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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/25/26, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
However, the cited portions of Ben-Shaul do not provide any teachings of obtaining a
resiliency policy, and moreover, the cited portions of Ben-Shaul do not provide any teaching of a resiliency policy inquiry in the manner claimed. Hence, Ben-Shaul does not disclose or suggest "obtaining, by a parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy for one or more domains," and claim 2 is allowable over Ben-Shaul for a first reason.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the claimed resiliency policy relates to a time-to-live interval, see claim 3. The cited paragraph [0142] of Ben-Shaul states in part, “The method further comprises the steps of forwarding the DNS address resolution request from the regional DNS server to an Edge DNS server via the data network, and instructing an edge server in the data network to periodically write a regional domain name DNS resolution into a resolution cache of the Edge DNS server, wherein a time-to-live interval of the regional domain name DNS resolution exceeds an interval between successive performances of the step of writing.” (Emphasis added). Thus Ben-Shaul clearly discloses obtaining a resiliency policy.
Furthermore, the cited paragraph [0360] of Ben-Shaul states in part, “The three special services provided by the DNS name server 134 are: (1) dynamic cache replacement, as allowing external hosts to dynamically replace entries in the local DNS cache is not standard in the DNS protocols; (2) reduced time-to-live, wherein the ability of the DNS name server 134 to reply to DNS queries with a lower time-to-live for original mapping of DNS data, provides fast recovery.” (Emphasis added). Thus the cited portions of Ben-Shaul do indeed provide a resiliency policy inquiry in the manner claimed.
Applicant also argued:
While these cited portions of Ben-Shaul mention time-to-live parameters for dynamic caching, they do not provide any teachings of resiliency policy inquiries in the manner claimed with respect to a resiliency policy inquiry from a DNS recursive resolver being received at the parent zone authoritative name server. Hence, Ben-Shaul does not disclose or suggest "receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy inquiry from a domain name system (DNS) recursive resolver," and claim 2 is allowable over Ben-Shaul for a second reason.
The Examiner cites to paragraph [0364] of Ben-Shaul which states, “When a host in the internet needs to resolve a domain name, for example www.versedge.com, it uses a special program called "resolver" that tries to find the appropriate IP mapping for that name. The resolver generally checks the file "/etc/hosts" for locally mapped host names, and, if unsuccessful, the resolver sends a DNS query to one or more predefined name servers. The DNS query of a resolver is always a recursive query--it expects to receive a definitive answer.” (Emphasis added). And the inquires relate to TTL modifications as shown in the cited to listings 13-15 of page 30. Thus Ben-Shaul teaches resiliency policy inquiries in the manner claimed with respect to a resiliency policy inquiry from a DNS recursive resolver being received at the parent zone authoritative name server. Hence, Ben-Shaul does indeed disclose, "receiving, at the parent zone authoritative name server, a resiliency policy inquiry from a domain name system (DNS) recursive resolver."
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited reference teaches all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights