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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 are pending and remain for further examination.
The old rejection maintained
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on March 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-20. The rejection is respectfully maintained as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on December 16, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Wolfe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0094621 A1) in view of Bergman et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,491,253 B2).
As to claim 1, Wolfe teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: by a node in a network (see figures 1-2, reference discloses a node in a network), (A) receiving a request for content stored in an origin server (figure 1, pars. 0040-0041, figure 8 step 804, receiving a request for content at a server); (B) attempting to determine information about the content, wherein the information comprises at least a size of the content, and wherein the size of the content is not determined as attempted (par. 0061 , figure 6A, par. 0066, figure 8, pars. 0078, determining the information related to the content size/packet size (the packet size is too large) and selecting a proper MTU to process the content); (C) assigning the request to a generic service to process the request, wherein the generic service comprises at least one generic parent server; and the generic service process the request and provides updated information about the content, including the size of the content (figures 8-9, pars. 0078-0080, selecting a default MTU (at least one available default MTU) to process the content and updating information related to the content size (packet size digest and selected MTU)).
However, Wolfe does not teach that providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content.
Bergman et al teach a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: by a node in a network (see figures 1 and 3, reference discloses a node in a network), receiving a request for content stored in an origin server (figure 2, column 3 line 62 to column 4 line 8, receiving a request for content at an origin server); and determining/providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content (figure 2, column 4 lines 9-41, figure 4, column 8 lines 3-21, processing the request and updating information related to the popularity of the content to the origin server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bergman et al as stated above with the method of Wolfe for determining/providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content because it would have improved utilization of the content delivery system and also improved processing speed and efficiency of the content delivery process based on the content requests.
As to claim 2, Wolfe teaches that an appropriate service and the generic service are selected from caching services (figure 1, par. 0039 & 0041, figure 2, par. 0047, reference discloses caching service).
As to claim 3, Wolfe teaches that the request is an HTTP request for a resource (figure 1, par. 0041, reference discloses an HTTP request).
As to claims 4-5, Wolfe teaches that the request comprises a URI or URL and the determining information about the request in step B comprises accessing a mapping from the URL to the information about the content associated with the request, wherein the URL corresponds to a particular resource and the information about the particular resource comprises a size of the particular resource (figure 1, pars. 0040-0041, figure 2, par. 0045, reference discloses that using URI or URL to access resource).
As to claims 6-7, Wolfe teaches that the providing updated information about the content in step C comprises updating the mapping, wherein the mapping is maintained in one or more databases (figures 6A-6D, pars. 0066-0070, reference discloses a database to store update information about the content).
As to claims 8, Wolfe teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: by a node in a network (see figures 1-2, reference discloses a node in a network), (A) receiving a request for content stored in an origin server (figure 1, pars. 0040-0041, figure 8 step 804, receiving a request for content at a server); (B) attempting to determine a category for the content, wherein the category for the content is not determined as attempted (pars. 0061-0064, figure 6A, par.0066, figure 9, par. 0079, reference teaches that determining the category for the content based on the content size (packet size is too large or proper transmission size)); (C) assigning the request to a generic service to process the request, wherein the generic service comprises at least one generic parent server; and the generic service process the request and provides the category for the content (pars 0071-0074, table 1, figures 8-10, pars. 0078-0080, selecting a default MTU (at least one available default MTU) to process the content and updating information related to the content size (packet size digest and selected MTU)).
However, Wolfe does not teach that providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content.
Bergman et al teach a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: by a node in a network (see figures 1 and 3, reference discloses a node in a network), receiving a request for content stored in an origin server (figure 2, column 3 line 62 to column 4 line 8, receiving a request for content at an origin server); and determining/providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content (figure 2, column 4 lines 9-41, figure 4, column 8 lines 3-21, processing the request and updating information related to the popularity of the content to the origin server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bergman et al as stated above with the method of Wolfe for determining/providing updated information about the content, including the popularity of the content because it would have improved utilization of the content delivery system and also improved processing speed and efficiency of the content delivery process based on the content requests.
As to claim 9, Wolfe teaches that the category for the content is based on a size of the content (par. 0072, table 1).
As to claim 10, Wolfe teaches that the request is an HTTP request and the content comprises one or more resources (figure 1, par. 0041, reference discloses an HTTP request).
As to claims 11-17, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-7 above, since claims 11-17 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1-7, and claims 11-17 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-7.
As to claim 18, Wolfe teaches that responding to the request for content with metadata (par. 0016, delivering the content object with the information about the packet size).
As to claim 19, Wolfe teaches that re-learning about resources as resources expire (pars. 0071-0074, table 1, updating date and time for delivering the packets).
As to claim 20, Wolfe teaches that updating a database based on current information about resources, the database is in communication with the generic service (pars. 0045, 0048, 0055, updating data storage for delivering packets).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on March 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-20.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
Argument: References are silent regarding "wherein the generic service comprises at least one generic parent server."
Response: Wolfe teaches that assigning the request to a generic service to process the request (selecting a default MTU), wherein the generic service comprises at least one generic parent server (at least one available default MTU); and the generic service process the request and provides updated information about the content, including the size of the content (figures 8-9, pars. 0078-0080, selecting a default MTU (at least one available default MTU) to process the content and updating information related to the content size (packet size digest and selected MTU)), which implies the claimed invention; therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
Argument: Wolfe et al determine that a packet size it too large means that the size of the content is at least determined above a threshold size and therefore contrasts with "the size of the content is not determined as attempted" as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 11. Therefore, Wolfe does not teach or suggest such limitation.
Response: Wolfe teaches that attempting to determine information about the content, wherein the information comprises at least a size of the content, and wherein the size of the content is not determined as attempted (par. 0061 , figure 6A, par. 0066, figure 8, pars. 0078, determining the information related to the content size/packet size (the packet size is too large or IP information is not available) and selecting a proper MTU to process the content), which implies the claimed invention; therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453 May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights