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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 9/24/2025, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-21 are 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. Amended claim 1 recites “a custom URL for each set of the multiple corresponding artifacts…the custom URL for a first set of the multiple corresponding artifacts is different from the custom URL for a second set of the multiple corresponding artifacts, and the artifact bucket corresponds to the set of the multiple corresponding artifacts.” It is unclear what “the set of the multiple corresponding artifacts” that the artifact bucket corresponds to refers to, whether the entire set of the multiple corresponding artifacts, a subset of the multiple corresponding artifacts, or else. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any set. Claims 2-21 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2012/0002813, submitted via IDS) in view of Rockefeller et al (US 10922748), and further in view of Strutton et al (US 2020/0027128).
As to claim 1, Wei discloses a method for creating non-expiring uniform resource locators (URLs), comprising:
receiving, at a service catalog application, one or more registration ([0046]-[0047], “VPN handler 68 registers a pre-defined, custom URL format with operating system 64”);
processing, by the service catalog application, each payload included with one or more registrations ([0046]-[0047], “VPN handler 68 registers a pre-defined, custom URL format with operating system 64. When other user applications 82 invoke O/S interface 66 directly to "launch" a URL that conforms to these special formats, operating system 64 automatically launches the application that registered the URL format” indicating that the operating system has processed and stored each payload of included in the registration, in this case, the URL format);
storing, by the service catalog application, a plurality of artifacts corresponding to each of the one or more registrations to an object storage (See citation and explanation in the preceding limitation, and paragraphs [0046]-[0047] indicating that a VPN handler 68 can register artifacts corresponding to the registered URL format that triggers launching of a corresponding application, wherein different applications are implied to correspond to different URL formats/artifacts, see (0044], “In addition to using VPN handler 68, the user is able to launch other applications 82 that may be deployed on mobile device 19 for accessing protected resources 14 over the VPN connection”, indicating a VPN handler 68 handles different applications), wherein each of the one or more registrations has multiple corresponding artifacts among the plurality of artifacts ([0047]” junospulse:/ / <server-host>/<serverpath>?method={ vpn }&action={ start I stop }&DSID=<dsidcookie>&SMSESSION=<smsession-cookie>. When this URL is "launched" by another application 82, operating system 64 loads VPN handler 68, if necessary, and invokes the VPN handler with a call-back function that passes in the specific URL. At this point, VPN handler 68 determines whether a VPN connection is already established. If a VPN tunnel is not currently established and the doConnect flag is '1' then VPN handler 68 automatically determines whether a VPN profile exists with a URL that matches the URL received from operating system 64. If not, then VPN handler 68 automatically creates a new VPN profile with the passed-in URL. If session cookies are specified in the launch URL received from operating system 64, VPN handler 68 establishes the new VPN tunnel with the given session cookies. If there are no session cookies specified in the launch URL, VPN handler 68 accesses secure VPN gateway 12 in normal course and the user is taken through the normal login process. If VPN handler 68 confirms that a VPN tunnel is already established and the "redirectOnConnected" of the launch URL is set to '1 ', VPN handler 68 may redirect execution to a web browser application or other default one of applications 82 and exit without tearing down the tunnel.” Here, the doConnect flag, session cookies, redirectOnConnected, contained in the URL are multiple corresponding artifacts for each registered URL);
generating, by the service catalog application, a custom URL for each set of the multiple corresponding artifacts of each of the one or more registrations (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation above, [0047], wherein the custom URL is for each set of the multiple corresponding artifact of each registration, the artifacts being the doConnect flag, session cookies, redirectOnConnected), wherein the custom URL corresponds to an artifact bucket and an artifact file path ([0046]-[0047], the operating system’s automatically launching the application with URL confirming to the registered URL format, indicates a custom URL generated corresponding to an artifact bucket, containing the corresponding architects, and an artifact file path as exemplified in paragraph [0047]), and the artifact bucket corresponds to the set of the multiple corresponding artifacts ([0047], the doConnect flag, session cookies, redirectOnConnected);
registering, by the service catalog application, the one or more custom URLs with a database ([0046]-[0047]); and
sending, by the service catalog application, a response payload that includes each custom URL to a user ([0046]-[0047], e.g., “When this URL is "launched" by another application 82, operating system 64 loads VPN handler 68, if necessary, and invokes the VPN handler with a call-back function that passes in the specific URL”; ).
However, Wei does not expressly disclose that the registration is via POST application programing interface (API) calls. Rockefeller discloses a concept of registering via POST application programming interface (API) calls (Table 1, “POST /api/linkedin generate linkedin register url”]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wei with Rockefeller. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to generate registration url using known protocol POST (Rockefeller, Table 1).
Wei does not expressly disclose that the custom URL for a first set of the multiple corresponding artifacts is different from the custom URL for a second set of the multiple corresponding artifacts. Strutton discloses concept of a customer URL for a first set of multiple corresponding artifacts is different from the custom URL for a second set of multiple corresponding artifacts ([0011], wherein each URL is dynamically generated for a set of multiple corresponding artifacts/parameters in the selected tracking templates, different from another URL dynamically generated for another set of multiple corresponding artifacts/parameters in differently selected tracking templates).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wei with Strutton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to dynamically generated tracking URLs (Strutton, [0011])
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more registration POST API calls is one or more of: a bundle; a template; or a descriptor (Rockefeller, Table 1, “/api/linkedin” can be considered a descriptor of the URL).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the custom URL is a custom catalog API (Rockefeller, Table 1, “POST /api/linkedin generate linkedin register url”, indicating a custom URL which is a custom catalog API among the entire catalog of APIs listed in Table 1).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving, by the service catalog application, a request to download an artifact from the object storage where the artifact corresponds to an expired presigned URL, wherein the expired presigned URL corresponds to a previously created custom URL wherein the previously created custom URL is a catalog endpoint (Wei, [0030]; [0033]. It is to be noted that the claimed term “an expired presigned URL” is interpreted as “a previously created custom URL” using the subsequent recitation in the claim).
As to claim 12, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions in response to being executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
receive, by the service catalog application, a request to download an artifact from the object storage where the artifact corresponds to an expired presigned URL, comprising: receive, by the service catalog application, a previously created custom URL where the previously created custom URL is a catalog endpoint (Wei, [0030]; [0033]. It is to be noted that the claimed term “an expired presigned URL” is interpreted using the subsequent recitation “comprising: receiving… a previously created custom URL”).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 5, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
generating, by the service catalog application, a presigned URL corresponding to a bucket name and file path included in the catalog endpoint (Wei, [0046]-[0047]; [0088], “VPN control application looks for a specially configured bookmark with the following example name: "Mobile Webmail." If such a bookmark exists, the Email icon (FIG. 6) will launch a web-based email in a browser, opening the Mobile Webmail bookmark link“; [0078], “VPN control application issues XPath queries to locate all anchor elements with href attributes which contain ‘launch.cgi’”); and sending, by the service catalog application, the presigned URL to a function ([0048], “continuously executed in the background by operation system 64 to provide certain security functions for mobile device”; see also Rockefeller, Table 1).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
AS to claim 21, Wei-Rockefeller discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising registering, by the service catalog application, each custom URL with a database (Wei, [0046]-[0047]).
7. Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Lawson et al (US 2014/0098809, submitted via IDS).
As to claim 6, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 5, but does not expressly disclose receiving, by the service catalog application, the presigned URL with an expiration time from the function. Lawson discloses a concept of receiving, by a service catalog application. a presigned URL with an expiration time from a function ([0054], lf the URI has been cached and the cache is still valid (based on an HTTP expires tag, a HEAD request to the URI resulting).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton with the concept taught by Lawson. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to provide integrated secure enterprise virtual private network (VPN) connectivity, network acceleration, security management.
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton-Lawson discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
redirecting, by the service catalog application, a custom catalog API to call the presigned URL based upon the previously created custom URL (Lawson, [0034], redirecting the caller to a new URI using the pressed keys as part of the data within the new URI).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Wei-Rockefeller-Strutton-Lawson discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
sending, by the service catalog application, a redirect response that authorizes the user to download the artifact from the object storage (see Lawson,
[0069], the transcoding proxy server and cache server stream URI resource responses as they are downloaded, transcoded, and/or cached, without waiting for the download, transcode, and/or cache operation to finish).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 8.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights