticket based on instructions executed within the hidden desktop on the remote computing device (refer to Claim 7).
Referring to Claim 49. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses generating the hidden desktop comprising transitioning a system session executing on the remote computing device from a non-interactive state to an interactive state by modifying a registry of an operating system of the remote computing device (refer to Claim 9).
Referring to Claim 50. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising terminating the hidden desktop in response to a command from the host computing device. (refer to claim 5)
Referring to Claims 51-60 are rejected under similar rational as claims 41-50.
Claims 41-60 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,005914 (Morgan et al hereinafter Morgan). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Referring to Claim 41. Morgan discloses a method, comprising:
establishing, by a remote management server, a connection between a remote computing device and a host computing device (refer to claim 1);
generating, by the remote management server, a hidden desktop executing on the remote
computing device, the hidden desktop separate from a user desktop displayed to an end user of the remote computing device (refer to claim 1);
displaying, by the remote management server on the host computing device, the generated hidden desktop (refer to claim 1); and
presenting, by the remote management server, a user interface on the generated hidden
desktop, the user interface comprising an icon that launches a second application of the remote
computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 42. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses the user interface comprising a taskbar presenting a plurality of icons that each launch a respective application of the remote computing device within the hidden desktop (refer to claim 10).
Referring to Claim 43. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a menu comprising a list of files stored on the remote computing device (refer to claim 6 and 7).
Referring to Claim 44. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a search interface comprising a field that accepts text input (refer to claim 9).
Referring to Claim 45. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising presenting a contextual menu within the hidden desktop having entries to terminate the second application, launch a second instance of the second application, and close the contextual menu (refer to claim 10).
Referring to Claim 46. Morgan disclosed the e method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising determining that a permission associated with the host computing device permits access to the hidden desktop (refer to claim 4).
Referring to Claim 47. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising identifying, by the remote management server, the remote computing device based on a support ticket (refer to claim 3).
Referring to Claim 48. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 47, Morgan discloses comprising updating a status of the support ticket based on instructions executed within the hidden desktop on the remote computing device (refer to claim 2).
Referring to Claim 49. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses generating the hidden desktop comprising transitioning a system session executing on the remote computing device from a non-interactive state to an interactive state by modifying a registry of an operating system of the remote computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 50. Morgan disclosed the method of claim 41, Morgan discloses comprising terminating the hidden desktop in response to a command from the host computing device (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claims 51-60 are rejected under similar rational as claims 41-50.
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 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) 41- 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominac et al hereinafter Kominac (US 9,244,912) in view of Divoux et al hereinafter Divoux (US 20190245848).
Referring to Claim 41. Kominac discloses a method, comprising:
establishing, by a remote management server, a connection between a remote computing device and a host computing device (establish remote desktop connection via a server from a client device to a remote machine, refer to Col 8, Lines 15-20);
generating, by the remote management server, a hidden desktop executing on the remote
computing device (generate a display shown a remote view window showing an image of the remote desktop of the remote machine, refer to Col 8, Lines 19-25), the hidden desktop separate from a user desktop displayed to an end user of the remote computing device (refer to Fig 1);
displaying, by the remote management server on the host computing device, the generated hidden desktop (refer to Fig 1); and
presenting, by the remote management server, a user interface on the generated hidden
desktop, the user interface comprising an icon that launches a second application of the remote
computing device (refer to Fig 1).
Dovoux, in analogous art, is introduce to demonstrate the well known in the art limitation “a hidden desktop executing on the remote device (session that access the remote desktop services, refer to Fig 17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kominac with Dovoux because Dovoux would allow the system of Kominac to enhance and improve the security when logon to the service.
Referring to Claim 42. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Kominac discloses the user interface comprising a taskbar presenting a plurality of icons that each launch a respective application of the remote computing device within the hidden desktop (icons such as file icons and other icons shown on the brower’s tab , Fig 1).
Referring to Claim 43. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Kominac discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a menu comprising a list of files stored on the remote computing device (folder icons, and shortcut icons refer to Fig 1).
Referring to Claim 44. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the e method of claim 41, Kominac discloses comprising presenting, on the host computing device, a second icon in the user interface that presents a search interface comprising a field that accepts text input (internet explorer icon activated Brower that accept text input, Fig 1).
Referring to Claim 45. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Kominac discloses comprising presenting a contextual menu within the hidden desktop having entries to terminate the second application, launch a second instance of the second application, and close the contextual menu (terminate the session, pressing the x on the remote machine tabs, click email feature/instance of the second application on the yahoo Microsoft Explorer, close the yahoo internet explorer., refer to Fig 1).
Referring to Claim 46. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Kominac discloses comprising determining that a permission associated with the host computing device permits access to the hidden desktop (allow the remote session must be login first, refer to Col 9, Lines 1-15 and Col 7, Lines 40).
Referring to Claim 47. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Dovoux discloses further comprising identifying, by the remote management server, the remote computing device based on a support ticket (identify the SAML token, refer to par 0188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kominac with Dovoux because Dovoux would allow the system of Kominac to enhance and improve the security when logon to the service.
Referring to Claim 48. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 47, Dovoux discloses updating a status of the support ticket based on instructions executed within the hidden desktop on the remote computing device (update as to accept the access to the remote service, refer to par 0188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kominac with Dovoux because Dovoux would allow the system of Kominac to enhance and improve the security when logon to the service.
Referring to Claim 49. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Dovoux discloses generating the hidden desktop comprising transitioning a system session executing on the remote computing device from a non-interactive state to an interactive state by modifying a registry of an operating system of the remote computing device (enable the session from the operating system accepted the authentication event, par 0188-0189).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kominac with Dovoux because Dovoux would allow the system of Kominac to enhance and improve the security when logon to the service.
Referring to Claim 50. Kominac with Dovoux disclosed the method of claim 41, Kominac discloses comprising terminating the hidden desktop in response to a command from the host computing device (close the browser tab to terminate the session, refer to Col 36, Lines 60-65).
Referring to Claim 51-60, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 41-50
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30am - 2:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights