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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendments, filed on 1/21/26 and on 2/6/26, the allowance of the claims has been withdrawn. And upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art as below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,788. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claims 1, 6 and 9 of the Patent contains every element of claim 2 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
Claim 2 is rejected similarly as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,110,614.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,616,788
2. A computer-implemented method for performing domain name system resolution, comprising: obtaining, by a parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy for one or more domains;
receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy inquiry from a domain name system (DNS) recursive resolver; and
transmitting, from the parent zone authoritative name server, the resiliency policy to the DNS recursive resolver,
wherein the resiliency policy permits the DNS recursive resolver to adjust one or more parameters of one or more of DNS records stored in the DNS recursive resolver.
1. A computer-implemented method of resolving a Domain Name System (DNS) query for a domain name record, the method comprising: enabling a capability offered by a resolver to be determined by a relying party, wherein the capability relates to a predetermined set of domains; obtaining the DNS query at the resolver; determining, by the resolver, whether the DNS query is for a domain within the predetermined set of domains; and resolving the DNS query using a first recursion process when the DNS query is for the domain within the predetermined set of domains.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: determining whether to provide the first recursion process or the second recursion process, wherein the determining comprises consulting a stored policy.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined set of domains comprises a zone of related domains.
---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Shaul et al. (2002/0010798).
As per claim 2, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for performing domain name system resolution, comprising: obtaining, by a parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy for one or more domains [paragraphs 0142 and 0146];
receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy inquiry from a domain name system (DNS) recursive resolver [paragraphs 0360 and 0362]; and
transmitting, from the parent zone authoritative name server, the resiliency policy to the DNS recursive resolver [paragraphs 0361 and 0364],
wherein the resiliency policy permits the DNS recursive resolver to adjust one or more parameters of one or more of DNS records stored in the DNS recursive resolver [paragraphs 0363-0364 and page 30, Listings 13-15].
As per claim 3, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the resiliency policy comprises information that specifies authorized time-to-live (TTL) extensions for DNS records associated with a zone which a zone authoritative name server is responsible, wherein the zone comprises the one or more domains [paragraph 0316].
As per claim 4, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the resiliency policy specifies a single duration by which to adjust the one or more parameters [paragraph 0361].
As per claim 5, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the resiliency policy specifies a plurality of durations by which to adjust the one or more parameters, wherein each duration is associated with a time-to-live (TTL) of one or more DNS records [paragraph 0172].
As per claim 6, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, an inquiry from the DNS recursive resolver requesting status of a zone authoritative name server, and providing, at the parent zone authoritative name server and in reply to the inquiry, information of a third party notification service that provides status of the zone authoritative name server [paragraph 0176].
As per claim 7, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches a system for performing domain name system resolution, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, the instructions configure the one or more processors to perform a method comprising: obtaining, by a parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy for one or more domains [paragraphs 0142 and 0146];
receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy inquiry [paragraphs 0360 and 0362]; and
transmitting, from the parent zone authoritative name server, the resiliency policy [paragraphs 0361 and 0364],
wherein the resiliency policy permits a recursive resolver to adjust one or more parameters of one or more of domain name system (DNS) records stored in the recursive resolver [paragraphs 0363-0364 and page 30, Listings 13-15].
As per claim 22, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the resiliency policy is determined by the zone authoritative name server [paragraph 0142].
As per claim 23, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more resiliency parameters comprise one or more time-to-live (TTL) parameters of the one or more DNS records stored in the DNS recursive resolver [paragraph 0174].
As per claim 24, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein the resiliency policy specifies a single duration to extend the one or more TTL parameters of the one or more DNS records stored in the DNS recursive resolver [paragraph 0176].
As per claim 25, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein the resiliency policy specifies multiple durations to extend the one or more TTL parameters of the one or more DNS records stored in the DNS recursive resolver [paragraph 0182].
As per claim 26, Ben-Shaul et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein the one or more DNS records are stored in a cache of the DNS recursive resolver [paragraph 0119].
Claims 8-11 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444