DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment “in which the selecting is performed by the at least one computing device at the edge of the CDN without forwarding the inbound request to an origin server for variant determination” is not taught by the prior art of record.
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Boyd teaches that a request is received at CDN 130 and forwarded to CDN Edge 150. The variant determination is made at CDN Edge 150. The request is not forwarded to the origin server (content provider) nor is the variant determination made at the origin server. The content can be retrieved from the origin server (content provider). Boyd teaches on the limitation as recited.
See Boyd, Col 10 ln 1-32 Fig 1, Edge node 150 may use various methods and/or logic to determine which content experiments and/or content experiment variations are relevant to the requesting computing device. Edge node 150 may parse the web data file 151B and examine the URL targeting criteria for each experiment in order to determine where (e.g., which web page(s)) each experiment is running. Edge node 150 may utilize the URL targeting to compare the URL indicated in the request to the URL(s) indicated by the URL targeting criteria to determine whether the request is directed to a web page having content experiments running thereon. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request.
Please see updated rejection below:
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 27-31, 33-35, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2015/0149600 Al (Thibeault).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2008/0127097 A1 (Zhao).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2014/0280515 Al (Wei).
Claims 24, 37, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2020/0117760 Al (Lee).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21-23, 25, 27-31, 33-35, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen).
Regarding Claim 21:
Boyd teaches A method comprising: defining, based at least in part on input obtained from a user via a user interface (ie. smart device interface), one or more rules for a content distribution network (CDN); (Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 67, 1-6.)
the CDN comprises at least one cache, wherein the at least one cache stores a plurality of variants of content (The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
and in response to receiving, from a client (ie. client device) and by at least one computing device (Fig 1, Edge Node 150) at an edge of the CDN (Fig 1, CDN 130 forwards request to Edge Node 150), an inbound request for content: (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
selecting, by the at least one computing device (Fig 1, Edge Node 150) and from among variants of content and based at least in part on the one or more rules (ie. URL targeting criteria), a variant of the plurality of variants, (Edge node 150 may parse the web data file 151B and examine the URL targeting criteria for each experiment in order to determine where (e.g., which web page(s)) each experiment is running. Edge node 150 may utilize the URL targeting to compare the URL indicated in the request to the URL(s) indicated by the URL targeting criteria to determine whether the request is directed to a web page having content experiments running thereon. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32.)
in which the selecting is performed by the at least one computing device at the edge of the CDN without forwarding the inbound request to an origin server for variant determination; (Edge node 150 may use various methods and/or logic to determine which content experiments and/or content experiment variations are relevant to the requesting computing device, Col 10 ln 1-4. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32.)
and triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the client from at least one cache of the CDN of at least a portion of data (ie. variations indicated in the cookie) regarding the variant of the content, (Edge node 150 generates a hash representing the determined content experiments and/or content item variations to be delivered to the Client Device in response to the request, Col 16 ln 25-35. Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Boyd teaches on storing a plurality of variants of content (Col 16 ln 53-62). However, Boyd is silent on storing a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content;
Turner teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on service node(s) can providing media content when requested by client devices, where previous requests are trended to forecast popularity prior to receiving additional requests for the media content, Abstract.
Turner also teaches a CDN comprises at least one cache storing a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests (ie. subsequent requests) for the content; ([0013] Previous requests for the media content can be trended to forecast its popularity prior to receiving additional requests for the media content. Based on these forecasts, the assets that are expected to be heavily requested can be replicated by the service node(s) and/or into cache memory so that the media content assets can be readily accessed when requested.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd per Turner to include the CDN comprises at least one cache storing a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide further optimizations for content retrieval and delivery by storing predicted popular content based on previous requests.
Boyd teaches on communications through various networks and using various networking technologies (Col 3 ln 41-67). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner) is silent on synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers.
Chen teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on a distributed cloud computer system that integrates cloud computing with a Distributed Internet Services system and cloud computing methods, Abstract.
Chen also teaches synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. ([0030] A DIS system distributes Internet applications, including content, data and logic, to whatever extent appropriate and to any number and any kind of device across the network. Through DIS, Internet applications can be hosted and managed centrally, with services based on each user's need, and cached and executed locally at the user device or nearby locations while maintaining its integrity. [0044] The Distributed Internet Services system technology organically integrates the benefits of existing cloud computing technology, which is based on virtualizing centrally located computing resources, the multi-tier Client/Server technology, which are based on DIS tiers, and the Browser/Server technology by selectively distributing the originally central server-located logic and data and by supporting the synchronization between the distributed tiers and the central tier.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner) by modifying Boyd per Chen to include synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide system stability by synchronization of the different applications deployed and executing across the distributed cloud environment, see Chen [0045].
Regarding Claim 34:
Boyd teaches An apparatus (Fig 1, Edge Node 150) to operate at an edge of a content distribution network (CDN) (Fig 1, CDN 130), the apparatus comprising: at least one cache of the CDN, wherein the at least one cache stores a plurality of variants of content (The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
at least one processor; (FIG. 5. Method 500 may be performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (e.g., circuitry, dedicated logic, programmable logic, a processor, etc). The method 500 may be performed by a computing device, e.g., edge node 150 illustrated in FIG. 1B or content provider 120 illustrated in FIG. 3B) and at least one storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, (Fig 6, Data storage device 618 may include a computer-readable storage medium 628 on which may be stored one or more sets of instructions, e.g., instructions for carrying out the operations described herein, Col 27 ln 22-25) cause the at least one processor to carry out a method comprising:
receiving an inbound request for content from a client (ie. client device) operated by a user; (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
and in response to the inbound request: selecting a certain variant, from among the plurality of variants of the content based at least in part on rules (ie. URL targeting criteria) defined at least in part based on input obtained from a user via a user interface (ie. smart device interface), (Edge node 150 may parse the web data file 151B and examine the URL targeting criteria for each experiment in order to determine where (e.g., which web page(s)) each experiment is running. Edge node 150 may utilize the URL targeting to compare the URL indicated in the request to the URL(s) indicated by the URL targeting criteria to determine whether the request is directed to a web page having content experiments running thereon. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 67, 1-6.)
in which the selecting is performed by the at least one computing device at the edge of the CDN without forwarding the inbound request to an origin server for variant determination; (Edge node 150 may use various methods and/or logic to determine which content experiments and/or content experiment variations are relevant to the requesting computing device, Col 10 ln 1-4. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32.)
and triggering distribution to the client, from the at least one cache of the CDN, of a portion of data (ie. variations indicated in the cookie) from the certain variant of the content, (Edge node 150 generates a hash representing the determined content experiments and/or content item variations to be delivered to the Client Device in response to the request, Col 16 ln 25-35. Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Boyd teaches on storing a plurality of variants of content (Col 16 ln 53-62). However, Boyd is silent on storing a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content;
Turner teaches at least one cache of the CDN that stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests (ie. subsequent requests) for the content; ([0013] Previous requests for the media content can be trended to forecast its popularity prior to receiving additional requests for the media content. Based on these forecasts, the assets that are expected to be heavily requested can be replicated by the service node(s) and/or into cache memory so that the media content assets can be readily accessed when requested.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd per Turner to include at least one cache of the CDN that stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide further optimizations for content retrieval and delivery by storing predicted popular content based on previous requests.
Boyd teaches on communications through various networks and using various networking technologies (Col 3 ln 41-67). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner) is silent on synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers.
Chen teaches synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. ([0030] A DIS system distributes Internet applications, including content, data and logic, to whatever extent appropriate and to any number and any kind of device across the network. Through DIS, Internet applications can be hosted and managed centrally, with services based on each user's need, and cached and executed locally at the user device or nearby locations while maintaining its integrity. [0044] The Distributed Internet Services system technology organically integrates the benefits of existing cloud computing technology, which is based on virtualizing centrally located computing resources, the multi-tier Client/Server technology, which are based on DIS tiers, and the Browser/Server technology by selectively distributing the originally central server-located logic and data and by supporting the synchronization between the distributed tiers and the central tier.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner) by modifying Boyd per Chen to include synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide system stability by synchronization of the different applications deployed and executing across the distributed cloud environment, see Chen [0045].
Regarding Claim 39:
Boyd teaches At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device (Fig 1, Edge Node 150) at an edge of a content distribution network (CDN), (Fig 1, CDN 130), (Fig 6, Data storage device 618 may include a computer-readable storage medium 628 on which may be stored one or more sets of instructions, e.g., instructions for carrying out the operations described herein, Col 27 ln 22-25) wherein the CDN stores a plurality of variants of content (The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.) causes the at least one processor to carry out a method (FIG. 5. Method 500 may be performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (e.g., circuitry, dedicated logic, programmable logic, a processor, etc). The method 500 may be performed by a computing device, e.g., edge node 150 illustrated in FIG. 1B or content provider 120 illustrated in FIG. 3B) comprising:
receiving an inbound request for content from a client (ie. client device) operated by a user; (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
and in response to the inbound request: selecting a certain variant from among the plurality of variants of the content based at least in part on rules (ie. URL targeting criteria) defined at least in part based on input obtained from a user via a user interface (ie. smart device interface), (Edge node 150 may parse the web data file 151B and examine the URL targeting criteria for each experiment in order to determine where (e.g., which web page(s)) each experiment is running. Edge node 150 may utilize the URL targeting to compare the URL indicated in the request to the URL(s) indicated by the URL targeting criteria to determine whether the request is directed to a web page having content experiments running thereon. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 67, 1-6.)
in which the selecting is performed by the at least one computing device at the edge of the CDN without forwarding the inbound request to an origin server for variant determination; (Edge node 150 may use various methods and/or logic to determine which content experiments and/or content experiment variations are relevant to the requesting computing device, Col 10 ln 1-4. Edge node 150 may identify a set of content experiments including each content experiment on the web page identified by the edge node 150 as having a URL that matches the URL of the request, Col 10 ln 21-32.)
and triggering distribution, to the client from the at least one cache of the CDN, of at least a portion of data (ie. variations indicated in the cookie) for the variant of the content, (Edge node 150 generates a hash representing the determined content experiments and/or content item variations to be delivered to the Client Device in response to the request, Col 16 ln 25-35. Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Boyd teaches on storing a plurality of variants of content (Col 16 ln 53-62). However, Boyd is silent on a CDN stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content;
Turner teaches a CDN stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests (ie. subsequent requests) for the content; ([0013] Previous requests for the media content can be trended to forecast its popularity prior to receiving additional requests for the media content. Based on these forecasts, the assets that are expected to be heavily requested can be replicated by the service node(s) and/or into cache memory so that the media content assets can be readily accessed when requested.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd per Turner to include a CDN stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide further optimizations for content retrieval and delivery by storing predicted popular content based on previous requests.
Boyd teaches on storing a plurality of variants of content (Col 16 ln 53-62). However, Boyd is silent on storing a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content;
Turner teaches at least one cache of the CDN that stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests (ie. subsequent requests) for the content; ([0013] Previous requests for the media content can be trended to forecast its popularity prior to receiving additional requests for the media content. Based on these forecasts, the assets that are expected to be heavily requested can be replicated by the service node(s) and/or into cache memory so that the media content assets can be readily accessed when requested.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd per Turner to include at least one cache of the CDN that stores a plurality of variants of content prior to receipt of requests for the content. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide further optimizations for content retrieval and delivery by storing predicted popular content based on previous requests.
Boyd teaches on communications through various networks and using various networking technologies (Col 3 ln 41-67). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner) is silent on synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers.
Chen teaches synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. ([0030] A DIS system distributes Internet applications, including content, data and logic, to whatever extent appropriate and to any number and any kind of device across the network. Through DIS, Internet applications can be hosted and managed centrally, with services based on each user's need, and cached and executed locally at the user device or nearby locations while maintaining its integrity. [0044] The Distributed Internet Services system technology organically integrates the benefits of existing cloud computing technology, which is based on virtualizing centrally located computing resources, the multi-tier Client/Server technology, which are based on DIS tiers, and the Browser/Server technology by selectively distributing the originally central server-located logic and data and by supporting the synchronization between the distributed tiers and the central tier.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner) by modifying Boyd per Chen to include synchronizing CDN logic and application code across multiple distribution layers of the CDN to maintain consistent rule execution and variant management across the multiple distribution layers and wherein the distribution includes propagation through the multiple distribution layers. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide system stability by synchronization of the different applications deployed and executing across the distributed cloud environment, see Chen [0045].
Regarding Claim 22:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches further comprising: generating, by the at least one computing device, an identifier indicative of the variant (ie. cookie value for variation A); (For each eligible experiment, edge node 150 may hash the visitor ID ( obtained from the request) and the experiment ID (stored in web data file 151B) to an integer that falls within the range of values ( e.g. 0-10000) assigned to that experiment. Edge node 150 may use any deterministic hash function such as MurmurHash to hash the experiment ID with the visitor ID. If the hash of the visitor ID with the experiment ID produces an integer in the range of 0-1999, edge node 150 will assign the visitor to variation A, Col 15 ln 56-64)
and triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the client of the identifier for use by the client in identifying the variant (ie. cookie value for variation A) for one or more subsequent requests. (Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Regarding Claim 23:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 22 as described.
Boyd teaches further comprising: receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request from the client, the subsequent request indicating the identifier (ie. cookie value for variation A); and in response to identifying the identifier in the subsequent request, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the client of another portion of the data regarding the variant. (Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Regarding Claim 25:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 22 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein the identifier comprises a session ID (ie. visitor ID). (When applying the hashing algorithm, Edge node 150 may also include other values, such as the visitor ID for the visitor. Thus, edge node 150 generates a hash representing the determined content experiments and/or content item variations to be delivered to the Client Device in response to the request, Col 16 ln 30-35.) The hashing algorithm that is used to generate the cookie value for the variation(s) includes the visitor ID.
Regarding Claim 27:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein defining the one or more rules comprises: identifying, within the input, a cache key description (ie. experiment record) provided by a developer of an application associated with the content; (FIG. 1A. The web data file 151B may store one or multiple (i.e., a plurality of) experiment records that each describe a content experiment and/or variations of content items (also referred to as content variations), as configured by the variation testing system. Each experiment record may be associated with a web page(s) (e.g., whether a static web page or a view of a dynamic web page), and may include an experiment identifier (ID) unique to the content experiment as well as identifiers of different content variations (e.g., having different features) of a web page involved in the content experiment, Col 6 ln 27-38.)
and defining the one or more rules (ie. URL targeting criteria) based at least in part on the cache key description identified within the input. (An experiment record may include user-defined URL targeting criteria that indicates where (e.g., which pages of a web site) and when to deliver the associated content experiments, personalized experiences, or recommendations on the user's web site. The URL targeting criteria may be tied to specific URLs, multiple URLs or patterns of URLs on a web site, Col 6 ln 59-65.)
Regarding Claim 28:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches further comprising applying, by the at least one computing device, different caching policies (ie. multiple (i.e., a plurality of) experiment records) to the variants of the content stored in the at least one cache. (The web data file 151B may be cached at the CDN 130, Col 6 ln 21-23. FIG. 1A. The web data file 151B may store one or multiple (i.e., a plurality of) experiment records that each describe a content experiment and/or variations of content items (also referred to as content variations), as configured by the variation testing system, Col 6 ln 27-38.)
Regarding Claim 29:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 28 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein applying the different caching policies to the variants of the content comprises: applying the different caching policies to the variants of the content prior to defining the one or more rules for the CDN; (Upon receiving the request from CDN 130, content provider 120 may execute variant caching logic 150C to determine which variants of experiments running on the requested content the client device 110 is meant to receive and cache those variants, Col 18 ln 20-24. The user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 67, 1-6.) This shows that prior to defining the rules (ie. URL targeting criteria), the caching policy is applied.
and maintaining (ie. sticky assignments) the different caching policies for the variants of the content after the one or more rules are defined for the CDN. (Variation assignments that are consistently maintained may be referred to as "sticky" variation assignments, Col 12 ln 23-25. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62)
Regarding Claim 30:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 28 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein: the at least one cache stores a first variant of the content separate from a second variant of the content; (Edge node 150 may cache every content experiment variation that could be assigned to client devices requesting content for the mobile application, chat application program, streaming video application, etc. The experiment variations may be cached at CDN 130, Col 13 ln 42-46. When the visitor sends subsequent requests for the same content, those requests will include the caching cookie and the edge node 150 may automatically retrieve the experiment variants associated with the caching cookie, Col 17 ln 6-10.) Variants are stored individually, ie. separately.
and applying the different caching policies comprises applying a first caching policy to the first variant and a second caching policy to the second variant, the second caching policy being different from the first caching policy. (Memory 151 may have stored thereon variant caching logic 151C and web data file 151B. The web data file 151B may store multiple (i.e., a plurality of) experiment records that each describe a content experiment (and variations thereof). Each experiment record may be associated with content. CDN 130 may receive a request for content stored on content provider 120 from client device 110 and may forward the request to the edge node 150 for further processing. The request may be the first request in a session in which a series of requests will be made. Upon receiving the request, edge node 150 may cache every content experiment variation that could be assigned to client devices requesting content for the mobile application, chat application program, streaming video application, etc. The experiment variations may be cached at CDN 130, Col 13 ln 16-46).
Regarding Claim 31:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches further comprising splitting the variants of the content in at least one cache (Edge node 150 may instead execute variant caching logic 150C to determine which content experiment variations for the requested content the client device 110 is meant to receive. For example, edge node 150 may determine which experiments the visitor is eligible for based on the targeting criteria, e.g. URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and/or membership threshold criteria, Col 13 ln 47-53.) based at least in part on
languages spoken by users operating devices to which the variants of the content are provided; (The URL targeting criteria may include a URI indicating locations of content experiments and the audience targeting rules for determining whether a visitor is eligible for an experiment may include a visitor ID, a query parameter (e.g., what is the topic of conversation or help/support needed?), a type of device the visitor is accessing from, a source the visitor is accessing from, a location of 5 the visitor, and/or a language of the visitor, Col 7-8 ln 65-67, 1-5.)
geographical locations of devices to which the variants of the content are provided; (The user may also determine the targeting criteria based on the goals for the content experiments. For example, where the user wishes to provide specific content items to an audience in California, he/she may select targeting criteria, such as geolocation, to enable the content experiment, Col 14 ln 14-19)
users operating devices to which the variants of the content are provided; (The user may then define audience targeting rules to provide the experiment (or particular content item variations) to that particular group of visitors. Audiences may be defined based on a number of factors, including the type of browsers and/or type of devices being used by a visitor to access the website, Col 7 ln 15-20)
and/or expenditure patterns of users operating devices to which the variants of the content are provided. (An experiment record may include user-defined URL targeting criteria that indicates where (e.g., which pages of a web site) and when to deliver the associated content experiments, personalized experiences, or recommendations on the user's web site. The URL targeting criteria may be tied to specific URLs, multiple URLs or patterns of URLs on a web site, Col 6 ln 59-65.)
Regarding Claim 33:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein selecting the variant comprises selecting the variant based further on at least one of:
a language; (The URL targeting criteria may include a URI indicating locations of content experiments and the audience targeting rules for determining whether a visitor is eligible for an experiment may include a visitor ID, a query parameter (e.g., what is the topic of conversation or help/support needed?), a type of device the visitor is accessing from, a source the visitor is accessing from, a location of 5 the visitor, and/or a language of the visitor, Col 7-8 ln 65-67, 1-5.)
a geographical location of the client; (The user may also determine the targeting criteria based on the goals for the content experiments. For example, where the user wishes to provide specific content items to an audience in California, he/she may select targeting criteria. such as geolocation, to enable the content experiment, Col 14 ln 14-19)
a user identifier included in the inbound request; (Where the computing device requesting content does not already have a visitor ID associated with it, edge node 150 may also generate a visitor ID for the computing device upon receiving the content request. The visitor ID may be stored in the mobile app. Subsequently, when the visitor sends subsequent requests for the same content (web page), those requests will include the visitor ID and the edge node 150 may automatically retrieve the experiment variants associated with the visitor ID, Col 9 ln 23-42.)
and/or a spending pattern of the user operating the client. (An experiment record may include user-defined URL targeting criteria that indicates where (e.g., which pages of a web site) and when to deliver the associated content experiments, personalized experiences, or recommendations on the user's web site. The URL targeting criteria may be tied to specific URLs, multiple URLs or patterns of URLs on a web site, Col 6 ln 59-65.)
Regarding Claim 35:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 34 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein the method further comprises: generating an identifier (ie. cookie value for variation A) indicative of the certain variant; (For each eligible experiment, edge node 150 may hash the visitor ID ( obtained from the request) and the experiment ID (stored in web data file 151B) to an integer that falls within the range of values ( e.g. 0-10000) assigned to that experiment. Edge node 150 may use any deterministic hash function such as MurmurHash to hash the experiment ID with the visitor ID. If the hash of the visitor ID with the experiment ID produces an integer in the range of 0-1999, edge node 150 will assign the visitor to variation A, Col 15 ln 56-64)
and providing the identifier (ie. cookie value for variation A) to the client to enable the client to specify the variant in connection with one or more subsequent requests for content. (Edge node 150 may store the hash (also referred to as "hash value") as a caching cookie, and transmit the caching cookie to the CDN 130 as well as to the user device 110, Col 16 ln 43-46. The content provider 120 may return all of the variations indicated in the cookie to the CDN 130, resulting in CDN 130 having a mapping of the cookie value to the variations assigned to the visitor as well as caching the variations returned by the content provider 120. When the visitor makes subsequent requests, the client device may pass the caching cookie value to the CDN 130 which has already cached the variants associated with the visitor. Thus, the particular content items for the client device may be retrieved from the CDN 130, Col 16 ln 53-62.)
Regarding Claim 38:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 34 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein the method further comprises: identifying, within the input, a cache key description (ie. experiment record) provided by a developer of an application associated with the content; (FIG. 1A. The web data file 151B may store one or multiple (i.e., a plurality of) experiment records that each describe a content experiment and/or variations of content items (also referred to as content variations), as configured by the variation testing system. Each experiment record may be associated with a web page(s) (e.g., whether a static web page or a view of a dynamic web page), and may include an experiment identifier (ID) unique to the content experiment as well as identifiers of different content variations (e.g., having different features) of a web page involved in the content experiment, Col 6 ln 27-38.)
and defining the rules (ie. URL targeting criteria) of traffic based at least in part on the cache key identified within the input. (An experiment record may include user-defined URL targeting criteria that indicates where (e.g., which pages of a web site) and when to deliver the associated content experiments, personalized experiences, or recommendations on the user's web site. The URL targeting criteria may be tied to specific URLs, multiple URLs or patterns of URLs on a web site, Col 6 ln 59-65.)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2015/0149600 Al (Thibeault).
Regarding Claim 26:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches on input for user defined rules (Col 22-23 ln 67, 1-6). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on wherein the user interface comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates entry of the input on which the one or more rules are defined via a drop down menu and/or a radio button.
Thibeault teaches, in the same field of endeavor, A method for implementing control of content publication in accordance with a digital presence in a CDN, Abstract.
Thibeault also teaches wherein the user interface comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates entry of the input on which the one or more rules are defined via a drop down menu and/or a radio button. ([0092] The customer interface may be configured to receive inputs that control the digital presence by adjusting the functional rule sets provided.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Thibeault to include wherein the user interface comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates entry of the input on which the one or more rules are defined via a drop down menu and/or a radio button. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide a more user friendly method, by providing a visual GUI interface for creating the rules.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2008/0127097 A1 (Zhao).
Regarding Claim 32:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 31 as described.
Boyd teaches further comprising: performing split testing on the variants of the content; (Content providers may run content experiments such as A/B tests to answer specific questions regarding which variation of a web page or digital product (including various features of, or other content items in such pages or products) are more successful, Col 2 ln 3-7)
and providing a result of the split testing. (The variation testing system may be implemented in the content provider 120 and/or edge node 150. A content experiment for a web page may test changes to the web page against the current variation of the web page to determine how different variations alter visitor interaction, or some other metric, with the web page or whether the changes produce a desired result, Col 5 ln 14-21.)
Boyd teaches on split testing and on whether there is a desired result (Col 2 ln 3-7, Col 5 ln 14-21). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on providing a result of the split testing to the client.
Zhao teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a testing method of URL command, Abstract.
Zhao also teaches performing split testing and providing a result of the split testing to the client. ([0012] A scenario testing system for testing the scenario by using URL command testing in combination with Graphical User Interface testing is provided. The scenario testing system can include: task splitting means for splitting the scenario into a plurality of tasks in accordance with applications. [0030] Optionally, the test response result returned by the server may be displayed and validated in step 222, so as to reflect whether or not the testing satisfies the requirement.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Zhao to include performing split testing and providing a result of the split testing to the client. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide transparency of testing results and allowing for further feedback from the client.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2014/0280515 Al (Wei).
Regarding Claim 36:
Boyd (as modified by Turner) teaches the invention of Claim 35 as described.
Boyd teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving the one or more subsequent requests for content from the client; and providing the certain variant (ie. experiment variants) for delivery to the client in response to identifying the certain variant from the identifier included in the one or more subsequent requests. (Where the computing device requesting content does not already have a visitor ID associated with it, edge node 150 may also generate a visitor ID for the computing device upon receiving the content request. The visitor ID may be stored in the mobile app. Subsequently, when the visitor sends subsequent requests for the same content (web page), those requests will include the visitor ID and the edge node 150 may automatically retrieve the experiment variants associated with the visitor ID, Col 9 ln 23-42.)
Boyd teaches on subsequent requests for providing experiment variants related to the initial request (Col 9 ln 23-42). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on providing another portion of data for the certain variant for delivery to the client in response to identifying the certain variant from the identifier included in the one or more subsequent requests.
Wei teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods for managing variants of a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) object, Abstract.
Wei also teaches providing another portion of data for the certain variant for delivery to the client in response to identifying the certain variant from the identifier included in the one or more subsequent requests. ([0062) Some portions of the web page may be cached by the intermediary. Once the page is in cache, and in response to a subsequent request for the web page, the WPO system may respond immediately with a HTML fragment, for example up to the "<body>" tag from the cached copy)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Wei to include providing another portion of data for the certain variant for delivery to the client in response to identifying the certain variant from the identifier included in the one or more subsequent requests. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide fragments of the content which would allow for accommodation of various bandwidth requirements.
Claims 24, 37, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,875,376 B2 (Boyd) in view of US 2008/0059721 Al (Turner) further in view of US 2014/0229335 Al (Chen) more in view of US PGPub 2020/0117760 Al (Lee).
Regarding Claim 24:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 21 as described.
Boyd teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
Boyd teaches on a first user receiving the request/subsequent requests for a variant (ie. web content) and on a second user sending the request for the variant (Col 9 ln 23-42). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on the second user sending a request from another client (ie. other device/interface of the second user) and sending another portion of the content requested to another client of the second user.
Lee teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods for transmitting content items using search history profiles, Abstract.
Lee also teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; ([0003] A first query may be received, via the search interface, from the first device. Responsive to receiving the first query, the graphical user interface may be controlled to display a plurality of search results corresponding to a plurality of web pages associated with the first query. A selection of a first search result, of the plurality of search results, may be received. The first search result may correspond to a first web page of the plurality of web pages.)
receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the content from another client operated by the second user; ([0003] A message indicative of a second device accessing the first web page may be received. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. Responsive to determining that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface, the referral query database may be analyzed to determine that the first web page is linked with the first query.)
and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. ([0003] Responsive to determining that the first web page is linked with the first query, an indication of the first query may be stored in a search history profile associated with the second device. A request for content may be received from the second device. Responsive to receiving the request for content, a content item may be selected from a content items database based upon the first query. The content item may be transmitted to the second device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Lee to include receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the certain variant from another client operated by the second user and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide fragments of the content to any device/client that the user is operating which would allow for flexibility and transparency when accessing/requesting content.
Regarding Claim 37:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 34 as described.
Boyd teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
Boyd teaches on a first user receiving the request/subsequent requests for a variant (ie. web content) and on a second user sending the request for the variant (Col 9 ln 23-42). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on the second user sending a request from another client (ie. other device/interface of the second user) and sending another portion of the content requested to another client of the second user.
Lee teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; ([0003] A first query may be received, via the search interface, from the first device. Responsive to receiving the first query, the graphical user interface may be controlled to display a plurality of search results corresponding to a plurality of web pages associated with the first query. A selection of a first search result, of the plurality of search results, may be received. The first search result may correspond to a first web page of the plurality of web pages.)
receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the content from another client operated by the second user; ([0003] A message indicative of a second device accessing the first web page may be received. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. Responsive to determining that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface, the referral query database may be analyzed to determine that the first web page is linked with the first query.)
and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. ([0003] Responsive to determining that the first web page is linked with the first query, an indication of the first query may be stored in a search history profile associated with the second device. A request for content may be received from the second device. Responsive to receiving the request for content, a content item may be selected from a content items database based upon the first query. The content item may be transmitted to the second device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Lee to include receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the certain variant from another client operated by the second user and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide fragments of the content to any device/client that the user is operating which would allow for flexibility and transparency when accessing/requesting content.
Regarding Claim 40:
Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) teaches the invention of Claim 39 as described.
Boyd teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; (Fig 5, At block 505, the processing logic may receive a request for content from a client device. The request may be the first request in a session including multiple requests. Content provider 120 may provide a smart device interface, or any other appropriate application with a network connection. Thus, the user may selectively apply URL targeting criteria, audience targeting rules, and membership threshold criteria that are appropriate for the application that content provider 120 is hosting, Col 22-23 ln 54-63.)
Boyd teaches on a first user receiving the request/subsequent requests for a variant (ie. web content) and on a second user sending the request for the variant (Col 9 ln 23-42). However, Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) is silent on the second user sending a request from another client (ie. other device/interface of the second user) and sending another portion of the content requested to another client of the second user.
Lee teaches that the user is a first user and the client from which the inbound request for content was received is operated by a second user; ([0003] A first query may be received, via the search interface, from the first device. Responsive to receiving the first query, the graphical user interface may be controlled to display a plurality of search results corresponding to a plurality of web pages associated with the first query. A selection of a first search result, of the plurality of search results, may be received. The first search result may correspond to a first web page of the plurality of web pages.)
receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the content from another client operated by the second user; ([0003] A message indicative of a second device accessing the first web page may be received. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. It may be determined that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface. Responsive to determining that the second device did not access the first web page via the search interface, the referral query database may be analyzed to determine that the first web page is linked with the first query.)
and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. ([0003] Responsive to determining that the first web page is linked with the first query, an indication of the first query may be stored in a search history profile associated with the second device. A request for content may be received from the second device. Responsive to receiving the request for content, a content item may be selected from a content items database based upon the first query. The content item may be transmitted to the second device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyd (as modified by Turner & Chen) by modifying Boyd per Lee to include receiving, by the at least one computing device, a subsequent request for the certain variant from another client operated by the second user and in response to identifying that the subsequent request is for the second user for which the certain variant was previously selected, triggering, by the at least one computing device, distribution to the another client of another portion of the data for the certain variant. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide fragments of the content to any device/client that the user is operating which would allow for flexibility and transparency when accessing/requesting content.
Conclusion & Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 B Burgess can be reached on (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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights