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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated 03/27/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1-2 and 4-18
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-18
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: an extra “and” between limitation 3rd and 4th.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “… Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include determining that a URL associated with the request contain a known domain by comparing a domain of the URL to a list of known domain and generating one or more customized links based on a destination object…”
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the above argument. The determining and comparing process is still remain a mental process. In addition, the process of generating a customized links is also a mental process.
Applicant argues “applicant respectfully submits the cited references fails to provide for all of such features Richardson is directed to request routing using a popularity identifier at a DNS nameserver…”
Please see the new references and new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite “determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the request contain known domain of the URL to a list of known domain and generating, by the one or more processor, based on the destination object, one or more customized links” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims performed by processor and executing instructions stored in the memory or non-transitory computer readable are the computer components. These are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
“Receiving, by one or more processors, a request for URL customization” is the process obtaining information for the purpose of data retrieval.
“Translating, by the one or more processors, based on determining that the URL associated with the request contains the known domain, the URL associated with the request into a destination object” is the process of as disclosed by specification to forming new URL to reach platform.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, 8 and 14,
The limitation “receiving, by the one or more processors, a second request for URL customization” is the process of receiving for retrieve information.
The limitation “determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the second request contains a query parameters including an alternative URL” is an abstract idea and the additional information such as processor(s) is the additional information which perform the mental step.
The limitation “generating, by the one or more processors, based on the second destination object, one or more customized links for the second request” is abstract idea.
As to claims 3, 9 and 17, the limitation “the destination object includes a first object and second object” is only further destination object is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
Claims 4, 10 and 16, the limitation “the first object is associated with a primary location and the second object is associated with a secondary location, subsequent to the first location” is only further defined what the first object and second object are and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 5, 11 and 17, the limitation “translating the URL into the destination object comprises determining a brand namespace to which the known domain maps, the brand namespace comprising steps for forming the one or more customized links” is the mental process for forming new link to access information.
As to claims 6 and 18, the limitation “translating, by the one or more processor, based on the brand namespace, the destination object for a target platform” is the additional element which is generalization concept” is the process for forming new access path to reach target platform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0276716 A1) in view of Shimooka (Pub. No. US 2010/0121735 A1).
As to claim 1, (Currently amended) Coulson discloses a method for uniform resource locator (URL) customization, the method comprising:
Receiving, by one or more processor, a request for URL destination (user’s input URL request) (paragraph 0046);
Determining, by the one or more processor, that a URL associated with the request contain known domain by comparing a domain URL to a list of known domain (compares the user’s input URL request with the list of known illegitimate domains found…) (paragraph 0046);
Coulson does not explicitly disclose translating, by the one or more processor, based on determining that the URL associated with the request contains the known domain, the URL associated with the request into a destination object; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the destination object, one or more customized links. Shimooka discloses translating, by the one or more processor, based on determining that the URL associated with the request contains the known domain, the URL associated with the request into a destination object; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the destination object, one or more customized links (by navigation link creating means for creating the link for navigation while including the URL of the vendor page in the argument URL, the address translation means for acquiring the argument URL within the, link for navigation and also acquires the URL of the vendor page included in the argument URL, and performing the address translation processing based on the URL comprising a product information database in which product information including descriptions of product for sale and the URL of the seller page is stored, the address translation means for acquiring, when the URL of the seller page does not exist within the link for navigation, the URL of the seller page, which is stored in association with the product ID or a seller ID for identifying a seller, from the product information database, and performing the address translation processing based on the URL the server…) (paragraph 0012). This suggests translating, by the one or more processor, based on determining that the URL associated with the request contains the known domain, the URL associated with the request into a destination object; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the destination object, one or more customized links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the instant application to modify Coulson to include translating, by the one or more processor, based on determining that the URL associated with the request contains the known domain, the URL associated with the request into a destination object; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the destination object, one or more customized links as disclosed by Shimooka in order to provide service through link.
Claim 7 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, discloses the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations.
.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, discloses one or more non transitory storage media including, instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations.
5. Claim(s) 2, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0276716 A1) in view of Shimooka (Pub. No. US 2010/0121735 A1) and further in view of Felciano et al. (Patent No. 6,052,730).
As to claim 2, (Currently amended) Coulson discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for receiving, by the one or more processors, a second request for URL customization; determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the second request contains a query parameters including an alternative URL; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the second destination object, one or more customized links for the second request. However, Felciano discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a second request for URL customization; determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the second request contains a query parameters including an alternative URL; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the second destination object, one or more customized links for the second request ((a) receiving an HTTP request from the client; (b) parsing the request to identify a URL parameter pointing to a second HTTP server machine; (c) modifying the HTML document such that original URLs within the document are changed to new URLs, wherein the new URLs point to the first HTTP server and include the original URLs as parameters…) (col. 2, lines 10-18). This suggests the claimed limitation receiving, by the one or more processors, a second request for URL customization; determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the second request contains a query parameters including an alternative URL; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the second destination object, one or more customized links for the second request. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Coulson to include receiving, by the one or more processors, a second request for URL customization; determining, by the one or more processors, that a URL associated with the second request contains a query parameters including an alternative URL; and generating, by the one or more processors, based on the second destination object, one or more customized links for the second request as disclosed by Felciano in order to retrieve data using different URL.
Claim 8 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
6. Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0276716 A1) in view of Shimooka (Pub. No. US 2010/0121735 A1) and further in view McGowan et al. (Pub. No. 2012/0030313 A1).
As to claim 3, (previously amended) Coulson discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for wherein the destination object includes a first object and second object. However, McGowan discloses the destination object includes a first object and second object (each of the plurality of objects may comprises a link to one or more plurality of media assets. The plurality of media assets may be stored at a second location separate from first location. The system may include a second server that stores a second plurality of data objects and is configured to request a data object from the first server if the data project is not present in the second plurality of data objects) (Paragraph 0006). This suggests the claim language wherein the destination object includes a first object and second object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of the destination object includes a first object and second object as disclosed by McGowan to provide to maintain data in different locations.
Clam 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Clam 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
As to claim 4, (currently amended) Coulson disclose the method of claim 3 excepting for wherein the first object is associated with a primary location and the second object is associated with a secondary location, subsequent to the first location. However, McGowan discloses the first object is associated with a primary location and the second object is associated with a secondary location, subsequent to the first location (each of the plurality of objects may comprises a link to one or more plurality of media assets. The plurality of media assets may be stored at a second location separate from first location. The system may include a second server that stores a second plurality of data objects and is configured to request a data object from the first server if the data project is not present in the second plurality of data objects) (Paragraph 0006). This suggests the claim language (each of the plurality of objects may comprises a link to one or more plurality of media assets. The plurality of media assets may be stored at a second location separate from first location. The system may include a second server that stores a second plurality of data objects and is configured to request a data object from the first server if the data project is not present in the second plurality of data objects) (Paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Coulson to include the first object is associated with a primary location and the second object is associated with a secondary location, subsequent to the first location as disclosed by McGowan to provide to maintain data in different locations.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
7. Claim(s) 5-6, 11-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0276716 A1) in view of Shimooka (Pub. No. US 2010/0121735 A1) in view Johnson et al. (Pub. No. US. 2015/0113172 A1).
As to claim 5, (currently amended) Coulson discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for wherein translating the URL into the destination object comprises determining a brand namespace to which the known domain maps, the brand namespace comprising steps for forming the one or more customized links. However, Johnson discloses translating the URL into the destination object comprises determining a brand namespace to which the known domain maps, the brand namespace comprising steps for forming the one or more customized links (environment 2-100 and protocol 2-1200 reveal that direct map proxy system and protocol address the problem of flexibility and efficiently mapping to a large number of devices connected to the Internet using domain names. Specifically, in the embodiment and example shown in FIG. 38, direct map proxy (e.g., DMP server 2-111) can use domain names to map (e.g., translate change modify, etc.) communications (e.g., request, connection links, protocols properties, etc.) to a plurality of target servers and devices. For example, the domain name “xxxx.example.com” can be proxy domain name, where the placeholder “xxxx” can represent a proxy name and be mapped to one or more target server and/or devices (e.g., “s1.example.com”) …) (paragraph 0454). This suggests translating the URL into the destination object comprises determining a brand namespace to which the known domain maps, the brand namespace comprising steps for forming the one or more customized links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Coulson to include translating the URL into the destination object comprises determining a brand namespace to which the known domain maps, the brand namespace comprising steps for forming the one or more customized links as disclosed by Johnson in order to retrieve information.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
As to claim 6. (Currently amended) Coulson discloses the method claim 5 excepting for translating, by the one or more processor, based on the brand namespace, the destination object for a target platform. However, Johnson discloses translating, by the one or more processor, based on the brand namespace, the destination object for a target platform (environment 2-100 and protocol 2-1200 reveal that direct map proxy system and protocol address the problem of flexibility and efficiently mapping to a large number of devices connected to the Internet using domain names. Specifically, in the embodiment and example shown in FIG. 38, direct map proxy (e.g., DMP server 2-111) can use domain names to map (e.g., translate change modify, etc.) communications (e.g., request, connection links, protocols properties, etc.) to a plurality of target servers and devices. For example, the domain name “xxxx.example.com” can be proxy domain name, where the placeholder “xxxx” can represent a proxy name and be mapped to one or more target server and/or devices (e.g., “s1.example.com”) …) (paragraph 0454). This suggests translating, by the one or more processor, based on the brand namespace, the destination object for a target platform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Coulson to include translating, by the one or more processor, based on the brand namespace, the destination object for a target platform as disclosed by Johnson in order to retrieve information.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Conclusion
8. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights