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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that “First, in Lam, a new domain name registration request, and not domain names, are deleted once the verification period has expired. In fact, in Lam, the domain names 14 are still stored in the registry 18 regardless of the verification period. Lam, paragraph [0030]. Second, the new domain name registration request is deleted from the management module 19, and not from the registry 18.” (Emphasis Added)
Examiner notes that these arguments are not consistent with the claim language. “Verification period” is not recited in the claims, and therefore not a claim limitation.
Furthermore, Lam recites (¶0014) “The domain name verification system 10 can also provide for the domain name registrant 12 to manage over the communications network 11 the domain name 14, via the domain name registrar 16, for instructions 26 (e.g. including the domain event 15 such as deletion of an existing domain name 14 registration) relating to their domain names 14 already registered (e.g. claimed) in the domain name registry 18.”
As such, Examiner respectfully disagrees as Lam does recite the deletion of registered domain names from the registry 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
2. Claims 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanbach et al. (US 20020010794 A1) in view of Lam et al. (US 20170317973 A1) and Dhuse (US 20170054806 A1).
Claim 2 Stanbach teaches a system for decreasing load on a registry database, comprising:
the database; (FIG. 3, Database 344)
a server; (FIG. 3, Server 300)
a processing system of a device comprising one or more processors; (FIG. 12, Processor 1204) and a memory system comprising one or more computer-readable media, (FIG. 12, Main Memory 1206) wherein the one or more computer-readable media contain instructions that, when executed by the processing system cause the processing system to perform operations comprising:
configuring, at the database, a drop catch cache in the application server (FIG. 2, Database 291, Cache 293, Server 275, ¶0055, configuring cache 293 via a database coherency thread 340) to support a plurality of network pools; (Examiner note that a cache “supporting a plurality of network pools” would only require that the cache is capable of storing two network pools, which is an innate function of a generic cache, and does not further limit the cache)
loading, to the drop catch cache, a first set of domain names; (FIG. 3, ¶0055, loading information from a domain name table to the host name hash table 332, i.e., the cache)
deleting, based on the first time window, the first set of domain names from the registry database; (FIG. 3, ¶0055, deleting info from domain name table of database 344)
refreshing the drop catch cache with an available flag set to true. (FIG. 9, ¶0103, setting a valid/invalid flag to “valid,” wherein a valid flag comprises a true flag)
However, Stanbach does not explicitly teach wherein the database comprises a registry database;
wherein the server comprises application server configured to provide domain name services;
wherein the first set of domain names are to be deleted from the registry database during a first time window;
wherein the operation further comprises removing, based on the drop catch cache, requests for deleting domain names; and
wherein the registry database comprises a second set of domain names that are to be deleted during a second time window and availability information regarding the domain names that are to be deleted during the second time window, wherein the first set is separate from the second set.
From a related technology, Lam teaches a registry database; (FIG. 1, registry database 18) an application server configured to provide domain name services; (FIG. 1, ¶0068, an application server; ¶0054-¶0062, configured to provide domain name services)
a first set of domain names are to be deleted from the registry data based on a first time window; (¶0047, wherein domain names that would be deleted from the registry based upon a domain event, i.e. a first time window) and
wherein the registry database comprises a second set of domain names that are to be deleted during a second time window and availability information regarding the domain names that are to be deleted during the second time window, wherein the first set is separate from the second set. (¶0030, wherein a second set of domain names, for example, those eligible for refund, are to be deleted during a second domain event)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stanbach as related to the creating of a cache memory used for storing and updating domain names with the teachings of Lam, as Lam teaches obvious to try methods of applying such database tools to the field of domain name registration, and wherein such a combination would more efficiently utilize network resources.
However, Stanback in view of Lam does not explicitly teach instructions that when executed by a processing system cause the processing system to perform operations comprising:
removing, based on the drop catch cache, requests for deleting domain names.
From a related technology, Dhuse teaches removing requests for deletion. (¶0071, removing a request, ¶0060 and ¶0061, wherein a request comprises a request for deletion; Examiner notes, see 112(b) rejection, that a cache is a limited form of memory used for temporary storage and fast access, as Applicant uses the “drop catch cache” for purposes other than those related to a cache, for examination purposes Examiner interprets the drop catch cache as generic memory that can comprise executable instructions)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stanback in view of Lam to incorporate the techniques used in Dhuse to remove requests that would deleteriously affect performance of the network and therefore ensure an acceptable level of success for memory access requests. (Dhuse, ¶0010)
Claim 5 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the drop catch cache is a drop catch pool cache and controls availability of deleting domain names. (See 112(b) rejection, Examiner notes that a cache is a limited form of memory used for temporary storage and fast access, as Applicant uses the “drop catch cache” for purposes other than those related to a cache, for examination purposes Examiner interprets the drop catch cache as generic memory that can comprise executable instructions; as such, the cache being a memory storing executable instruction would inherently configured to control deleting domain names as the instructions may be included therein)
Claim 6 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the drop catch cache extends the drop catch cache to enable a delete batch to specify when a deleted domain name is available. (Furthermore, Examiner notes that enabling “a delete batch to specify when a deleted domain name is available” would only require the cache to be remain functional, while the recited enabled function theoretically would occur, and as the delete batch is not contingent upon the drop catch cache, Examiner interprets the drop catch cache as being inherently enabled)
Claim 7 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 6, and further teaches wherein the drop catch cache is able to control a delayed availability of a regular pool. (See 112(b) rejection, as the drop catch cache is interpreted as a generic memory comprising instruction, the drop catch cache would be enable to store instructions capable of controlling a delayed availability of a regular pool; Examiner notes that a memory is enabled when it can store instructions, and a processor is enabled by those instructions)
Claim 8 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the first time window is 1 to 2 hours before the second time window. (Stanback, ¶0030, wherein the grace period is temporally adjacent to the normal period)
Claims 12-15 are rejected by Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse as described by Claims 5-8 respectively.
Claims 19-21 are rejected by Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse as described by Claims 5-7 respectively.
3. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanbach et al. (US 20020010794 A1) in view of Lam et al. (US 20170317973 A1) and Dhuse (US 20170054806 A1) and in further view of Calder et al. (US 20130179895 A1).
Claim 3 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 2, and but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of network pools comprises at least one of a batch pool or an auto pool.
From a related technology, Calder teaches wherein the plurality of network pools comprises at least one of a batch pool or an auto pool. (¶0043, wherein the network pools comprises an auto pool)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse to incorporate the auto pool technology described by Calder in order to better utilize network resource by storing domain names using well-known techniques such as batch or auto pools.
Claim 4 Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse teach Claim 2, and further teaches wherein each network pool of the plurality of network pools has an independent availability policy.
From a related technology, Calder teaches wherein each network pool of the plurality of network pools has an independent availability policy. (¶0077, wherein each pool as their own availability information, i.e. an independent availability policy)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stanback in view of Lam and Dhuse to incorporate the technology described by Calder in order to better utilize network resources through the utilization of unique policies for each pool ensuring greater efficiency.
Claims 10-11 are rejected by Stanback in view of Lam, Dhuse, and Calder as described by Claims 3-4 respectively.
Claims 17-18 are rejected by Stanback in view of Lam, Dhuse, and Calder as described by Claims 3-4 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-3949. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444