DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to RCE communication filed on 3/11/2026.
Claims 2-49 are subject to examination.
This amendment and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2-7, 9-11, 13, 26, 27-31,33-35, 37, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0205326 (hereinafter Caradec)
With respect to claim 2, Stavrakos teaches a method for a communications system having a communications path comprising a forward link to a client side of the communications system, comprising: receiving, at a server system, a request for content from a user system of the communications system (i.e. receiving a request from the user agent at the content servers/web servers for content) (Paragraph 21-22, 26); obtaining the content at the server system (i.e. content server provides response data associated with the request data)(Paragraph 42); and communicating the content from the server system to the user system using the forward link of the communications system (i.e. after generator has received any embedded response data from the content server, forwarding optimized data to the user agent or client device)(Paragraph 45);
Although, Stavrakos teaches wherein the tunnel and the forward link are implemented differently using communication schemes (i.e. HTTP/HTTPS/WAP/WAIS/Gopher/TSP request for request & HTTP/WAP response data or MIME type response data) (Paragraph 21, 24, 76) but does not explicitly state separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes.
Britton teaches communicating the content from the server system to the user using a client-server communication link (i.e. Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprising the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.01) of the communication system (Paragraph 39) wherein the tunnel (Fig. 4 element 440.1) and the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprise separate communication links (i.e. different/separate communication link wherein tunnel link is GRE Tunnel link client-server/forward link is the standard connection with a separate path) implemented different using different communication schemes (Paragraph 39, 30, 32, 21, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Britton’s teaching in Stavrakos’ teaching to come up with having separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes. The motivation or doing so would be to provide delivery of custom content to individual computer or users by means of data center without inducing noticeable latency.
Stavrakos and Britton does not explicitly teach request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider.
Caradec teaches request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider (Paragraph 41, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Caradec’s teaching in Stravrakos and Britton’s teaching to come up with intercepting the request after the receipt by the content provider from a tunnel between the user and content provider. The motivation for doing so would to provide secure connection by opening the tunnel between the user and the server and keeping a context.
With respect to claim 3, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the request is intercepted by a server optimizer (i.e. inline proxy or gateway) (Paragraph 42)
With respect to claim 4, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the request is intercepted by a different component than a server optimizer (Paragraph 25, 35, 36, 40)
With respect to claim 5, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 4, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the request is intercepted at the user system for redirection to the server optimizer of the server system (Paragraph 42)
With respect to claim 6, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the server system is implemented within a provider terminal (i.e. content server/optimization server which has monitoring device) on a server side of the communications system (Paragraph 36-37)
With respect to claim 7, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the server system is implemented separately from a provider terminal (i.e. content server/optimization server which has monitoring device) on a server side of the communications system (Paragraph 36-37)
With respect to claim 9, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the obtaining the content at the server system comprises retrieving the content from an edge server collocated with the server system (Paragraph 36-37)
With respect to claim 10, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches wherein the obtaining the content at the server system comprises receiving the content from the content provider remote from the server system via one or more networks (Paragraph 42-43)
With respect to claim 11, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 2, but Stavrakos further teaches further comprising: receiving, at the server system, a second request for second content from a second user system of the communications system (i.e. receiving a request from the user agent at the content servers/web servers for content) (Paragraph 21-22, 26) the second request having been re-routed to the server system from a second tunnel between the second user system and the content provider (i.e. request data being forwarded to the appropriate content server) (Paragraph 42); obtaining the second content at the server system (i.e. content server provides response data associated with the request data)(Paragraph 42); and communicating the second content from the server system to the second user system using the forward link of the communications system (i.e. after generator has received any embedded response data from the content server, forwarding optimized data to the user agent or client device)(Paragraph 45); wherein the tunnel and the second tunnel are different
Although, Stavrakos teaches wherein the tunnel and the forward link are implemented differently using communication schemes (i.e. HTTP/HTTPS/WAP/WAIS/Gopher/TSP request for request & HTTP/WAP response data or MIME type response data) (Paragraph 21, 24, 76) but does not explicitly state tunnel and second tunnel are different.
Britton teaches communicating the second content from the server system to the second user system using a client-server communication link (i.e. Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprising the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.01) of the communication system (Paragraph 39) wherein the tunnel (Fig. 4 element 440.1) and the second tunnel (Fig. 4 element 430.1) are different (i.e. different/separate communication link wherein tunnel link is GRE Tunnel link client-server/forward link is the standard connection with a separate path) (Paragraph 39, 30, 32, 21, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Britton’s teaching in Stavrakos’ teaching to come up with having separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes. The motivation or doing so would be to provide delivery of custom content to individual computer or users by means of data center without inducing noticeable latency.
With respect to claim 13, Stavrakos and Britton teaches the method of claim 11, but Britton further teaches wherein at least one of the content or the second content is multicast to the user system and the second user system using a multicast service flow provided over a shared forward link between the server system and the client side (Paragraph 39, 44, 45)
With respect to claim 26, Stavrakos teaches communications system having a communications path comprising a forward link to a client side of the communications system, comprising:
a server system operative to receive a request for content from a user system in operative communication with the communications system(i.e. receiving a request from the user agent at the content servers/web servers for content) (Paragraph 21-22, 26);and a server optimizer operative to obtain the content (i.e. content server provides response data associated with the request data)(Paragraph 42) and communicate the content from the server optimizer to the user system via the forward link of the communications system (i.e. after generator has received any embedded response data from the content server, forwarding optimized data to the user agent or client device)(Paragraph 45);
Although, Stavrakos teaches wherein the tunnel and the forward link are implemented differently using communication schemes (i.e. HTTP/HTTPS/WAP/WAIS/Gopher/TSP request for request & HTTP/WAP response data or MIME type response data) (Paragraph 21, 24, 76) but does not explicitly state separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes.
Britton teaches communicating the content from the server system to the user using a client-server communication link (i.e. Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprising the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.01) of the communication system (Paragraph 39) wherein the tunnel (Fig. 4 element 440.1) and the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprise separate communication links (i.e. different/separate communication link wherein tunnel link is GRE Tunnel link client-server/forward link is the standard connection with a separate path) implemented different using different communication schemes (Paragraph 39, 30, 32, 21, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Britton’s teaching in Stavrakos’ teaching to come up with having separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes. The motivation or doing so would be to provide delivery of custom content to individual computer or users by means of data center without inducing noticeable latency.
Stavrakos and Britton does not explicitly teach request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider.
Caradec teaches request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider (Paragraph 41, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Caradec’s teaching in Stravrakos and Britton’s teaching to come up with intercepting the request after the receipt by the content provider from a tunnel between the user and content provider. The motivation for doing so would to provide secure connection by opening the tunnel between the user and the server and keeping a context.
With respect to claims 27-31,33-35, 37, teaches same limitations as claims 3-7, 9-11, 13, respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claims 8, 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec further in view of Madsen et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 20050102300 (hereinafter Madsen)
With respect to claim 8, Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to further teaches wherein the server system is implemented as a cloud-based instance.
Madsen teaches wherein the server system is implemented as a cloud-based instance (Paragraph 15, 23, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Madsen’s teaching in Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec’s teaching to come up with having server system is implemented as cloud-based instance. The motivation for doing so would be so the server can accessed/configured remotely.
With respect to claim 32, it teaches same limitation as claim 8, therefore, rejected under same basis.
Claim 12, 14-16, 36, 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec further in view of Kimmich et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0144713 (hereinafter Kimmich)
With respect to claim 12, Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to further teaches wherein the content is communicated to the user system and the second content is communicated to the second user system using different respective unicast service flows between the server system and the user system and the second user system. Kimmich teaches wherein the content is communicated to the user system and the second content is communicated to the second user system using different respective unicast service flows between the server system and the user system and the second user system (Paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Kimmich’s teaching in Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec’s teaching to come up with having content is communicated to user system using different respective unicast service flows between server and user. The motivation for doing so would be to send packets using the most efficient coding and module scheme that the communication link will support.
With respect to claim 14, Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to further teaches wherein the content is analyzed to determine the content comprises public-interest traffic for multicasting to the client side. Kimmich teaches wherein the content is analyzed to determine the content comprises public-interest traffic for multicasting to the client side (Paragraph 37, 99, 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Kimmich’s teaching in Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec’s teaching to come up with having content is analyzed to determine the content comprises public-interest traffic for multicasting to the client side. The motivation for doing should be to broadcast using a modulation and coding format adapted for each packet to the link conditions of the terminal or set of terminals.
With respect to claim 15, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Kimmich teaches the method of claim 14, but Kimmich further teaches wherein a header portion of the content is analyzed to determine information about the content (Paragraph 83-84)
With respect to claim 16, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Kimmich teaches the method of claim 14, but Kimmich further teaches wherein a content portion of the content is analyzed to determine information about the content based on an identifier generated from the content portion (Paragraph 94-97)
With respect to claims 36, 38-40, teaches same limitations as claims 12, 14-16 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis
Claims 17, 41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec further in view of Ramjee et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0187673 (hereinafter Ramjee)
With respect to claim 17, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Kimmich teaches the method of claim 16, but fails to further teaches wherein the identifier comprises a fingerprint. Ramjee teaches wherein the identifier comprises a fingerprint (Paragraph 37-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Ramjee’s teaching in Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Kimmich teaching to come up with having identifier comprising a fingerprint. The motivation for doing so would be to find matching content in the local dictionary which is synchronized with the receiver’s dictionary.
With respect to claim 41, teaches same limitations as Claim 17 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claims 18-23, 42-47 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec further in view of Nations et al. U.S. Patent # 6,879,808 (hereinafter Nations)
With respect to claim 18, Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaches the method of claim 2, but fails further teaches wherein the communications system comprises a satellite communication system. Nations teaches wherein the communications system comprises a satellite communication system (column 5 lines 29-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Nations’ teaching in Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec’s teaching to come up with having a communications system comprises a satellite communication system. The motivation or doing so would be to providing point to multipoint broadcasting capability to provide geographic ubiquity and high capacity.
With respect to claim 19, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Nations teaches the method of claim 18, but Nations further teaches wherein the server system is located in a gateway of the satellite communication system (column 5 lines 29-51)
With respect to claim 20, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Nations teaches the method of claim 18, but Nations further teaches wherein at least the forward link of the communications system is provided via a satellite of the satellite communication system (column 5 lines 29-39)
With respect to claim 21, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Nations teaches the method of claim 20, but Nations further teaches wherein the forward link of the communications system comprises a carrier of the satellite (column 4 lines 55-63)
With respect to claim 22, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Nations teaches the method of claim 21, but Nations further teaches wherein a plurality of user systems on the client side of the communications system are grouped into the carrier based on one or more particular characteristics of the plurality of user systems (column 4 lines 33-54)
With respect to claim 23, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Nations teaches the method of claim 22, but Nations further teaches wherein the carrier comprises a spot beam of the satellite (column 6 lines 21-35)
With respect to claims 42-47, teaches same limitations as claims 18-23 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claims 24-25, 48-49 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stavrakos et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0271642 (hereinafter Stavrakos) in view of Britton et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0204688 (hereinafter Britton) further in view of Caradec further in view of Thesling et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2007/0097852 (hereinafter Thesling)
With respect to claim 24, Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaches the method of claim 20, but fails to further teaches wherein the forward link of the communications system comprises a modcode point of the satellite. Thesling teaches wherein the forward link of the communications system comprises a modcode point of the satellite (Paragraph 4, 37, 40, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Thesling’s teaching in Stavrakos, Britton and Caradec teaching to come up with having modcode point of the satellite. The motivation for doing so would be to improve signal quality and increase range.
With respect to claim 25, Stavrakos, Britton, Caradec and Thesling teaches the method of claim 24, but Thesling further teaches wherein the modcode point is selected so that at least a threshold number of user systems reliably receive the content (Paragraph 4, 37, 40, 43).
With respect to claims 48-49, teaches same limitations as claims 24-25 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 with respect to amended claim limitation with respect to King reference have been fully considered but are deemed moot because King reference has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Stavrakos reference pertaining to the newly amended claim limitation, is deemed moot because Examiner has used Caradec reference to teach the newly amended claim limitation.
A). Applicant states combination of Stavrakos and Britton resulting system would not realize the claimed invention…and The Office’s rationale for combining the references to reduce latency via data center was also shown to be inefficient as it does not address the specific rerouting mechanism required by the claims.
With respect to remark A, First, Examiner would like to point out that in Paragraphs 21-22, 26, 42, 45, Stavrakos teaches receiving, at a server system, a request for content from a user system of the communications system (i.e. receiving a request from the user agent at the content servers/web servers for content) (Paragraph 21-22, 26); obtaining the content at the server system (i.e. content server provides response data associated with the request data)(Paragraph 42); and communicating the content from the server system to the user system using the forward link of the communications system (i.e. after generator has received any embedded response data from the content server, forwarding optimized data to the user agent or client device)(Paragraph 45).
Although, Stavrakos teaches wherein the tunnel and the forward link are implemented differently using communication schemes (i.e. HTTP/HTTPS/WAP/WAIS/Gopher/TSP request for request & HTTP/WAP response data or MIME type response data) (Paragraph 21, 24, 76) but does not explicitly state separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes.
Britton teaches communicating the content from the server system to the user using a client-server communication link (i.e. Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprising the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.01) of the communication system (Paragraph 39) wherein the tunnel (Fig. 4 element 440.1) and the forward link (Fig. 4 element 430.1) comprise separate communication links (i.e. different/separate communication link wherein tunnel link is GRE Tunnel link client-server/forward link is the standard connection with a separate path) implemented different using different communication schemes (Paragraph 39, 30, 32, 21, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Britton’s teaching in Stavrakos’ teaching to come up with having separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes. The motivation or doing so would be to provide delivery of custom content to individual computer or users by means of data center without inducing noticeable latency.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Britton’s teaching in Stavrakos’ teaching to come up with having separate communications links implemented differently using different communication schemes. The motivation or doing so would be to provide delivery of custom content to individual computer or users by means of data center without inducing noticeable latency.
Stavrakos and Britton does not explicitly teach request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider.
Caradec teaches request having been intercepted by an intermediate component in a tunnel between the user system and the content provider after receipt by the content provider (Paragraph 41, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Caradec’s teaching in Stravrakos and Britton’s teaching to come up with intercepting the request after the receipt by the content provider from a tunnel between the user and content provider. The motivation for doing so would to provide secure connection by opening the tunnel between the user and the server and keeping a context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Davis et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0208942 which teaches in Paragraph 65 generating fingerprint just for one version of the known video but would explicitly store together with the fingerprint and the video ID this frame rate.
B). Cunningham et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0158391 which in Paragraph 21 teaches comparison logic for comparing a hash or fingerprint of an image.
C). Mendelson et al. U.S. Patent # 7,310,629
D). Lienhart et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2006/0187358
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights