ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/736947 (“’947 Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of the instant application is May 4, 2022. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
The instant application is a reissue application of US Patent 10,645,143 (’143 Patent”). The ‘143 Patent was filed as US application 16/227,685 (‘685 application) on December 20, 2018 entitled “STATIC TRACKER.”
Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the
Examiner’s independent review of the ‘143 Patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that he cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘143 Patent. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of the ‘143 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any previous reexaminations or supplemental examinations.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/2025 has been entered.
This Office Action is being issued following Applicant’s response of 8/11/2025, which included: 1) claim amendments and 2) arguments.
II. STATUS OF CLAIMS
The ‘143 Patent issued with claims 1-23 (“Patented Claims”). The Preliminary Amendment filed with this application amends claim 1 and adds claims 24 and 25. The amendment of 3/18/29024 amends claim 8. The amendment of 10/8/2024 adds claims 26-34. The amendment of 1/30/2025 amends claims 1, 12, and 23 and adds claim 35. The amendment of 8/11/2025 amends claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, 34, and 35 and cancels claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and 33. Therefore, as of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
a. Claims 1, 4-12, 15-32, 34 and 35 (“Pending Claims”).
b. Claims 1, 4-12, 15-32, 34 and 35 are examined (“Examined Claims”)
III. AMENDMENT OF 1/30/2025
The amendment to the claims of 1/30/2025 has been entered and considered.
IV. PRIORITY AND CONTINUING DATA
The ‘143 patent is a continuation of US Application 15/280,378, filed 9/29/2016, which is a continuation of US Application 14/692,814, filed 4/21/2015, which is a continuation of US Application, 13/089255, filed 4/18/2011. The ‘143 patent further claims the benefit of US Provisional Applications 61/325341, filed 4/18/2010, 61/325344, filed 4/18/2010, and 61/325342. Because the effective filing date is before March 16, 2013, the AIA , sections of 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 do not apply to proceeding. Rather, the earlier first to invent provisions apply.
In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the prior applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record in the prior applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the prior applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution histories of the prior applications are relevant in this application.
V. REISSUE DECLARATION
The reissue declaration filed 3/18/2024 is approved.
VI. ART REJECTIONS
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 15-26, 28-32, and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sebastian US PG PUB 2009/0019153 in view of Meirosu et al US PG PUB 2012/0290790.
The Examiner notes that Sebastian has a common inventor with the current application and has the same disclosure with respect to figures 1-5. However, Sebastian was published more than a year before the earliest possible filing date of the ‘143 patent and as such, is available as prior art. In addition, Meirosu is entitled to the 2009 filing date, as it was published in English and designates the United States.
As to claim 1, Sebastian shows a method implemented in a computer system that includes the step of determining, in step 215, the probabilities that child web objects will be requested as part of a web page transaction for a root web page based on context of web objects during prior root web page transactions (see paragraph [0035]). It does not determine the probability based on previous requests for the web object. However, in paragraph [0091], Meirosu teaches that the likelihood of a piece of data being requested by a user can be determined based on a history of what was previously accessed by the user, i.e. previous requests. Meirosu teaches that this is a more sophisticated way of predicting the likelihood that a user will request the data, and can be used to support pre-fetching algorithms. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Sebastian to determine the probability that a web object will be requested based on a history of what was previously accessed, as it is merely the substitution of one known probability determining method for another. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to try the method of Meirosu, as it is a different known method of performing the same task that Sebastian does.
Further, as discussed in paragraph [0017] of Sebastian, the proxy client 112, a first computing device, receives a request for a first web page as part of a first web page transaction. Furthermore, proxy server 132 identifies child web objects to be prefetched based on the request and probabilities. Specifically, as discussed in paragraphs [0024]-[0026], prefetch scanner identifies candidate child URLs to be prefetched. Prefetch response abort determines whether it is worth prefetching the candidates based on several factors, including the probability discussed above (paragraph [0028]). If it is determined to be worth prefetching the web objects, then the object is sent to the client for storage. i.e. prefetched (paragraph [0041]). The Examiner notes that the proxy client is a first computing device and the proxy server is a second computing device.
The Examiner notes that the request in Sebastian is a request for a web page and that the system decides to prefetch based on child objects in the web page. As such, the prefetch decision is made using data in the request, i.e. the URL of the webpage, and all child objects associated with the URL.
As to claim 5, the step of receiving the request includes intercepting the request (see paragraph [0017]).
As to claim 6, when a request for a second web object is received, if that object has been prefetched, then the method transmits the prefetched copy of the second web object (see paragraphs [0005] and [0041].
As to claim 7, the objects to be prefetched are also identified based on the file size (see paragraph [0032] for example).
As to claim 8, the identifying one or more child objects is based on the expected benefit to page load time (see paragraphs [0040] and [0041]).
As to claim 9, the probabilities are associated with a single user (see paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 10, the probabilities are determined based on the frequency of use of the child object, i.e. the number of times it was used, in prior web transactions.
As to claim 11, the method shown in figure 2 and described with respect to figure 1 is a prefetch model.
As to claims 12 and 15-23, Sebastian has the computer system (shown in figures 3-5) that operates under control of a programmed processor 410 (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) that executes the programming to perform the method discussed above. The remainder of claims 12-23 are rejected for the reasons given above with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-11.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected in that the proxy server and proxy client can be the same device or different devices (see paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0056]).
As to claim 26, the Examiner notes that a web page may have a link to another web page, which has its own children. There, a PHOSITA would understand that the request in Sebastian could be a child request, i.e. a request for a child web page, that itself has its own child objects.
As to claim 28, the request is intercepted (see paragraphs [0017] and [0044]).
As to claim 29, the purpose of prefetching is to save time by not having to access the internet. As such, when a web object is requested that has been prefetched, the prefetched version is forwarded to the use. See figure 2 and paragraphs [0019]-[0020].
Claim 30 is rejected in that Sebastian identifies potential objects to prefetch based on file size (see step 210 of figure 2 and associated discussion).
Claim 31, Sebastian teaches identifying an object to prefetch is based on the benefit to page load time (see paragraph [0041], in which benefit is based on RTT, which is load time).
Claim 32 is rejected in that in the combination, the probability is associated with at least a first user.
Claim 34 is rejected in that the decision to prefetch is associated with a prefetch model (see paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 4, 27, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sebastian US PG PUB 2009/0019153 in view of Meirosu et al US PG PUB 2012/0290790, as applied to claims ) 1, 5-12, 15-26, 28-32, and 34 above, further in view of Malkin WO 99/17227.
As to claims 4 and 27, while the combination above determines probability based on prior user history, it does not specifically state it is based on the number of times the object was accessed. However, Malkin teaches on page 4, lines 29-45, that the probability can be used on the frequency of access of the child object and web object, i.e. the number of times the objects are accessed. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combination above to use the ratio of Malkin, as it is merely the substitution of one known method of determining probability for another. Further, it would have been obvious to try the method of Malkin.
As to claim 35, the combination above performs prefetching after a response to the request. However, Malkin teaches in figure 9 and on page 32, lines 10+, that the child objects to be prefetched (step 925) are prefetched based on statistics of prior usage, before the response to the original request (step 930). As such, it would have been obvious to modify Sebastian to perform the prefetching prior to responding to the request, using the method of Malkin, as it is merely the substitution of one known prefetching method for another.
VII. ANSWER TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s response has overcome the specification objection.
Applicant has asserted that Sebastian does not disclose determining the probability that child web objects will be requested as part of a transaction for a root web page, based on requests for respective child web objects during prior web page transactions for the root web page. The Examiner agrees, but notes that Meirosu is cited to bridge the gap.
Applicant has also asserted that Sebastian does not require or describe maintaining a mapping between a specific root page and its child web objects. The Examiner notes that the current claims do not require any sort of mapping between the two.
Applicant has further argued that there is no mechanism in Sebastian for determining the probability that child objects will be requested as part of a web page transaction for a root web page. The Examiner disagrees. In paragraph [0024], Sebastian teaches identifying candidates for prefetching. The candidates are child web objects. Sebastian then describes in paragraphs [0026]-[0027] a process to determine a modified candidate list to forward to the client cache module 150. In paragraph [0034], Sebastian states that the probability of use of the object is a factor in deciding whether to forward the object. Hence, Sebastian uses the probability of use of the child object, i.e. the probability that the child object will be requested.
Applicant has also asserted that Meirosu does not overcome the deficiencies of Sebastian in that it does not teach determining for each root web page, the probability that a particular web object will be requested. The Examiner notes that this feature is taught by Sebastian. Meirosu is merely provided to teach an alternate way of determining the probability that the child web object will be requested, and need not teach the entire claim.
CONCLUSION
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L NASSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on (571) 272-3744. 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.
/ROBERT L NASSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992