DETAILED ACTION
In a communication received on 23 December 2025, applicants amended claims 1 and 13.
Claims 1, 4-13 and 16-24 are pending.
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiertag et al. (US 6,772,203 B1) in view of Burns et al. (US 5,991,306).
With respect to claim 1, Feiertag discloses: an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory machine readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by an electronic device are configurable to cause the electronic device to perform operations (i.e., software stored in memory comprising computer readable medium and executed by processor in Feiertag, col. 5 lines 30-39) comprising:
storing a plurality of data entities received from one or more servers in a local cache of the electronic device (i.e., storing a copy of a requested data object within cache in Feiertag, col. 7 lines 59-67);
receiving a request for a data entity of the plurality of data entities (i.e., user requests a data object from data object server in Feiertag, col. 7 lines 45-67);
determining whether to provide a version of the data entity stored in the local cache or to request a current version of the data entity from a server based on update timing data associated with the version of the data entity stored in the local cache (i.e., determining whether time to live has expired for the requested data object in order to retrieve and transmit the object in Feiertag, col. 8 lines 3-20);
requesting the current version of the data entity from the server based on the update timing data (i.e., retrieving copy of data object from the data object server if time to live period is expired in Feiertag, col. 8 lines 21-36); and
if the current version of the data entity is different from the version of the data entity in the local cache, then generating a new version of the update timing data (i.e., updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated in Feiertag, col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10)
based, at least in part, on calculating a difference between a current time and a previous update time to generate a first value (i.e., computation of TTL based on tc, time since the object was changed/updated in Feiertag, col. 15 lines 5-25),
wherein the current time corresponds to a most recent time at which the electronic device retrieved a version of the data entity from the server that was different from a version of the data entity in the local cache (i.e., the current time when updating the time-to-live period because data object is updated in Feiertag, col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10),
the previous update time corresponds to a previous time at which the update timing data was updated by the electronic device due to the electronic device previously retrieving a version of the data entity from the server that was different from a version of the data entity in the local cache at a time of the previous retrieving (i.e., when object different then on the server, update tc, as time the object last was changed/updated in Feiertag, col. 9 lines 18-24, fig. 3), and
the previous request time corresponds to a previous time at which the electronic device retrieved a version of the data entity from the server regardless of whether the update timing data was updated or not (i.e., tv, the time data object was last validated, checked to see if data object is different or changed in Feiertag, col. 9 lines 1-16, fig. 3).
Feiertag discloses determining update of TTL calculation based on tv, time data object was last validated and checked if changed, and tc, time since data objected was changed/updated, see equation 7 (col. 15 lines 5-42fig. 3). Feiertag do(es) not explicitly disclose determining relative distance of content update vs content change. Burns, in order to improve best estimates of dynamically updating content updates (col. 10 lines 59-67), discloses:
determining which of the previous update time and a previous request time is latest in time, calculating a difference between the current time and whichever of the previous update time and the previous request time is latest in time to generate a second value (i.e., TTL changes according to [a] content change happened later than the TTL [b] content refresh or TTL happens and content has not changed; as content ages it is checked less often and conversely as content changes more frequently the TTL must appropriately be reduced in Burns, col. 15 lines 5-42fig. 3).
Feiertag discloses computation of TTL based on tc, time since the object was changed/updated (col. 15 lines 5-25). Feiertag do(es) not explicitly disclose reducing TTL by a fractional component. Burns, in order to improve best estimates of dynamically updating content updates (col. 10 lines 59-67), discloses:
multiplying the second value by a fractional value to generate a third value (i.e., TTL is based on a percentage value parameter of the content change time in Burns, col. 11 lines 1-15), and
subtracting the third value from the first value (i.e., a reduction in the TTL; if content changes more frequently, TTL is adjusted lower to check more often in Burns, col. 11 lines 1-15)
The claimed calculation would have been obvious because the prior art teaches the times the content changed, the times the content was updated as basis for corresponding update timing being recalculated along with known arithmetic operations to generate the claimed result. Thus, yielding a predictable result by combining the prior art elements.
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Burns to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to: combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; and to improve best estimates of dynamically updating content updates.
With respect to claim 4, Feiertag discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 wherein the update timing data comprises a time-to-live (TTL) value indicating a duration of time within which the version of the data entity in the local cache is to be provided in response to requests (i.e., during TTL period, the cache can provide the content to the requester in Feiertag, col. 8 lines 3-21).
With respect to claim 5, Feiertag discloses updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated (col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10). Feiertag do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Burns, in order to improve best estimates of dynamically updating content updates (col. 10 lines 59-67), discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 4 wherein if the current version of the data entity is the same as the version of the data entity in the local cache, then either not updating the update timing data or increasing the TTL value by a specified amount or percentage of the current TTL value (i.e., if the content is not updated within the TTL increase the TTL in Burns, ¶0023, ¶0045).
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Burns to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to improve best estimates of dynamically updating content updates.
With respect to claim 12, Feiertag discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 wherein the data entity comprises a web page, a link embedded in a web page, or data identified by JavaScript code executable on a web page (i.e., data objects include web pages in Feiertag, col. 7 lines 39-45).
