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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2024/0187377, hereinafter, “Hofmann” in view of Duleba et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2015/0244819, hereinafter, ‘Duleba’.
Consider Claims 1, and as applied to the Method of claim 8, and NTCRM of claim 15, Hoffman teaches a device (e.g., mid-link server 185 of figure 1), comprising: one or more processors (e.g., see processor via hardware implementation as described in paragraph 0112) configured to: receive, via a service provider, a network address associated with a request for a service (e.g., The mid-link server receives from the client device a request for local data from the user at the user location, see also description of figures 6, 8, and 11- “the end user requests for accessing content from the cloud provider(s) 140 via the mid-link server 185” 0075-0076- Network address are described in at least 0045 -0046), wherein the request for the service is provided to the service provider by a user equipment associated with a network device(i.e., the associated network device is met by the sub-data center – “The sub-data center is assigned an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the user location and the sub-data center is a data center nearest to the user location which is assigned the IP address for the user location”-0006)(“the end user requests for accessing content from the cloud provider(s) 140 via the mid-link server 185” 0075-0076); and provide the geolocation of the network device closest serving location for the service to the user equipment based on the geolocation of the network device (i.e., “The mid-link server 185 makes content localization decision based on geolocation of the source IP”-0063, “the request is routed to the nearest data center to the user location called a sub-data center which has a unique IP address for the user location in order to deliver the localized content”- 0103).
However, Hoffman does not specifically teach to receive, from a service provider, a network address associated with a request for a service receive, from the service provider, a query for a geolocation of the network device; determine the geolocation of the network device based on the network address; and provide the geolocation of the network device to the service provider to cause the service provider.
In analogous art, Duleba teaches “IP-addresses and geolocation data are collected from requests received from access devices. For example, when a user submits a request for content via an access device, the request may include an IP-address of the access device and highly-precise geolocation data (e.g., geographic coordinates) indicative of the precise geolocation of the access device at or near the time of the request” – Paragraph 0040. Paragraph 0048 further teaches “LES server 206 may employ the mapping of IP-addresses to geolocations to provide relevant geolocation data for responding to requests associated with a given IP-address. For example, where content provider 104 receives a request for a webpage from an access device 106e and the request is associated with a given IP-address (e.g., the IP address of router 110), content provider 104 may submit to LES server 206, a query 218 requesting geolocation information corresponding to the given IP-address. LES server 206 may access IP-address/geolocation mapping table 216 to look-up or otherwise identify the most recent geolocation data (e.g., the precise geolocation or geolocation datasets) associated with the given IP-address, and thereby determine the most up-to-date geolocation (e.g., zip-code "92113") associated with the given IP-address. LES server 206 may then serve to content provider 104 the determined geolocation (e.g., zip-code "92113"). Content provider 104 may serve to access device 106e, content that is targeted to users in the determined geolocation, such as news, maps, advertisements or the like directed to persons located in that location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try to receive, from a service provider, a network address associated with a request for a service receive, from the service provider, a query for a geolocation of the network device; determine the geolocation of the network device based on the network address; and provide the geolocation of the network device to the service provider for the purpose of providing location based content.
Consider Claims 2 and 16, Hoffman teaches the claimed invention except wherein the service provider extracts the network address from the request for the service.
However, in analogous art, Duleba teaches wherein the service provider extracts the network address from the request for the service (e.g., this is met based on at least 0048, 0075 and figure 9 – “where a user transmits to content provider 104 a request for a webpage from an access device 106e and the request is associated with a given IP-address, content provider 104 may submit to LES server 206 a corresponding IP-address geolocation query 218 specifying the given IP-address and requesting geolocation information corresponding to the given IP-address.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the service provider extracts the network address from the request for the service for the purpose of providing location based content.
Consider Claim 3, Hoffman teaches wherein the service provider (i.e., considering the cloud network 100 as the service provider) assigns a closest serving location for the service to the user equipment based on the geolocation of the network device(“the request is routed to the nearest data center to the user location called a sub-data center which has a unique IP address for the user location in order to deliver the localized content”- 0103).
Consider Claim 4, Hoffman teaches wherein the service provider(i.e., considering the cloud network 100 as the service provider) is configured to cause the service to be provided to the user equipment via the closest serving location(“the request is routed to the nearest data center to the user location called a sub-data center which has a unique IP address for the user location in order to deliver the localized content”- 0103).
Consider Claims 5 and 19, Hoffman teaches wherein determining the geolocation of the network device based on the network address comprises: mapping the network address to the network device; and determining the geolocation of the network device based on mapping the network address to the network device(i.e., “The mid-link server 185 makes content localization decision based on geolocation of the source IP”-0063, “the request is routed to the nearest data center to the user location called a sub-data center which has a unique IP address for the user location in order to deliver the localized content”- 0103).
Consider Claim 9, Hoffman wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive another network address associated with another request for another service (i.e., wherein the process supports multiple devices- figure 6 and multiple services 0075 – “The content may be from a website, web or mobile application, streaming content sites, software, applet, downloading, browsing, or installing an application”).
However, Hoffmann does not specifically teaches wherein the other request for the other service is provided to the service provider by another user equipment associated with another network device, wherein the other network address is received from a geolocation provider, receive a query for a geolocation of the other network device from the geolocation provider; determine the geolocation of the other network device based on the other network address; and provide the geolocation of the other network device to the geolocation provider.
In analogous art, Duleba teaches “IP-addresses and geolocation data are collected from requests received from access devices. For example, when a user submits a request for content via an access device, the request may include an IP-address of the access device and highly-precise geolocation data (e.g., geographic coordinates) indicative of the precise geolocation of the access device at or near the time of the request” – Paragraph 0040. Paragraph 0048 further teaches “LES server 206 may employ the mapping of IP-addresses to geolocations to provide relevant geolocation data for responding to requests associated with a given IP-address. For example, where content provider 104 receives a request for a webpage from an access device 106e and the request is associated with a given IP-address (e.g., the IP address of router 110), content provider 104 may submit to LES server 206, a query 218 requesting geolocation information corresponding to the given IP-address. LES server 206 may access IP-address/geolocation mapping table 216 to look-up or otherwise identify the most recent geolocation data (e.g., the precise geolocation or geolocation datasets) associated with the given IP-address, and thereby determine the most up-to-date geolocation (e.g., zip-code "92113") associated with the given IP-address. LES server 206 may then serve to content provider 104 the determined geolocation (e.g., zip-code "92113"). Content provider 104 may serve to access device 106e, content that is targeted to users in the determined geolocation, such as news, maps, advertisements or the like directed to persons located in that location”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the other request for the other service is provided to the service provider by another user equipment associated with another network device, wherein the other network address is received from a geolocation provider, receive a query for a geolocation of the other network device from the geolocation provider; determine the geolocation of the other network device based on the other network address; and provide the geolocation of the other network device to the geolocation provider for the purpose of providing location based content.
Consider claim 10, Hoffman teaches wherein the geolocation provider, provides the geolocation of the other user equipment and the geolocation of the other network device to the service provider(i.e., “The mid-link server 185 makes content localization decision based on geolocation of the source IP”-0063, “the request is routed to the nearest data center to the user location called a sub-data center which has a unique IP address for the user location in order to deliver the localized content”- 0103).
Consider claim 11, Hoffman teaches wherein the service provider is configured to assign another closest serving location for the other service to the other user equipment based on the geolocation of the other network device(i.e., the associated network device is met by the sub-data center – “The sub-data center is assigned an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the user location and the sub-data center is a data center nearest to the user location which is assigned the IP address for the user location”-0006)(“the end user requests for accessing content from the cloud provider(s) 140 via the mid-link server 185” 0075-0076).
Consider claims 12 and 17, Hoffman teaches wherein the service provider is configured to cause the other service to be provided to the other user equipment via the other closest serving location(i.e., the associated network device is met by the sub-data center – “The sub-data center is assigned an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the user location and the sub-data center is a data center nearest to the user location which is assigned the IP address for the user location”-0006)(“the end user requests for accessing content from the cloud provider(s) 140 via the mid-link server 185” 0075-0076).
Consider claims 13 and 18, Hoffman teaches wherein the request for the service is a request for content(i.e., the associated network device is met by the sub-data center – “The sub-data center is assigned an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the user location and the sub-data center is a data center nearest to the user location which is assigned the IP address for the user location”-0006)(“the end user requests for accessing content from the cloud provider(s) 140 via the mid-link server 185” 0075-0076).
Claim(s) 6-7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2024/0187377, hereinafter, “Hofmann” in view of Duleba et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2015/0244819, hereinafter, ‘Duleba’ and further in view of Admitted Prior Art.
Consider Claims 6, 14 and 20, Hoffman as modified by Duleba teaches the claimed invention except wherein the network device is a packet data network gateway of a fourth generation network.
However, Paragraph 0008 of the Applicant’s original written disclosure teaches that it was already known that geolocation providers attempt to provide a physical location of a UE associated with a specific IP address and without the use of global positioning system (GPS) information of the UE. However, relying on the physical location of the UE fails to guarantee optimal resource selection in wireless networks (e.g., fourth generation (4G) networks, fifth generation (5G) networks, and/or the like). Wireless network providers typically assign IP addresses dynamically based on a pool of available IP addresses tied to a network device (e.g., a gateway router, such as a packet data network gateway (PGW) in a 4G network or a user plane function (UPF) in a 5G network) that serves a broad geographic area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to simply substitute wherein the network device is a packet data network gateway of a fourth generation network for the purpose of providing a location based on fourth generation network devices.
Consider Claim 7, Hoffman as modified by Duleba teaches the claimed invention except wherein the network device is a user plane function of a fifth generation network.
However, Paragraph 0008 of the Applicant’s written disclosure teaches that it was already known that geolocation providers attempt to provide a physical location of a UE associated with a specific IP address and without the use of global positioning system (GPS) information of the UE. However, relying on the physical location of the UE fails to guarantee optimal resource selection in wireless networks (e.g., fourth generation (4G) networks, fifth generation (5G) networks, and/or the like). Wireless network providers typically assign IP addresses dynamically based on a pool of available IP addresses tied to a network device (e.g., a gateway router, such as a packet data network gateway (PGW) in a 4G network or a user plane function (UPF) in a 5G network) that serves a broad geographic area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to simply substitute wherein the network device is a user plane function of a fifth generation network for the purpose of providing a location based on fifth generation network devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170046743A1 teaches requests for data are received from a plurality of locatable browsing clients that include the IP address of the internet service provider that each of the locatable browsing clients is connected to, and geolocation data identifying the physical location of each of the plurality of locatable browsing clients. These requests are stored in records in a first database. A query is then performed on the first database to identify records where the originating IP addresses match and the geolocation data match.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646