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 action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on 03/31/2026.
Claims 27-46 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 27-46 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11870870. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the claim 1-24 of the Patent No. 11870870 can also be interpreted as claimed features as claimed in the claims 27-46 of the present application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-24 of Patent No. 11870870 to arrive at the claims 27-46 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim comparison: Claimed subject matter is in parallel for the purpose of comparison
Present Application
US. Patent No. 11870870
27. A method, comprising: adjusting, at a control plane, a plurality of rate-limit parameters for a respective plurality of query types directed to a first endpoint based, at least in part, on one or more parameters indicative of changes in resource consumption at the first endpoint for individual query types of the plurality of query types obtained from the first endpoint, wherein the first endpoint comprises a first origin server specified by a plurality of queries of the plurality of query types as a particular network addressable location, separate from a network addressable location of the control plane, at which content requested by the plurality of queries of the plurality of query types is stored; and dynamically altering, at a proxy server, respective filtering processes for the individual query types of the plurality of query types directed to the first endpoint based, at least in part, on the adjusted plurality rate-limit parameters obtained from the control plane
28. The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises the control plane.
29. The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server, the control plane, and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices.
30. The method of claim 27, wherein the proxy server comprises a single logical proxy executing a plurality of processes for a respective plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of endpoints comprises the first endpoint.
31. The method of claim 30, further comprising: adjusting, at the control plane, a second plurality of rate-limit parameters for a respective second plurality of query types directed to one or more second endpoints of the plurality of endpoints; and dynamically altering, at the proxy server, at least a second filtering process for a second plurality of queries of the second plurality of query types based, at least in part, on the adjusted second plurality of rate-limiting parameter obtained from the control plane.
32. The method of claim 31, wherein the adjusting, at the control plane, the second plurality of rate-limit parameters for the respective second plurality of query types directed to the one or more second endpoints is based, at least in part, on one or more measurements of latency for the second plurality of query types.
33. The method of claim 27, wherein the one or more parameters indicative of changes in resource consumption at the first endpoint for the individual query types of the plurality of query types obtained from the first endpoint comprise one or more parameters indicative of a change in CPU usage, memory usage, power consumption, or network traffic condition, or a combination thereof.
34. The method of claim 27, wherein the plurality of query types directed to the first endpoint comprise one or more queries formulated in a GraphQL query language.
Claim 35-37
Claim 38
Claim 39
Claim 40
Claim 41
Claim 42
Claim 43-45
Claim 46
1. A method of managing an endpoint, the endpoint capable of handling one or more queries formulated in a particular query language, the method comprising: dynamically determining, at a control plane, one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more query-related structural features and based at least in part on one or more parameters obtained from the endpoint, wherein the endpoint comprises an origin server specified by the one or more queries as a particular location at which content requested by the one or more queries is stored, and wherein the one or more parameters obtained from the endpoint comprises at least one parameter indicative of a change in resource consumption for one or more particular query types; filtering, at a proxy, at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint based at least in part on the one or more control plane-determined query-related rate-limiting parameters, wherein the control plane, the proxy and the endpoint comprise separate network addressable devices; and permitting the endpoint to handle any remaining queries of the one or more queries after filtering at the proxy.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint comprises filtering at the proxy the at least one of the one or more queries designated to be handled by the endpoint substantially in accordance with the one or more control plane-determined query-related rate-limiting parameters and in accordance with one or more externally specified rate-limiting policies.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on the one or more measurements of query-related performance comprises dynamically determining, at the control plane, the one or more query-related rate-limiting parameters based at least in part on one or more measurements of query-related latency.
16. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the control plane to further dynamically determine the one or more rate-limiting parameters based, at least in part on one or more measurements of processor and/or memory usage to be generated at the endpoint.
25. The article of claim 22, the particular query language to comprise GraphQL.
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 11-12, 24
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 19
Claim 22
Claim 6-7
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights