DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application 18/778520 filed on 7/19/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12069147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent discloses every limitation of current claims 21, 28 and 35. This is an anticipation type double patenting rejection because the issued claims anticipate the current independent claims and are in fact narrower in scope. Thus, the claims are rejected.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10848582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent discloses every limitation of current claims 21, 28 and 35. This is an anticipation type double patenting rejection because the issued claims anticipate the current independent claims and are in fact narrower in scope. Thus, the claims are rejected.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11895212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent discloses every limitation of current claims 21, 28 and 35. This is an anticipation type double patenting rejection because the issued claims anticipate the current independent claims and are in fact narrower in scope. Thus, the claims are rejected.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12506805. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent discloses every limitation of current claims 21, 28 and 35. This is an anticipation type double patenting rejection because the issued claims anticipate the current independent claims and are in fact narrower in scope. Thus, the claims are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 35 recite the limitation “…the function isolated…” in lines 13-14 and 10 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21, 23, 25-28, 30-31, 33-35, 38-39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (hereinafter Newton) US 2014/0173064 A1 (incorporates by reference Newton et al. (hereinafter Newton II) US 2013/0159472 A1) in view of Lewin et al. (hereinafter Lewin) US 2009/0150518 A1.
Regarding Claim 21, Newton II teaches a system, comprising:
a plurality of computing devices comprising one or more processors and memory and configured to implement a content delivery network (Newton II discloses a content delivery network (Newton II Fig. 8) that allows a customer to define scripts for customizing request processing (Newton II Figs. 13B-13D). ¶ [0197] (“Customer-specific code can be added at numerous hook points in the processing”)) comprising an origin server and an edge server (Newton II Fig. 8, Origin Tier & Edge Caches… “A CDN may also include a CDN origin/content cache tier which may be used to cache content from the CDN's subscribers (i.e., from the CDN subscribers' respective origin servers) …a CDN can support one or more content providers or subscribers,” ¶ [0090]),
wherein the edge server comprises a content cache configured to store content retrieved from the origin server (“The cache server may obtain the requested resource from another cache or from an origin server,” Newton II ¶ [0157]),
and wherein the edge server is configured to: receive a request for content from a client device (Newton II discloses customer-specific (i.e., provided by a customer) scripts that program handlers (i.e., functions) at various hook points (i.e., events). Newton II ¶¶ [0158], [0197]. These scripts are store in an edge server. Newton II ¶ [0143]. The execution of program handlers may include, for example, executing a specified sequence of handlers when an event is encountered (e.g., the port number of the address matches 80 for HTTP handling, or 443 for SSL handling). Newton II ¶¶ [0125]-[0128]), wherein receiving the request for the content represents encountering a content request event, and wherein the content request event is associated with a function that is specified by a customer of the content delivery network (Newton II discloses that the Customer Configuration Script (CCS) may program handlers (i.e., function) at various hook points (i.e., event). Newton II ¶¶ [0158], [0197] (“Customer-specific code can be added at numerous hook points in the processing”). For example, Newton discloses an HTTP listener (¶ [0126]) and an SSL Listener (Newton II ¶ [0128]) that execute a specified sequence of handlers when the port number of the address matches 80 for the HTTP Listener, or 443 for SSL Listener. Newton II ¶¶ [0125]-[0128] and [0253]);
perform the function responsive to encountering the content request event (Newton II discloses an HTTP listener (Newton II ¶ [0126]) and an SSL Listener (Newton II ¶ [0128]) that execute a specified sequence of handlers when the port number of the address matches 80 for the HTTP Listener, or 443 for SSL Listener. Newton II ¶¶ [0125]-[0128] and [0253]. Also, ¶0154 & Figs. 13B and 13C depicting execution of handlers (i.e., functions) on request and/or results to generate a further request and/or result),
generate the content based at least in part on performing the function (Newton II ¶0154 & Figs. 13B and 13C depicting execution of handlers (i.e., functions) on request and/or results to generate a further request and/or result);
and send the generated content to the client device (Newton II Fig. 11, Request/Response pair where “request/response mechanism 1104 may allow customer-specific handlers (or sequences) to be included at various locations (or hooks) during request/response processing. These customer-specific handlers may perform operations on the request and/or response paths. The customer-specific scripts that are to be used to process a customer's requests are referred to as Customer Configuration Scripts (CCSs), and are associated with the customers, e.g., via customer ids,” Newton II ¶ [0139]).
Newton does not expressly teach “and wherein the edge server is configured to perform the function isolated with respect to one or more other functions at the edge server by executing the function in a container at the edge server and executing the one or more other functions in one or more other containers at the edge server;”
Lewin teaches using containers by edge server to service a request that is substantially similar to the above limitations, see ¶0013-¶0014, Figs. 4, 9, 10 and respective paragraphs. Additionally, ¶0048, ¶0054 & Fig. 8 teaches dedicated containers to handle different requests.
This limitation is also well-known in the art because using containers is well-established as evident by applicant’s specification in [0038] which states that any suitable container technology could be used meaning that the technology of containers is well-established and widely used.
Lewin teaches and wherein the edge server is configured to perform the function isolated with respect to one or more other functions at the edge server by executing the function in a container at the edge server (¶0013-¶0014 & ¶0048, ¶0054 Figs. 4, 8-9, 10 and respective paragraphs; dedicated containers at edge server to improve performance) and executing the one or more other functions in one or more other containers at the edge server (¶0013-¶0014 & ¶0048, Figs. 4, 8-9, 10 and respective paragraphs; dedicated containers at edge server to improve performance where different requests are handled at different containers, see ¶0054);”
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 teachings of Lewin into the system of Newton in order to service a request in a specific container that has its own cacheability and refresh proprieties (¶0013). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to dynamically assemble content at the edge of the Internet e.g. (CDN) edge servers to improve site performance by caching objects closer to the end user at the edge server (abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, wherein, in performing the function (Newton II ¶0342; a particular handler may invoke a script to perform its function), the edge server is configured to: modify the request for the content (“scripts can be used for…Customer-specific event handling and HTTP rewriting,” Newton II ¶ [0212]-[0214]. Fig. 8 & ¶0157; “The cache server may obtain the requested resource from another cache or from an origin server,”).
Regarding claim 25, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, Newton further teaches wherein the request for the content is sent to a first uniform resource locator (URL), and wherein, in performing the function, the edge server is configured to: redirect the request for the content to a second URL (Newton ¶0612-¶0618; the subscriber domain name "images.subscriber.com" will be resolved using a CDN DNS service that is authoritative for the CNAME. The DNS service that is authoritative for "images.subscriber.com" may be outside of the CDN DNS service, in which case it will typically return a CNAME record indicating the supername. From the above example, that might, e.g., be "images.subscriber.com.cdn.fp.net". Subsequent resolution of that name would then be from the CDN DNS service, and would return a list of VIPs in the CDN. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize and understand, upon reading this description, that other methods may be employed to determine the supername associated with the subscriber domain name, and that the subscriber domain name may directly be a supername).
Regarding claim 26, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, Newton further teaches wherein, in performing the function (Newton ¶0342; a particular handler may invoke a script to perform its function), the edge server is configured to: modify a routing of the request for the content (obvious from Figs. 5A, 5B & 5C & ¶0826 because routing mechanism 210 may perform various functions such as, e.g., load balancing, or it may just pass data to/from the server(s) 208. Depending on its configuration, the routing mechanism 210 may pass incoming data to more than one server 208. FIG. 5D shows an exemplary cache cluster 204' comprising k servers (denoted 208-1, 208-2 . . . 208-k) and a switch 210'. The routing mechanism 210 may be a CDN service providing routing services).
Regarding claim 27, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, wherein, in performing the function (Newton II ¶0342; a particular handler may invoke a script to perform its function), the edge server is configured to: modify a protocol of the request for the content (Newton ¶0786; an incoming request may be modified so that subsequent processing of the request uses a modified form of the request. Similarly, the requested content may be modified during the response processing. Modified request and response processing may cause the client's request to be directed elsewhere for subsequent processing, e.g., to another instance of the delivery service, another delivery service, another CD service, another CDN, an origin server, or even some combination thereof. This can be implemented by having the client direct its (possibly modified) request elsewhere, or by directing the (possibly modified) request elsewhere on behalf of the client. As examples, a protocol specific to the service could be used (e.g., the redirect response code 302 for HTTP), or references in an HTML resource could be modified, or a client connection could he handed off to other service instance, or the (possibly modified) request could be proxied to another service instance over a different connection).
Claims 28, 30-31 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 33, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the method as recited in claim 28, Newton II further teaches wherein, based at least in part on performing the function, the content is generated at the edge server without retrieving the content from a content cache of the edge server and without retrieving the content from an origin server of the content delivery network (obvious from ¶0185-¶0263 because response to content is dynamic where server checks for content at the edge server. ¶0079-¶0080 provides examples of edge caches).
Regarding claim 34, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the method as recited in claim 28, Lewin further teaches wherein the function is performed using process isolation with respect to one or more other functions performed at the edge server (Lewin teaches using containers by edge server to service a request that is substantially similar to the above limitations, see ¶0013-¶0014, Figs. 4, 9, 10 and respective paragraphs. Additionally, ¶0048, ¶0054 & Fig. 8 teaches dedicated containers to handle different requests).
Regarding claim 39, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media as recited in claim 35, Newton II teaches wherein the function is selected by the customer from a set of predefined functions (similar to claim 1. Also see Fig. 15B, ¶0157-¶0160, ¶0211-¶0248 & Fig. 21 A; user’s CCS is validate then run to handle a request which is similar to selection of a function where customer configuration scripts CCSs are uploaded).
Regarding claim 40, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as recited in claim 35, Newton further teaches wherein the request for the content is sent to an address, and wherein performing the function comprises: redirecting the request for the content to a different address (Newton ¶0612-¶0618; the subscriber domain name "images.subscriber.com" will be resolved using a CDN DNS service that is authoritative for the CNAME. The DNS service that is authoritative for "images.subscriber.com" may be outside of the CDN DNS service, in which case it will typically return a CNAME record indicating the supername. From the above example, that might, e.g., be "images.subscriber.com.cdn.fp.net". Subsequent resolution of that name would then be from the CDN DNS service, and would return a list of VIPs in the CDN. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize and understand, upon reading this description, that other methods may be employed to determine the supername associated with the subscriber domain name, and that the subscriber domain name may directly be a supername).
Claims 35, 38 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 22, 24, 29, 32 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton in view of Lewin and further in view of Prince et al. (hereinafter Prince) US 2011/0282997 A1.
Regarding Claim 22, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, Newton teaches wherein, in performing the function (Newton II ¶0342; a particular handler may invoke a script to perform its function), the edge server is configured to: modify a header of an HTTP request for the content, wherein the header is sent from the edge server to the origin server (Newton II teaches commutating the request using HTTP header, see ¶0323 & ¶0332. Also “scripts can be used for…Customer-specific event handling and HTTP rewriting,” ¶ [0212]-[0214]. Fig. 8 & ¶0157; “The cache server may obtain the requested resource from another cache or from an origin server,”).
However, Newton in view of Lewin does not expressly teach “modify a header of an HTTP.”
Prince teaches “modify a header of an HTTP” (the request 156 (e.g., an HTTP GET request, an HTTP POST request, other HTTP request method, or other request for an action to be performed on an identified resource belonging to an origin server) is transmitted by the proxy server 120 to the origin server 130A on behalf of the client device 110A… the proxy server 120 modifies the content of the request to make the request less likely to harm to the origin server 120. For example, the proxy server 120 may escape dangerous characters. As an example, SQL injection attacks often include a quotation mark in an attempt to break out of the SQL on the proxy server 120. To prevent this type of attack, the proxy server 120 can add an escape character (e.g., a "\") before the quotation in the request. See ¶0087-¶0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Prince teachings of modifying HTTP header into the system of Newton in view of Lewin in order to allow developers, network administrators, and security teams to control how web browsers and servers interact. Changing these headers optimizes performance, protects user data, and aids in debugging applications (common knowledge).
Regarding Claim 24, Newton in view of Lewin teaches the system as recited in claim 21, wherein, in performing the function (Newton II ¶0342; a particular handler may invoke a script to perform its function). However, Newton in view of Lewin does not expressly teach the edge server is configured to: modify a header of a content response to the request for the content.
Prince teaches the edge server is configured to: modify a header of a content response to the request for the content (¶0090-¶0096; the response 158 may include elements that are to be excluded and/or obfuscated from the response 162 based on one or more characteristics of the visitor. For example, in some embodiments, the domain owners 135A-L may each define modification rules that defines how to modify elements of the content prior to transmitting the response 162, which are triggered by characteristics of the visitor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Prince teachings of modifying a response into the system of Newton in view of Lewin in order to allow you to directly control how browsers, caches, and security systems handle your web traffic. Key benefits include enhanced security (preventing attacks like clickjacking), improved performance (optimizing browser caching), and better user experience. (common knowledge).
Claims 29, 32 and 36-37 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights