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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s response filed on 12/21/2025.
Application filed 05/11/2023.
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2023/0283690
Claims:
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claims 1 is amended.
IDS:
New IDS:
IDS filed 12/21/2025 has been considered.
Previous IDS:
IDS filed 08/10/2025 has been considered.
IDS filed 12/31/2024 has been considered.
IDS filed 08/14/2024 has been considered.
IDS filed 03/04/2024 has been considered.
IDS filed 11/19/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 11/19/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
IDS filed 05/11/2023 has been considered.
Continuity/Priority Data:
This Application is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 17/194,273 (Patent 11,689,639) filed 03/07/2021.
Non-Provisional Application No. 17/194,273 is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 16/932,766 (Patent 10,979,533) filed 07/19/2020.
Non-Provisional Application No. 16/932,766 is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 16/214,496 (Patent 10,721,325) filed 12/10/2018.
Non-Provisional Application No. 16/214,496 is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 15/663,762 (Patent 10,277,711) filed 07/30/2017.
Non-Provisional Application No. 15/663,762 is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 14/930,894 (Patent 9,742,866) filed 11/03/2015.
Non-Provisional Application No. 14/930,894 is a divisional of Non-Provisional Application No. 14/468,836 (Patent 9,241,044) filed 08/26/2014.
Non-Provisional Application No. 14/468,836 claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/870,815 filed 08/28/2013.
Prior Rejection:
Double Patenting rejection withdrawn due to Terminal Disclaimer being filed and approved (06/03/2025).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it claims in part, “identifying, by the client device as part of the executing of the browser, the first URL” and “identifying, by the client device as part of the executing of the browser, the second URL”. The preamble of claim 1 discusses that the web server stores the first content and the second content where each comprises a webpage (i.e., first and second webpages) where each webpage is identified by the URL (i.e., first and second URL). Later in the claim, it states, the client device receives the first content from the web server via the first server. Similar claim language is used for the second content.
The identify claim limitations stated above are indefinite because the client device has “identified” the first URL and selects a country. It is unclear that the identifying of the first URL is the URL of the page where a user can select a country. Further, it appears the page where the user selects a country is from the web server. It is unclear if the country select page was received from the web server via the first server or if it was received from the web server without going through the web server or received from another location entirely.
As alluded to above, it is also unclear if the page where the user is able to select a country is the first content because of the first URL is identified. But, this would appear to be in conflict with the retrieval of the first content later in the claim. Or, is the first URL identified by selecting a country. However, connection is not present within the claim. Similar to “identifying, …, the first URL”, what is meant by “identifying, …, the second URL”.
Examiner requires clarification regarding the meaning of “identifying” a URL and if the country selection page is the first content or second content or something else. Further, Examiner requires clarification about if the country selection page is retrieved from the web server or another source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s response, filed 12/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive for those arguments not addressed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0166582 A1 to Binder (“Binder”) and U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0304282 A1 to Dulkin et al. (“Dulkin”).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0195341 A1 to Swerdlow et al. (“Swerdlow”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,441 B1 to Bihari et al. (“Bihari”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0166582 A1 to Binder (“Binder”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0304282 A1 to Dulkin et al. (“Dulkin”).
As to claim 1, Swerdlow discloses:
a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server (Fig. 1, 108(a-c)) that stores a first content that comprises a first web-page or a part thereof that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and the web server further stores a second content that comprises a second web-page or a part thereof that is identified by a second URL, and for use with a list of countries (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, 301; ¶0002, ¶0020, ¶0050 – Swerdlow teaches A user's internet experience often changes depending on the user's geographical location. In particular, the user can access web content located at a URL in different geographical locations and receive different formats and different content of the same web content from the same URL depending on the geographical locations; ¶0019 – Swerdlow teaches an origin server (e.g., a local server, a local router, a content distribution network located in or near the user's physical location, or a default server for accessing the web content (e.g., web server) at the user's physical location)), the method comprising:
executing, by a client device, a web browser (Fig. 3, 301 of Swerdlow);
identifying, by the client device as part of the executing of the web browser, the first URL (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶0002, ¶0020, ¶0050 – Swerdlow teaches A user's internet experience often changes depending on the user's geographical location. In particular, the user can access web content located at a URL in different geographical locations and receive different formats and different content of the same web content from the same URL depending on the geographical locations.);
selecting, by the client device, from the list, a first country that is different from a location of the client device when selecting (Fig. 2, 203, Fig. 3A, - Swerdlow teaches a user being able to select that virtual location (i.e., country) that is different from the true location of the client);
sending, by the client device over the Internet to a first server (Fig. 2, 108a) that is distinct from the web server (Fig. 2, 108b), an identification of the first country (Fig. 2, 206b – Swerdlow teaches the origin server (i.e., first server) receiving a request to route requests to access web content to the accessible server (i.e., web server) where the web content corresponds to the virtual location of the client device);
sending, by the client device over the Internet to the web server via the first server (Fig. 2, 206c – Swerdlow teaches the accessible server (i.e., web server) receiving a request for web content from the origin server (i.e., first server)),
a first HTTP request that comprises the first URL, so that only the first country is identifiable by the web server as a requesting device location, [and the web server is prevented from identifying the location of the client device] (see Binder below) (Fig. 2, 206c – Swerdlow teaches the accessible server (i.e., web server) will provide content to the client based on the virtual location of the client and not the actual location; ¶0030 – Swerdlow teaches Each of the electronic devices 102, 104, and 106 may modify its IP address to correspond to an IP address of an electronic device located in or near the physical location of the selected accessible server 108(b) or 108(c). Each of electronic devices 102, 104, and 106 may provide additional information (e.g., IP address of the selected accessible server, IP address of the electronic device, modified IP address of the electronic device etc.) to the origin server 108(a) and/or the selected accessible server 108(b) or 108(c) which denotes the actual location of the client is not known);
receiving, by the client device over the Internet, from the web server via the first server, the first content, in response to the sending of the first HTTP request (Fig. 2, 208b – Swerdlow teaches the client receiving web content from the accessible server (i.e., web server). While the request is not sent via the origin server (i.e, first server), using proxies, routers, intermediaries between a client and server is well-known and common within the networking art. Further, Bihar (see below) shows usage of an intermediary between the client and server (Fig. 1 of Bihari) for messages to and from client/server messaging.);
identifying, by the client device as part of the executing of the web browser, the second URL (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶0002, ¶0020, ¶0050 – Swerdlow teaches A user's internet experience often changes depending on the user's geographical location. In particular, the user can access web content located at a URL in different geographical locations and receive different formats and different content of the same web content from the same URL depending on the geographical locations. Examiner note: the client device is capable of sending multiple HTTP requests);
sending, by the client device over the Internet to the web server via the first server, a second HTTP request that comprises the second URL, so that only the first country is identifiable by the web server as a requesting device location, and [the web server is prevented from identifying the location of the client device] (see Binder below) (Fig. 2, 206c – Swerdlow teaches the accessible server (i.e., web server) will provide content to the client based on the virtual location of the client and not the actual location; ¶0030 – Swerdlow teachces Each of the electronic devices 102, 104, and 106 may modify its IP address to correspond to an IP address of an electronic device located in or near the physical location of the selected accessible server 108(b) or 108(c). Each of electronic devices 102, 104, and 106 may provide additional information (e.g., IP address of the selected accessible server, IP address of the electronic device, modified IP address of the electronic device etc.) to the origin server 108(a) and/or the selected accessible server 108(b) or 108(c) which denotes the actual location of the client is not known Examiner note: the client device is capable of sending multiple HTTP requests);
receiving, by the client device over the Internet, from the web server via the first server, the second content, in response to the sending of the second HTTP request (Fig. 2, 208b – Swerdlow teaches the client receiving web content from the accessible server (i.e., web server). While the request is not sent via the origin server (i.e, first server), using proxies, routers, intermediaries between a client and server is well-known and common within the networking art. Further, Bihar (see below) shows usage of an intermediary between the client and server (Fig. 1 of Bihari) for messages to and from client/server messaging.);
Bihari discloses what Swerdlow do not expressly disclose.
Bihari discloses:
constructing, by the client device, a third content that includes the first content and the second content (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response); and
using or displaying, by the client device as part of the executing of the web browser, the constructed third content (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response).
Swerdlow and Bihari are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to HTTP web requests.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Bihari to the system/method of Swerdlow in order to improve compiling data from multiple sources (Bihari, col. 1 ll. 54-60).
Binder discloses what Swerdlow and Bihari do not expressly disclose.
Binder discloses:
the web server is prevented from identifying the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the client device and the location of the client device (¶0245 – Binder teaches using TOR (the onion router) for anonymity when providing requested web content))
the web server is prevented from identifying the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the client device and the location of the client device (¶0245 – Binder teaches using TOR (the onion router) for anonymity when providing requested web content))
Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to HTTP web requests.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate TOR as discussed in Binder with iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Bihari to the system/method of Swerdlow and Bihari in order to anonymize network traffic (Binder, ¶0023).
Dulkin discloses what Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder do not expressly discloses.
Dulkin discloses:
to a first server that is located in a country where the client device is located (¶0108 – Dulkin teaches the client, proxy (i.e., first server) and target can be in the same physical location (i.e., same country)).
Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to HTTP web requests.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a proxy and a user in the same location as discussed in Dulkin with TOR as discussed in Binder with iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Bihari to the system/method of Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder in order to demonstrate that users and proxies can be in same location (Dulkin, ¶0108).
As to claim 2, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the web browser consists of, comprises, or is based on, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Opera, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera Mini, or Android web browser (Fig. 1, col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software which would include Internet Explorer and Safari. Further, the list of browsers are well known in the art.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Swerdlow and Bihari discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Binder discloses what Swerdlow and Bihari do not expressly disclose.
Binder discloses:
further comprising storing, at the client device, the list (Claims 29-33 – Binder teaches storing a list of IP addresses corresponding to the location of the plurality of the geographically disparate servers).
Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to HTTP web requests.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate TOR as discussed in Binder with iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Bihari to the system/method of Swerdlow in order to anonymize network traffic (Binder, ¶0023).
As to claim 4, Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder discloses:
method according to claim 3, and
Binder discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the client device over the Internet, the list (Fig. 1a, Claims 29-33 – Binder teaches storing a list of IP addresses corresponding to the location of the plurality of the geographically disparate servers. Access to the servers would require the internet).
As to claim 5, Swerdlow, Bihari and Binder discloses:
method according to claim 4, and
Binder discloses:
wherein the receiving comprises receiving from the first server (Fig. 1a, Claims 29-33 – Binder teaches storing a list of IP addresses corresponding to the location of the plurality of the geographically disparate servers. Access to the servers would require the internet).
As to claim 6, Swerdlow and Bihari discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Binder discloses what Swerdlow and Bihari do not expressly disclose.
Binder discloses:
wherein the client device serves as a client device in a client-server architecture with the first server (Fig. 1a, Claims 29-33 – Binder teaches storing a list of IP addresses corresponding to the location of the plurality of the geographically disparate servers. Access to the servers would require the internet).
As to claim 7, Swerdlow and Bihari discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Binder discloses what Swerdlow and Bihari do not expressly disclose.
Binder discloses:
further for anonymously fetching, wherein the web server is prevented from identifying the client device (¶0245 – Binder teaches using TOR (the onion router) for anonymity when providing requested web content).
As to claim 8, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the first and second web-pages are part of a web-site (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 9, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 8, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the constructing comprises constructing the web-site or a part thereof (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 10, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
further comprising storing, operating, or using, by the client device, a client operating system (Fig. 1, col. 2 ll. 27-41 – Bihari teaches use of personal computer (PC) and other technological devices; col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software. Examiner notes that PCs use an OS (i.e., Windows) to run). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 11, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 10, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the client operating system consists or, comprises, or is based on, Microsoft Windows 7, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows 8, Microsoft Windows 8.1, Linux, Google Chrome OS, or any combination thereof (Fig. 1, col. 2 ll. 27-41 – Bihari teaches use of personal computer (PC) and other technological devices; col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software. Examiner notes that PCs use an OS (i.e., Windows) to run). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 12, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the web-server further provides a third web-page in response to a receiving from the requesting client device a third HTTP that includes a third URL, the method further comprising:
identifying, by the client device as part of the executing of the web browser, the third URL (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response);
sending, by the client device over the Internet to the first server, a fifth HTTP request that comprises the third URL (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response); and
receiving, by the client device from the first server over the Internet, the third web-page or a part thereof, in response to the sending of the fifth HTTP request (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 13, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 12, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the constructing comprises constructing of the content that further includes the third web-page or the part thereof (Figs. 1, 6-9, col 2. ll. 50-64, col. 5 ll. 7-21 – Bihari teaches use of a client device that includes multiple iframes. Each iframe includes its own URL and HTTP request/response). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 14, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the client device comprises, or consists of, a portable or mobile device that stores or operates a mobile operating system (Fig. 1, col. 2 ll. 27-41 – Bihari teaches use of personal computer (PC) and other technological devices (i.e., PDAs); col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software. Examiner notes that PCs use an OS (i.e., Windows) to run). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 15, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 14, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the client device comprises, or consists of, a cellular telephone device (Fig. 1, col. 2 ll. 27-41 – Bihari teaches use of personal computer (PC) and other technological devices (i.e., PDAs or cellular device); col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software. Examiner notes that PCs use an OS (i.e., Windows) to run). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 16, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 14, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the mobile operating system comprises Android version 2.2 (Froyo), Android version 2.3 (Gingerbread), Android version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), Android Version 4.2 (Jelly Bean), Android version 4.4 (KitKat), Apple iOS version 3, Apple iOS version 4, Apple iOS version 5, Apple iOS version 6, Apple iOS version 7, Microsoft Windows, Phone version 7, Microsoft Windows, Phone version 8, Microsoft Windows, Phone version 9, or Blackberry operating system (Fig. 1, col. 2 ll. 27-41 – Bihari teaches use of personal computer (PC) and other technological devices (i.e., PDAs or cellular device); col. 1 ll. 20-30 – Bihari teaches use of Microsoft and Apple software. Examiner notes that PCs use an OS (i.e., Windows) to run). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 17, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the first or second web-page comprises, or consists of, a Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) object (Figs 1-2, col. 2 ll. 50-64 – Bihari teaches use of HTML). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 18, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the first or second web-page comprises, or consists of, a part or whole of a program file, text data, audio data, voice data, or any combination thereof (Figs 1, 6-9 – Bihari shows webpages consisting of multiple types of data (i.e., text, image, etc)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 19, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Bihari discloses:
wherein the first or second web-page consists of, or comprises, multimedia data, video data, images, music data, computer programs, or any combination thereof (Figs 1, 6-9 – Bihari shows webpages consisting of multiple types of data (i.e., text, image, etc)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 20, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Binder discloses:
wherein the list comprises cities (¶0065, ¶0066, Claim 32 – Binder teaches use of a list of IP addresses of intermediate servers that are located in different cities. It is know that IP addresses have location information. It would have been obvious to use IP addresses to identify location information such as cities).
As to claim 21, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 20, and
Binder discloses:
wherein the selecting comprises selecting a city from the list (¶0065, ¶0066, Claim 32 – Binder teaches use of a list of IP addresses of intermediate servers that are located in different cities. It is know that IP addresses have location information. It would have been obvious to use IP addresses to identify location information such as cities).
As to claim 22, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1, and
Binder discloses:
for use with a list of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (¶0065, ¶0066, Claim 32 – Binder teaches use of a list of IP addresses of intermediate servers that are located in different cities. It is know that IP addresses have location information. It would have been obvious to use IP addresses to identify location information such as cities), and
wherein the list of countries associates a country to each of the IP addresses in the list (¶0065, ¶0066, Claim 32 – Binder teaches use of a list of IP addresses of intermediate servers that are located in different countries. It is known that IP addresses have location information. It would have been obvious to use IP addresses to identify location information such as countries).
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0195341 A1 to Swerdlow et al. (“Swerdlow”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,441 B1 to Bihari et al. (“Bihari”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0166582 A1 to Binder (“Binder”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0304282 A1 to Dulkin et al. (“Dulkin”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0212462 A1 to Athas et al. (“Athas”).
As to claim 23, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 22,
Athas discloses what Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin do not expressly disclose.
Athas discloses:
wherein the country is selected based on a geolocation (¶0037 of Athas).
Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder, Dulkin and Athas are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to web communications.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate geolocation data as discussed in Athas with a proxy and a user in the same location as discussed in Dulkin with TOR as discussed in Binder with iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Athas to the system/method of Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin in order to demonstrate how to use geolocation data within a web system.
As to claim 24, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder, Dulkin and Athas discloses:
method according to claim 23,
Athas discloses:
wherein the geolocation is based on W3C Geolocation API (¶0092 of Athas). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 23.
As to claim 25, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder, Dulkin and Athas discloses:
method according to claim 23, and
Binder discloses:
for use with a database that associates IP addresses to geographical locations, wherein the geographical location is selected based on associating an IP address in the database (¶0065, ¶0066, Claim 32 – Binder teaches use of a list of IP addresses of intermediate servers that are located in different countries. It is known that IP addresses have location information. It would have been obvious to use IP addresses to identify location information such as countries). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 23.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0195341 A1 to Swerdlow et al. (“Swerdlow”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,441 B1 to Bihari et al. (“Bihari”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0166582 A1 to Binder (“Binder”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0304282 A1 to Dulkin et al. (“Dulkin”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0217144 A1 to Fu et al. (“Fu”).
As to claim 26, Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin discloses:
method according to claim 1,
Fu discloses what Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin do not expressly disclose.
Fu discloses:
wherein the first and second web-pages are of the same size (Fig. 1, 101A-101D – Fu teaches use of several web pages implemented as partitions of the same size and length).
Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder, Dulkin and Fu are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to web communications.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate page data as discussed in Fu with a proxy and a user in the same location as discussed in Dulkin with TOR as discussed in Binder with iframes and web pages as discussed in Bihari with a method for use with a publicly-accessed web server that provides a first web-page in response to a receiving from a requesting client device as discussed in Swerdlow by adding the functionality of Fu to the system/method of Swerdlow, Bihari, Binder and Dulkin in order to demonstrate of how to incorporate use of page data size within a web setup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445