DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 2/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered, but are deemed not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that Davey fails to disclose “determine whether a proxy lookup response has been received from each of the multiple directories.” However, as applied in the rejection below, Davey discloses the sending of queries to different locations (devices) to search files in those locations, where responses are provided for the searches when they are received (Davey: Paragraph [0047] and Figure 9]). As presented, the instant claim step does not actually specifically require determining that all of the responses have been received, but merely requires determining if the response has been received from “each of the multiple directories,” which would cover tracking the responses to the different directories, such that it is determined if/when a response is received to one of the queries. Further, it should be noted that the actual aggregation functions are addressed using Michelis, which would then aggregate the different responses received, which would bring the combination closer to Applicant’s argued scope. As a further note, “multiple directories,” as present in the instant claim, does not present that these multiple directories are the only directories to which the query was sent to. With the open-ended language utilized, the query could be sent to the multiple directories and additional directories, where with this in mind, the instant claim, even if amended to require the tracking of whether responses were received for all of the multiple directories, there could still be additional directories. Accordingly, Applicant should also amend the instant claim to clearly have the multiple directories being the only directories to which the request was sent or adjusting the claim language to clearly reflect that all of the submitted proxy lookup requests are tracked in the subsequent steps (and not just the labeled “multiple directories”).
On page 7, Applicant further argues that Davey only submits the request to one directory. However, as can be seen in Figure 9, multiple devices may be searched, where each device would have different file repositories (directories) (Davey: Figure 9, 944).
On page 8, Applicant argues that claim 1, as currently amended, provides a dual-trigger to aggregate and return. However, as above, “from each of the multiple directories” is broader than apparently argued by Applicant. Further, an “or” condition does not actual require a dual-trigger, as argued by Applicant, but instead provides two alternative checks that may be performed, where as long as a prior art reference teaches one of the two options, the instant claim would be taught, as a whole. For instance, even if the prior art does not teach the aggregating and returning in response to receiving data from all of the multiple directories, the “or” condition would be satisfied, as the aggregating and returning would still be in response to determining that the interval is expired.
To clarify the instant claim, Applicant could clearly have the dual-trigger. For instance, clearly reciting that the functionality is based on both of the determinations (e.g. “based on the determining whether the proxy lookup response has been received…and the determining whether the time interval for response is expired:”, which would clearly link the performance of the function to both of the determining steps, as opposed to linking it to one of the determining steps in the alternative.).
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-9, and 18-23 stand rejected for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 18-19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0075787 (Davey) in view of US 2022/0019601 (Michelis).
With regard to claim 1, Davey discloses a system for use in aggregate routing in response to a request associated with interconnecting directories, the system including a computing device configured, by executable instructions, to:
receive, from a participant, a proxy lookup request, the proxy lookup request including a proxy (Davey: Paragraph 9 and Paragraph [0040]. A token (proxy) is used to access directories, where multiple directories (“at least one directory”) are identified as having a result.);
submit the proxy lookup request to each of multiple directories (Davey: Figure 9 and Paragraph [0047]);
determine whether a proxy lookup response has been received from each of the multiple directories (Davey: Paragraph [0047] and Figure 9. In Davey, queries are sent to other computing device(s), where the responses are handled as each response is received, thus determining whether a response has been received from each of the multiple directories (file location, such as in different devices).).
in response to determining that the proxy lookup response has been received from each of the multiple directories: return the proxy lookup response, to the participant, in response to the proxy lookup request (Davey: Paragraph [0054] to [0055]. Response(s) are provided in response to the lookup request.).
Davey does not appear to disclose expressly, but Michelis teaches:
initiate a time interval (Michelis: Abstract and Paragraph [0013]. A timeout is utilized, which would be a time interval initiated upon sending a query to provide a maximum amount of time to wait for a response.);
in response to determining that the proxy lookup response has been received from each of the multiple directories or determining that the interval for response is expired: aggregate the proxy lookup responses into an aggregate proxy lookup response; and return the aggregate proxy lookup response (Michelis: Abstract and Paragraph [0013]. A query can be provided to different nodes, where responses received within a timeout can be aggregated to be provided as a response to the query. When combined with Davey, this would serve to aggregate the responses received from each of the multiple directories within the response period.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to aggregate responses that were received prior to a timeout, as in Michelis, with the system of Davey to allow for an efficient means to receive responses in a case that there are more than one identified directory in Davey, such as by ensuring that the directories have a finite amount of time to provide a response (timeout) and to return a single batch of results in an organized fashion as an aggregated response.
With regard to claim 2, Davey in view of Michelis teaches that the proxy includes one of a phone number and an email address (Michelis: A phone number and e-mail address are both listed as possible examples of an alias that is used for the token.).
With regard to claim 4, Davey in view of Michelis teaches that the computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to initiate the time interval for response when the proxy lookup request is submitted to each of the multiple directories (Michelis: Figure 4. The timeout function is only provided for after the sub-queries are sent to the nodes.).
With regard to claim 6, Davey in view of Michelis teaches wherein the computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to record a number of expected responses based on the multiple directories; and wherein, in order to determine that a proxy lookup response has been received from each of the multiple directories, the computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to determine the number of proxy lookup responses received is the same as the number of expected responses (Michelis: Abstract. The sub-queries that are sent are tracked, where each sub-query that is sent would have an expected response, with the timeout tracked for each node. If any noted nodes did not respond (thus the number of responses is not the same as the number of expected responses), the nodes that did not respond would be noted.).
With regard to claim 7, Davey in view of Michelis teaches the computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to aggregate account data included in each of the proxy lookup response into the aggregate proxy lookup response (Davey: Paragraph [0055]).
With regard to claim 8, Davey in view of Michelis teaches wherein the multiple directories include third party directories associated with a mobile payment provider; and wherein the computing device includes a proxy service core computing device (Davey: Figure 2, Paragraph [0042], and Claim 49. Multiple payment providers may be interfaced with by the federated directory computer system.).
With regard to claim 9, Davey in view of Michelis teaches wherein the multiple directories include one or more of: a proxy service client, a proxy service core, and/or a third party proxy directory (Davey: Figure 2. Lacking detail of what constitutes a “proxy,” Davey would at least teach a third party proxy directory, as the directories are being accessed via the token (proxy).).
With regard to claims 18-20, and 22-23 the instant claims are substantially within the scope of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8, and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Michelis, and further in view of US 2015/0271267 (Solis).
With regard to claim 5, Davey in view of Michelis fails to teach, but Solis teaches wherein the computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to: receive a late proxy lookup response, after expiration of the interval for response; aggregate the late proxy lookup response with the proxy lookup responses into a subsequent aggregate proxy lookup response; and return the subsequent aggregate proxy lookup response, to the participant (Solis: Figure 5C. A persistent query may be utilized to detect information after the initial query, and to provide such responses to a client. When combined with Davey in view of Michelis, such would provide the initial response after the timeout with only the received response included, then additional information detected (received) after the timeout would be included in a subsequent response to the query.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize persistent queries to provide responses received after the initial query (after timeout) to ensure that the client receives all desired responses, where the client would be able to specify if the query is a persistent query (Solis: Figure 5c, 568).
With regard to claims 14 and 21, the instant claim is within the scope of claim 5, and is thus rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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 at (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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights