DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The response filed on 05/15/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 4-5, 14-15 and 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, see Remark section of Amendment, filed May 15, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior arts.
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 of this title, 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 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanacek et al. [hereinafter as Yanacek], U.S 11,366,870 B1 in view of Reistad et al. [hereinafter as Reistad], U.S 2005/0182843 A1 further in view of Baghdasaryan et al. [hereinafter as Baghdasaryan], U.S 2014/0189828 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yanacek discloses wherein a method for managing requests in a computer network (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 28-37, a method for managing requests in computer network), comprising:
receiving, from a first node at a second node, a first request for a resource (Fig.1-2 Col 2 lines 28-67, receiving, from a requester 100/first node at a provider 140/second node a request 110 resource=28716 i.e., first request for a resource 142),
wherein the first request comprises a first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time the first node will wait for a response to said first request for the resource (Fig.1 Col 4 lines 63-67 to Col 5 lines 1-30, the first request 110 includes a TTL value of a shorter period of time i.e., first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time that the requester 100/first node is to wait e.g., the time at which the response 120 was sent or received until the provided copy of the resource should be considered stale, for a response 120 to the first request 110 resource=28716 for the resource 142); and
sending, by the second node to the first node, a response to the first request prior to an end of the first amount of time (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 33-37 & Col 14 lines 1-5, the provider 140/second node is sending to the requester device 110 a response 120 resource=28716 to the first request 100 before the copy expires i.e., prior to an end of the first amount of time),
wherein the response to the first request comprises either the resource or an error message (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 54-61, the response 120 to the first request 110 comprises the resource=28716 transmitted to the requester device 100 and Fig.9 Col 10 lines 14-19).
Even though Yanacek discloses the first request 110 includes a TTL value of a shorter period of time i.e., first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time that the requester 100/first node is to wait e.g., the time at which the response 120 was sent or received until the provided copy of the resource should be considered stale, for a response 120 to the first request 110 resource=28716 for the resource 14, in the same field of endeavor, Reistad teaches wherein the first request comprises a first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time the first node will wait for a response to said first request for the resource (Fig.1-3 [0062 & 0065], the first request contains an optional Timeout header i.e., a first timeout indication corresponding to maximum amount of time the client/first node is willing to wait for a reply i.e., response to the first request for the resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek to incorporate the teaching of Reistad in order to provide for achieving real-time interaction between various users.
It would have been beneficial to use the first request which contains an optional timeout header i.e., a first timeout indication corresponding to maximum amount of time the client/first node is willing to wait for a reply i.e., response to the first request for the resource as taught by Reistad to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek to achieve a considerable amount of reduction of data usage of the terminals. (Reistad, Fig.1-3 [0065] and Fig.1-4 [0199])
However, Yanacek and Reistad do not specifically disclose wherein the first timeout indication comprises a clock time, in the same field of endeavor, Baghdasaryan teaches wherein the first timeout indication comprises a clock time (page 10 right column lines 49-52, the timeout period indication includes a timestamp i.e., a clock time associated with an absolute time reference, similar to a computing timestamp and Fig.11A-B [0083], the timeout period comprises a period of time for which the random challenge is considered valid and, the timeout period is specified by using a current timestamp i.e., the time at which the random challenge is generated by the server 130 and a duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek and Reistad to incorporate the teaching of Baghdasaryan in order to provide various improvements over existing authentication techniques.
It would have been beneficial to use the timeout period indication which includes a timestamp i.e., a clock time associated with the transmission of the first randomly-generated code from the server to the client as taught by Baghdasaryan to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek and Reistad to provide for improving efficiency and the user experience. (Baghdasaryan, page 10 right column lines 49-52, Fig.8 [0069] and Fig.11A-B [0083])
Regarding claim 6, Yanacek, Reistad and Baghdasaryan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above wherein Yanacek further discloses maintaining a connection between the first node and the second node when the response to the first request is received prior to the end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 33-37 & Col 14 lines 1-5, maintaining a connection between the requester device 110/first node and the provider 140/second node when the response 120 to the first request 100 is received before the copy expires i.e., prior to an end of the first amount of time), and closing the connection between the first node and the second node when the response to the first request is not received prior to the end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.1 Col 1 lines 33-37 & Fig.1 Col 2 lines 33-37, closing a connection between the requester device 110/first node and the provider 140/second node when the response 120 to the first request 100 is not received before the copy expires i.e., prior to an end of the first amount of time from the first request).
Regarding claim 7, Yanacek, Reistad and Baghdasaryan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above wherein Yanacek further discloses the first node comprises a first computing device and the second node comprises a second computing device that is different from the first computing device (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 28-37, the requester device 110/first node comprises a first computing device and the provider 140/second node a second computing device that is different from the first computing device).
Claims 2-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanacek et al. [hereinafter as Yanacek], U.S 11,366,870 B1 in view of Reistad et al. [hereinafter as Reistad], U.S 2005/0182843 A1 in view of Baghdasaryan et al. [hereinafter as Baghdasaryan], U.S 2014/0189828 A1 further in view of Graham-Cumming [hereinafter as Graham-Cumming], U.S 10326853 B2.
Regarding claim 2, Yanacek, Reistad and Baghdasaryan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above wherein Yanacek further discloses the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request (Fig.1 Col 12 lines 3-18, the TTL values/first timeout indication is included in an Internet Protocol header/first header of the first request).
Even though Yanacek discloses the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request, in the same field of endeavor, Graham-Cumming teaches wherein the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request), further comprising:
sending a second request for the resource by the second node to a third node (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, sending a request 162/second request for the resource by the near end network optimizer 120/second node to an end network optimizer 140/ third node), wherein the second request comprises a second header with a second timeout indication corresponding to a second amount of time the second node will wait for a response to the second request (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, the request 162/second request comprises a second header with a second timeout indication corresponding to a second amount of time the second node wait for a response to the second request and Column 6 lines 24-32), wherein the second amount of time is less than the first amount of time (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 24-32, the second amount of time is shorter than the first amount of time); and
determining, by the second node, prior to an end of the second amount of time, whether the response to the second request has been received from the third node (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, the near end network optimizer 120/second node is determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek, Reistad and Baghdasaryan to incorporate the teaching of Graham-Cumming in order to provide for improving network performance.
It would have been beneficial to use the near end network optimizer 120/second node which is determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node as taught by Graham-Cumming to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek, Reistad and Baghdasaryan to provide for reducing network resource transmission size using delta compression. (Graham-Cumming, Fig.1 Col 3 lines 51-61 and Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34)
Regarding claim 3, Yanacek, Reistad, Baghdasaryan and Graham-Cumming disclose all the elements of claim 2 as stated above wherein Graham-Cumming further discloses when the response to the second request has been received from the third node prior to the end of the second amount of time, determining whether the response to the second request includes the resource (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node prior to the end of the second amount of time, determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 includes the resource), and:
when the response to the second request includes the resource, sending the resource to the first node in the response to the first request (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34&49-59, transmitting the resource 166 to the client device 110/first node in the response to the first request 160 when the response 164 to the second request 162 includes the resource); and
when the response to the second request does not include the resource (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, when the response to the second request does not include the resource),
determining a remaining time in the first time period, and, based on the remaining time in the first time period (Fig.8 Column 15 lines 49-56, determining a remaining time in the first time period):
sending, by the second node, a third request to a fourth node for the resource; or
sending the error message to the first node prior to the end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.9 Column 17 lines 1-14, a third request 965 to a hosting provider server 935/fourth node for the resource).
Regarding claim 8, Yanacek, Reistad, Baghdasaryan and Graham-Cumming disclose all the elements of claim 2 as stated above wherein Graham-Cumming further discloses the second amount of time is less than said first amount of time (Fig.7 Col 14 lines 23-63, the second amount of time is shorter than the first amount of time and Fig.1 Col 4 lines 24-53).
Regarding claim 9, Yanacek, Reistad, Baghdasaryan and Graham-Cumming disclose all the elements of claim 8 as stated above wherein Baghdasaryan further discloses the second amount of time is determined as a percentage of the first amount of time (Fig.1-2 [0083], calculating a timeout period by adding a duration to a timestamp i.e., the second amount of time is determined as a percentage of the first amount of time and Fig.1&29 [0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Yanacek, Reistad, Baghdasaryan and Graham-Cumming disclose all the elements of claim 8 as stated above wherein Graham-Cumming further discloses the second amount of time is determined based at least on the first amount of time and an expected propagation delay between the second node and the third node (Fig.7 Col 14 lines 23-63, the second amount of time is determined based on the first amount of time; Fig.1 Col 4 lines 24-53 and Fig.1 Col 18 lines 20-47, an expected propagation delay between the near end network optimizer 120/second node and the far end network optimizer /third node).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanacek et al. [hereinafter as Yanacek], U.S 11,366,870 B1 in view of Reistad et al. [hereinafter as Reistad], U.S 2005/0182843 A1 further in view of Adisesha [hereinafter as Adisesha] U.S 9807197 B2.
Regarding claim 11, Yanacek discloses wherein a system for managing requests in a computer network (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 28-37, a system for managing requests in computer network), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig.1 Col 12 lines 19-39, at least one processor or multiple processors and Fig.1 Col 2 lines 38-53, processing units);
memory operatively connected to said at least one processor (Fig.1 Col 12 lines 19-39, memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and Fig.1 Col 2 lines 38-53, memory operatively connected to the processing units); and
instructions stored in said memory, wherein said instructions are executable to cause the system to (Fig.1 Col 12 lines 19-39, instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions are executable to cause the system to):
receive, from a first node at a second node, a first request for a resource (Fig.1-2 Col 2 lines 28-67, receiving, from a requester 100/first node at a provider 140/second node a request 110 resource=28716 i.e., first request for a resource 142), wherein
the first request comprises a first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time the first node will wait for a response to said first request for the resource (Fig.1 Col 4 lines 63-67 to Col 5 lines 1-30, the first request 110 includes a TTL value of a shorter period of time i.e., first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time that the requester 100/first node is to wait e.g., the time at which the response 120 was sent or received until the provided copy of the resource should be considered stale, for a response 120 to the first request 110 resource=28716 for the resource 142); and
send, by the second node to the first node, a response to the first request prior to an end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 33-37 & Col 14 lines 1-5, the provider 140/second node is sending to the requester device 110 a response 120 resource=28716 to the first request 100 before the copy expires i.e., prior to an end of the first amount of time), wherein the response to the first request comprises either the resource or an error message (Fig.1 Col 2 lines 54-61, the response 120 to the first request 110 comprises the resource=28716 transmitted to the requester device 100 and Fig.9 Col 10 lines 14-19).
Even though Yanacek discloses wherein the first request 110 includes a TTL value of a shorter period of time i.e., first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time that the requester 100/first node is to wait e.g., the time at which the response 120 was sent or received until the provided copy of the resource should be considered stale, for a response 120 to the first request 110 resource=28716 for the resource 14, in the same field of endeavor, Reistad teaches wherein the first request comprises a first timeout indication corresponding to a first amount of time the first node will wait for a response to said first request for the resource (Fig.1-3 [0062][0065], the first request contains an optional Timeout header i.e., a first timeout indication corresponding to maximum amount of time the client/first node is willing to wait for a reply i.e., response to the first request for the resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek to incorporate the teaching of Reistad in order to provide for achieving real-time interaction between various users.
It would have been beneficial to use the first request which contains an optional Timeout header i.e., a first timeout indication corresponding to maximum amount of time the client/first node is willing to wait for a reply i.e., response to the first request for the resource as taught by Reistad to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek to achieve a considerable amount of reduction of data usage of the terminals. (Reistad, Fig.1-3 [0065] and Fig.1-4 [0199])
Even though Yanacek and Reistad discloses wherein send, by the second node to the first node, a response to the first request prior to an end of the first amount of time from the first request, in the same field of endeavor, Adisesha teaches wherein send, by the second node to the first node, a response to the first request prior to an end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.1-2 Col 12 lines 22-28, transmitting, by the system/second node the response to the requesting terminal 104/first node before the expiry of the time-out window i.e., prior to an end of the first amount of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek and Reistad to incorporate the teaching of Adisesha in order to provide for achieving real-time interaction between various users.
It would have been beneficial to transmit the response to the requesting terminal before the expiry of the time-out window i.e., prior to the end of the first amount of time set as taught by Adisesha to have incorporated in the system Yanacek and Reistad to achieve a considerable amount of reduction of data usage of the terminals. (Adisesha, Fig.1 Col 11 lines 1-19 and Fig.1-2 Col 12 lines 22-28)
Regarding claim 17, Yanacek, Reista and Adisesha disclose all the elements of claim 11 as stated above wherein Adisesha further discloses the second amount of time is determined based at least on the first amount of time and an expected propagation delay between the second node and the third node (Fig.1 Col 4 lines 26-41, the second amount of time is determined based on the first amount of time; Fig.1 Col 11 lines 1-19 and Fig.1 Col 6 lines 28-36, an expected propagation delay between the system/second node and the broadcasting center 110).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanacek et al. [hereinafter as Yanacek], U.S 11,366,870 B1 in view of Reistad et al. [hereinafter as Reistad], U.S 2005/0182843 A1 in view of Adisesha [hereinafter as Adisesha] U.S 9807197 B2 in view of Graham-Cumming [hereinafter as Graham-Cumming], U.S 10326853 B2 further in view of Baghdasaryan et al. [hereinafter as Baghdasaryan], U.S 2014/0189828 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Yanacek, Reistad and Adisesha disclose all the elements of claim 11 as stated above wherein Yanacek further discloses the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request (Fig.1 Col 12 lines 3-18, the TTL values/first timeout indication is included in an Internet Protocol header/first header of the first request).
Even though Yanacek discloses the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request, in the same field of endeavor, Graham-Cumming teaches wherein the first timeout indication is included in a first header of the first request (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, the first request includes a first timeout header indication in a first header of the first request), and wherein said instructions are executable to further cause the system to: send a second request by the second node to a third node (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, sending a request 162/second request for the resource by the near end network optimizer 120 /second node to the far end network optimizer 140/ third node), wherein the second request comprises a second header with a second timeout indication corresponding to a second amount of time the second node will wait for a response to the second request (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 30-40, the request 162/second request comprises a second header with a second timeout indication corresponding to a second amount of time the second node wait for a response to the second request and Column 6 lines 24-32), wherein the second amount of time is less than the first amount of time (Fig.1 Col 6 lines 24-32, the second amount of time is shorter than the first amount of time); and determine, by the second node, prior to an end of the second amount of time, whether the response to the second request has been received from the third node (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, the near end network optimizer 120/second node is determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek, Reistad and Adisesha to incorporate the teaching of Graham-Cumming in order to provide for improving network performance.
It would have been beneficial to use the near end network optimizer 120/second node which is determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node as taught by Graham-Cumming to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek, Reistad and Adisesha to provide for reducing network resource transmission size using delta compression. (Graham-Cumming, Fig.1 Col 3 lines 51-61 and Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34)
However, Yanacek, Reistad, Adisesha and Graham-Cumming do not specifically disclose wherein the first timeout indication comprises a clock time, in the same field of endeavor, Baghdasaryan teaches wherein the first timeout indication comprises a clock time (page 10 right column lines 49-52, the timeout period indication includes a timestamp i.e., a clock time associated with an absolute time reference, similar to a computing timestamp and Fig.11A-B [0083], the timeout period comprises a period of time for which the random challenge is considered valid and, the timeout period is specified by using a current timestamp i.e., the time at which the random challenge is generated by the server 130 and a duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Yanacek, Reistad, Adisesha and Graham-Cumming to incorporate the teaching of Baghdasaryan in order to provide various improvements over existing authentication techniques.
It would have been beneficial to use the timeout period indication which includes a timestamp i.e., a clock time associated with the transmission of the first randomly-generated code from the server to the client as taught by Baghdasaryan to have incorporated in the system of Yanacek, Reistad, Adisesha and Graham-Cumming to provide for improving efficiency and the user experience. (Baghdasaryan, page 10 right column lines 49-52, Fig.8 [0069] and Fig.11A-B [0083])
Regarding claim 13, Yanacek, Reistad, Adisesha, Graham-Cumming and Baghdasaryan disclose all the elements of claim 12 as stated above wherein Graham-Cumming further discloses said instructions are executable to further cause the system to: when the response to the second request has been received from the third node prior to the end of the second amount of time, determine whether the response to the second request includes the resource (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, the response 164 to the second request 162 has been received from the far end network optimizer 140/third node prior to the end of the second amount of time, determining whether the response 164 to the second request 162 includes the resource), and: when the response to the second request includes the resource, send the resource to the first node in the response to the first request (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34&49-59, transmitting the resource 166 to the client device 110/first node in the response to the first request 160 when the response 164 to the second request 162 includes the resource); and
when the response to the second request does not include the resource (Fig.1 Col 7 lines 23-34, when the response to the second request does not include the resource), determine a remaining time in the first time period, and, based on the remaining time in the first time period (Fig.8 Column 15 lines 49-56, determining a remaining time in the first time period):
send, by the second node, a third request to a fourth node for the resource; or
send the error message to the first node prior to the end of the first amount of time from the first request (Fig.9 Column 17 lines 1-14, sending a third request 965 to a hosting provider server 935/fourth node for the resource).
Regarding claim 16, Yanacek, Reistad, Adisesha, Graham-Cumming and Baghdasaryan disclose all the elements of claim 12 as stated above wherein Graham-Cumming further discloses the second amount of time is less than said first amount of time (Fig.7 Col 14 lines 23-63, the second amount of time is shorter than the first amount of time and Fig.1 Col 4 lines 24-53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bobak et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0172674 A1) teaches Managing the Computer Collection of Information in an Information Technology Environment.
Gharibeh et al. (U.S Patent No.: US 10616439 B2) teaches User Semi-Transparent Embedded Watermarks.
Asterjadhi et al. (U.S Patent No.: US 9998209 B2) teaches Speed Frame Exchange Rules.
Latimer (U.S Patent No.: US 11356261 B2) teaches Apparatus and Methods for Secure Access to Remote Content.
Long et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0366488 A1) teaches Media Streaming with Latency Minimization.
Jansson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0210012 A1) teaches Application Server Platform for Telecom-based Applications having a TCAP Adapter, SIP Adapter and Actor Protocol Context.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANNEILIAN LALCHINTHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571) 272-7884. 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.
/V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414