DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20-24, and 26-31 are pending. Claims 5, 8, 13, 16, 18, 20-23, and 26 are amended. Claims 7, 15, and 25 are cancelled. Claims 29-31 are new. This Office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 7/31/2025.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Alibaba Cloud CDN discloses sending an HTTPDNS request to an HTTPDNS server, where the request includes the IP address of the requestor for purposes of geolocating the requestor. See section 9.1.
Response to Arguments
Examiner discusses the arguments of Applicant’s representative below.
Rejection of claims 5, 13, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s representative has amended claims 5, 13, and 23 to clarify that “the geographical location is at least one of: a longitude and a latitude, an administrative area, or a street,” and now argues that the combination of Seastrom or Chen, in view of Ma or Yu, and in further view of Turcotte, does not teach the system of claims 5, 13, and 23, as amended. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Turcotte teaches a system for providing the location of a mobile device in a message. See col. 11, ln. 30-35. Turcotte further teaches that the location may include global positioning satellite (GPS) coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude), an administrative area such as a city, state, or country, or a street name or street address. See col. 3, ln. 42-52. Thus, Turcotte suggests modifying the system of Seastrom or Chen, in view of Ma or Yu, so that the DNS query includes an identifier that identifies a type or format of the client geographical location information that is included in the DNS query, and the location information includes GPS coordinates, an administrator area, or a street name, because doing so facilitates processing of different types or formats of location information by the DNS server.
Applicant’s representative also argues that Seastrom does not teach the limitation “selecting… an edge cache node nearest to the geographical location [of a terminal]… based on the geographical location [of the terminal]” because paragraph 14 of Seastrom allegedly defines the term “proximity” as requiring both geographical and topological proximity, whereas claim 5 allegedly requires selecting an edge cache that is geographically nearest to a terminal regardless of the topological nearness of the edge cache to the terminal. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least three reasons. First, contrary to the assertion of Applicant’s representative, claim 5 does not require selecting an edge cache based only on the geographical location of a terminal without consideration for any other factors (such as the topological location of the terminal). Instead, claim 5 more broadly recites a step of selecting an edge cache that is at least geographically nearest to a terminal, which may include using other factors (such as topological proximity of the terminal, operating system of the terminal, service level owed to the terminal, etc. See par. 22, 23, and 32) to further select from among a plurality of otherwise geographically equidistant edge caches. Second, although paragraph 14 of Seastrom uses the phrase “geographically and topologically” to modify the term “proximity,” Seastrom makes numerous references to the “geospatial” (i.e., geographical) location of a terminal without regard for its topological location. See par. 23, 25-26, and 28. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the geographical location of a terminal is the primary determinant of its proximity to an edge cache, while the topological location of the terminal possibly functions as a tie breaker to select from among multiple edge caches that are otherwise geographically equidistant from the terminal. Third, even assuming arguendo that 1) Seastrom could be construed as teaching that selection of an edge cache is necessarily based on both its geographical and topological proximity to a terminal, and 2) claim 5 somehow excludes any possibility of selection of an edge cache based on the topological location of a terminal, it is nonetheless obvious to modify the system of Seastrom to remove any requirement for selecting an edge cache based on its topological proximity to a terminal if such a requirement is not desired. See MPEP 2144.04.II (“Omission of an Element and Its Function is Obvious if the Function of the Element is Not Desired”).
Lastly, Applicant’s representative argues that Chen does not teach the limitation “selecting… an edge cache node nearest to the geographical location [of a terminal]… based on the geographical location [of the terminal]” because Chen allegedly teaches randomly selecting a server for a terminal rather than selecting a server that is geographically nearest to the terminal. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The feature to which Applicant’s representative refers is a load-balancing feature. After the system selects the servers that are physically close to the terminal, the system randomly selects a subset of the physically close servers according to a predefined ratio in order to load-balance requests among the physically close servers. See par. 3-5.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claims 5, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Seastrom (US 2013/0173769) in view of either Ma (US 2022/0345514) or Yu (US 2021/0029075), and in further view of Turcotte (US 7,565,411).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 23, Seastrom teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a name server, a Domain Name System (DNS) query packet that carries a to-be-accessed domain name and scheduling information, and wherein the to-be-accessed domain name is mapped to a canonical name record comprising a second domain name (A metadata aware DNS server receives a CNAME response from an intelligent DNS name server that contains scheduling information in the form of metadata about a client from which the intelligent DNS name server received a DNS query. See par. 33. The CNAME response includes a CNAME record that maps a first domain name “foo.cdn.twc.com” to the second domain name “4.3.2.1.foo.cdn.twc.com.” See par. 22, 33), wherein the scheduling information comprises a geographical location of a terminal device added to a HTTP request packet and the DNS query packet (The DNS query and the CNAME response both include the metadata about the client. See par. 22, 33. The metadata includes the geographical location of the client. See par. 16, 32); querying whether a mapping relationship between the canonical name record and network addresses of a plurality of edge cache nodes corresponding to the second domain name is locally stored (The metadata aware DNS server attempts to resolve the second domain name by querying a look-up table to find a mapping between the second domain name and IP addresses of plurality of edge node caches. See par. 33); confirming that the mapping relationship is locally stored (A successful query confirms that the metadata aware DNS server locally stores the mapping. See par. 33); selecting, after confirming that the mapping relationship is stored, an edge cache node from the network addresses of the plurality of edge cache nodes as a to-be-accessed-site based on the geographical location (The metadata aware DNS server selects the “best” edge cache from among the plurality of edge caches. See par. 33. The “best” edge cache may be the most geographically or topologically proximate edge cache as determined using the geographical location of the client contained in the CNAME response. See par. 14, 33); and sending, to the name server, a DNS reply packet that carries an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the to-be-accessed site (The metadata aware DNS server sends the intelligence DNS name server the IP address of the selected edge cache. See par. 33).
However, Seastrom does not teach that the name server is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol Domain Name System (HTTPDNS) server. Nonetheless, Ma teaches a resource scheduling system that utilizes an HTTPDNS server. See par. 3, 59. Similarly, Yu teaches an edge computing device which sends an HTTPDNS request to a content delivery network (CDN) server. See par. 39, 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seastrom so that the name server is an HTTPDNS server, because doing so allows the system to bypass an operator’s local DNS server and effectively prevents domain name hijacking, according to Ma. See par. 3.
In addition, Seastrom and Ma/Yu do not teach that the DNS query packet includes a scheduling type code that indicates a scheduling information type of the scheduling information, or that the geographical location is at least one of: a longitude and a latitude, an administrative area, or a street. However, Turcotte teaches a system for providing the location of a mobile device in a message, whereby the message includes an identifier that indicates what type or format of location information is included within the message. For instance, if the message includes GPS coordinates of the mobile device, the identifier may be the number “17.” See col. 11, ln. 30-35. Moreover, Turcotte teaches that the location information may include global positioning satellite (GPS) coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude), an administrative area such as a city, state, or country, or a street name or street address. See col. 3, ln. 42-52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seastrom and Ma/Yu so that the DNS query includes an identifier that identifies a type or format of the client geographical location information that is included in the DNS query, and the location information includes GPS coordinates, an administrator area, or a street name, because doing so facilitates processing of different types or formats of location information by the DNS server.
Alternatively, claims 5, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0336920) in view of either Ma or Yu, and in further view of Turcotte.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 23, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a name server, a Domain Name System (DNS) query packet that carries a to-be-accessed domain name and scheduling information, and wherein the to-be-accessed domain name is mapped to a canonical name record comprising a second domain name (A target authoritative DNS server receives a DNS query for a first domain name from a local DNS server. The query is mapped to a CNAME record specifying a second domain name. 59. The DNS query includes scheduling information in the form of the IP address of a user terminal. See par. 63), wherein the scheduling information comprises a geographical location of a terminal device added to a HTTP request packet and the DNS query packet (The scheduling information in the DNS query includes the IP address of the user terminal, which is understood to be taken from the DNS query that the local DNS receives from the user terminal. See par. 63); querying whether a mapping relationship between the canonical name record and network addresses of a plurality of edge cache nodes corresponding to the second domain name is locally stored (The target authoritative DNS server queries a local data store for a mapping between the second domain name and an IP address of an edge cache. It may possess such a mapping if it has previously resolved the second domain name. See par. 77-78); confirming that the mapping relationship is locally stored (The target authoritative DNS server may confirm that it possesses the mapping if it has previously cached the mapping. See par. 77); selecting, after confirming that the mapping relationship is stored, an edge cache node from the network addresses of the plurality of edge cache nodes as a to-be-accessed-site based on the geographical location (The authoritative DNS server uses the IP address of the user terminal to select one or more edge caches that are in the same network segment as the user terminal or that are physically close to the user terminal. See par. 65); and sending, to the name server, a DNS reply packet that carries an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the to-be-accessed site (The authoritative DNS server returns the selected IP address(es) to the user terminal. See metadata aware DNS server sends the intelligence DNS name server the IP address of the selected edge cache. See par. 77-78).
However, Chen does not teach that the local DNS server is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol Domain Name System (HTTPDNS) server. Nonetheless, Ma teaches a resource scheduling system that utilizes an HTTPDNS server. See par. 3, 59. Similarly, Yu teaches an edge computing device which sends an HTTPDNS request to a content delivery network (CDN) server. See par. 39, 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen so that the local DNS server is an HTTPDNS server, because doing so allows the system to bypass an operator’s local DNS server and effectively prevents domain name hijacking, according to Ma. See par. 3.
In addition, Chen and Ma/Yu do not teach that the DNS query packet includes a scheduling type code that indicates a scheduling information type of the scheduling information, or that the geographical location is at least one of: a longitude and a latitude, an administrative area, or a street. However, Turcotte teaches a system for providing the location of a mobile device in a message, whereby the message includes an identifier that indicates what type or format of location information is included within the message. For instance, if the message includes GPS coordinates of the mobile device, the identifier may be the number “17.” See col. 11, ln. 30-35. Moreover, Turcotte teaches that the location information may include global positioning satellite (GPS) coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude), an administrative area such as a city, state, or country, or a street name or street address. See col. 3, ln. 42-52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen and Ma/Yu so that the DNS query includes an identifier that identifies a type or format of the client geographical location information that is included in the DNS query, and the location information includes GPS coordinates, an administrator area, or a street name, because doing so facilitates processing of different types or formats of location information by the DNS server.
Claims 6, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over either Seastrom or Chen (hereinafter, “Seastrom/Chen”), in view of either Ma or Yu (hereinafter, “Ma/Yu”), and Turcotte, as applied to claims 5, 13, and 23 above, in further view of Yu.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 24, Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte teach the method of claim 5, wherein the scheduling information is in a resource data field of the DNS query packet (Yu teaches a resource scheduling system whereby a location of a client requesting a resource is inserted into a DNS request by inserting the location into an additional section of a DNS query, replacing an option of a DNS request with the location, and/or adding the location to an HTTP header of an HTTP request which functions as a DNS request. See par. 30. Thus, Yu suggests further modifying the system of Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte so that the scheduling information is in a resource data field of the DNS query, because doing so provides an alternative means of inserting the scheduling information into the DNS query).
Claims 8, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over either Seastrom or Chen, in view of either Ma or Yu, and Turcotte, as applied to claims 5, 13, and 23 above, in further view of either Lang (US 2002/0146102) or Huang (US 2017/0187768).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 26, Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte do not teach the method of claim 5, wherein the scheduling information further comprises information about an operator to which the terminal device belongs, and wherein selecting the edge cache node comprises selecting the cache node from edge cache nodes of the operator. Nonetheless, Lang teaches a brokering system whereby a content broker 8 receives a request from a client that includes an identifier of a service provider 24c, and whereby the content broker routes the client to one of a plurality of POPs 26c-26e of the service provider based on the service provider identifier included in the request. See par. 26, 64; fig. 1. In addition, Huang teaches a content delivery system whereby the system receives a request from a client that includes an identifier of a content delivery network (i.e., CDN1 or CDN2), and whereby the system routes the client to an optimal host within the content delivery network identified in the request. See par. 13, 19; fig. 1A-1B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte so that the scheduling information includes an identifier of a network operator, and the system selects an edge cache node belonging to the identified network operator, because doing so allows the client/user terminal to select the network operator to which the client/user terminal desires to be routed.
Claims 18, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over either Seastrom or Chen, in view of either Ma or Yu, and Turcotte, as applied to claims 5, 13, and 23 above, in further view of either McCanne (US 6,785,704) or Paranjpe (US 2020/0220942).
Regarding claims 18, 20, and 27 Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte teach the method of claim 5, wherein the edge cache node is a single hop away from the terminal device (Seastrom teaches that the goal of the system is to provide the client with the resource from the geographically closest edge cache, which could be one hop away. See par. 14, 33. Likewise, Chen teaches trying to route the user terminal to a physically close edge node. See par. 65). However, assuming arguendo that Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte do not teach wherein the edge cache is a single hop away from the client, such a feature was ubiquitous in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See McCanne, col. 10, ln. 1-8; Paranjpe, par. 29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte so that the edge cache is one hop away from the client/user terminal because doing so minimizes the latency experienced by the client/user terminal when retrieving content from the edge cache.
Claims 21, 22, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over either Seastrom or Chen, in view of either Ma or Yu, and Turcotte, as applied to claims 5, 13, and 23 above, in further view of Turcotte.
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 28, Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte teach the method of claim 5, wherein the geographical location is the administrative area of the terminal device (Turcotte teaches that the location information may include an administrative area such as a city, state, or country. See col. 3, ln. 42-52. Thus, Turcotte suggests further modifying the system of Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte so that the indicator indicates that the client geographical location information comprises the administrative area of the client because doing so is beneficial for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 5).
Regarding claims 29-31, Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte teach the method of claim 5, wherein the geographical location is the street of the terminal device (Turcotte teaches that the location information may include a street name or street address. See col. 3, ln. 42-52. Thus, Turcotte suggests further modifying the system of Seastrom/Chen, Ma/Yu, and Turcotte so that the indicator indicates that the street of the client because doing so is beneficial for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459