With respect to claim 13, the limitation(s) of claim 13 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1.
With respect to claim 16, the limitation(s) of claim 16 are similar to those of claim(s) 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 4.
With respect to claim 17, the limitation(s) of claim 17 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5.
With respect to claim 24, the limitation(s) of claim 24 are similar to those of claim(s) 12. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 12.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiertag et al. (US 6,772,206 B1) in view of Burns et al. (US 5,991,306), and further in view of Ekelin et al. (US 2007/0115849 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Feiertag discloses updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated (col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10). Feiertag and Burns do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ekelin, in order to rapidly and efficiently perform real-time estimation of network variables based on each new sampling (¶0028-¶0029), discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 wherein
the update timing data is based on one or more state values (i.e., system state depends linearly on the previous system state and system state variables in Ekelin, ¶0029)
and one or more corresponding covariance values indicating certainty associated with the one or more state values (i.e., an estimate of a network metric, such as bandwidth and inter-packet strain, has corresponding covariance matrix used in Kalman filtering to update estimates for a state vector and then an estimate of bandwidth is produced in Ekelin, ¶0047).
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, and further in view of Ekelin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ekelin to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to rapidly and efficiently perform real-time estimation of network variables based on each new sampling.
With respect to claim 7, Feiertag discloses updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated (col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10). Feiertag and Burns do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ekelin, in order to rapidly and efficiently perform real-time estimation of network variables based on each new sampling (¶0028-¶0029), discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 6 further comprising instructions stored on the non-transitory machine-readable medium executable by the electronic device to perform the operations of:
performing propagation of the state values and one or more corresponding covariance values in response to each request for the data entity (i.e., propagation of state and covariance as suggested by a new estimate is made for each new sampling based on the previous estimate and a noise term, the state vector and covariance matrices are expressions of the estimates in a linear way in Ekelin, ¶0028-0029, ¶0047).
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, and further in view of Ekelin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ekelin to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to rapidly and efficiently perform real-time estimation of network variables based on each new sampling.
With respect to claim 8, Feiertag discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 7 wherein the update timing data comprises a active time-to-live (TTL) value (determining update of TTL calculation based on current TTL; tv, time data object was last validated and checked if changed; and tc, time since data objected was changed/updated, see equation 7 in Feiertag, col. 15 lines 5-42fig. 3).
With respect to claim 9, Feiertag discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 8 wherein the active TTL value is one of the one or more state values (determining update of TTL calculation based on current TTL, see equation 7 in Feiertag, col. 15 lines 5-42fig. 3).
With respect to claim 18, the limitation(s) of claim 18 are similar to those of claim(s) 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 6.
With respect to claim 19, the limitation(s) of claim 19 are similar to those of claim(s) 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 7.
With respect to claim 20, the limitation(s) of claim 20 are similar to those of claim(s) 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 8.
With respect to claim 21, the limitation(s) of claim 21 are similar to those of claim(s) 9. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiertag et al. (US 6,772,206 B1) in view of Burns et al. (US 5,991,306), and further in view of Lonas (US 2020/0401717 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Feiertag discloses updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated (col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10). Feiertag and Burns do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Lonas, in order to improve a feedback method for adjusting variable TTL based on modifiers (abstract), discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 further comprising instructions stored on the non-transitory machine-readable medium to be executed by the electronic device to cause the operations of:
transmitting the new version of the update timing data to a synchronization server (i.e., updating TTL modifier information in a device storing tables and corresponding TTL values in Lonas, ¶0046);
receiving current update timing data for one or more other data entities of the plurality of data entities from the synchronization server (i.e., smart caches can receive global updates or specific device updates of TTL values from the cloud service performing the analysis in Lonas, ¶0045-0046); and
associating the current update timing data with corresponding data entities of the one or more other data entities (i.e., device specific TTL value modifications can be used to update the device caching behavior after receiving the updates in Lonas, ¶0046).
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, and further in view of Lonas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Lonas to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to improve a feedback method for adjusting variable TTL based on modifiers.
With respect to claim 22, the limitation(s) of claim 22 are similar to those of claim(s) 10. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 10.
Claim(s) 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiertag et al. (US 6,772,206 B1) in view of Burns et al. (US 5,991,306), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0334043 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Feiertag discloses updating the time-to-live period if data object is updated (col. 8 lines 60 to col. 9 lines 1-10). Feiertag and Burns do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Li, in order to improve performance and scalability with cache control implemented by REST APIs to represent a state (¶0007), discloses: the article of manufacture of claim 1 wherein requesting the current version of the data entity from the server further comprises transmitting a request to a Representational State Transfer (REST) application programming interface (API) associated with the server (i.e., requesting data and implementing a cache control scheme for the requested data including a max-age for caching via a REST API in Li, ¶0080).
Based on Feiertag in view of Burns, and further in view of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Li to improve upon those of Feiertag in order to improve performance and scalability with cache control implemented by REST APIs to represent a state.
With respect to claim 23, the limitation(s) of claim 23 are similar to those of claim(s) 11. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 11.
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 SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Joon 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 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.
Sherman Lin
4/16/2026
/S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights