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 . This Office Action is in reply to communication filed on 07/25/2024. Claimed priority is granted from foreign application IN202441025246, filed on 03/28/2024.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 14-17, 20, 23-25 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, US 9003035 B1, in view of DEHAINE et al., US 20200244529 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Richardson teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Richardson discloses a system for enabling network edge devices to perform domain name categorization and filtering, the system comprising at least one processor and storage on which is stored computer-executable instructions which (A system and method for the management of client computing device DNS queries and subsequent resource requests within a content delivery network service provider domain are provided. The management of the DNS queries can include the selection of computing devices corresponding to various Point of Presence locations for processing DNS queries. Additionally, the management of the content requests can include the selection of computing devices corresponding to resource cache components corresponding to various Point of Presence locations for providing requested content. The selection of the computing devices can incorporate logic related to geographic criteria, testing criteria, and the like.Richardson, Abstract, emphasis added; With reference to the previous illustrative original URL format, the receiving DNS server can parse the "additional information" included in the URL corresponding to the DNS query and apply various request routing criteria to identify one or more DNS server best suited to attempt to resolve the DNS query. For example, the additional information included in the URL can identify service plan information, geographic identifiers, account identifiers or other information utilized by the receiving DNS server to select an appropriate alternative DNS server.Richardson, 7:49-60, emphasis added), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive domain name system (DNS) requests from two or more network edge devices, including a first network edge device associated with a first geographic characteristic and a second network edge device associated with a second geographic characteristic (With continued reference to FIG. 4, in either of the above identified embodiments (or any other embodiment), a specific DNS server in the DNS component 118 of a POP 116 receives the DNS query transmitted by the client computing device 102 and corresponding to the original URL of the embedded resource identifier. Once one of the DNS servers in the DNS component 118 receives the request, the specific DNS server attempts to resolve the request; Richardson, 6:65 – 7:14, emphasis added. In another embodiment, the receiving DNS server component can utilize additional or alternative logic in selecting resource cache components associated with various POPs provided by the CDN service provider 106. In this embodiment, the example routines for the selection of alternative DNS servers illustrated in FIGS. 8-10 could be applied in the selection of a resource cache component. Richardson, 7:14-27, emphasis added. For example, the additional information included in the URL can identify service plan information, geographic identifiers, account identifiers or other information utilized by the receiving DNS server to select an appropriate alternative DNS server; Richardson, 7:49-60, emphasis added. Note that Richardson discloses plural “clients 102” which correspond to the “two or more” edge devices recited by the claim. See Richardson, FIG. 1, 102);
generate a first domain name cache for DNS requests associated with the first geographic characteristic, the first domain name cache including a first plurality of records, each record of the first plurality of records associating a domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category (At decision block 1008, a test is conducted to determine whether the maximum distance associated with the currently selected POP is above the maximum geographic threshold allowed for a POP. If not, the POP is added to a set of POPs available for selection at block 1010, Richardson, 13:44-61. Each POP 116, 122, 128 also includes a resource cache component 120, 126, 132 made up of a number of cache server computing devices for storing resources from content providers and transmitting various requested resources to various client computers. The DNS components 118, 124 and 130 and the resource cache components 120, 126, 132 may further include additional software and/or hardware components that facilitate communications including, but not limited to, load balancing or load sharing software/hardware components, Richardson, 4:8-20, emphasis added In an illustrative embodiment, the set of target POPs can correspond to all the POPs within a CDN service provider 106 domain or a subset of POPs identified by other criteria, such as service level plans, geographic limitations, and the like.Richardson, 11:40-51, emphasis added. During an illustrative translation process, the content provider URL is modified such that requests for the resources associated with the translated URLs resolve to a POP associated with the CDN service provider 106. In one embodiment, the translated URL identifies the domain of the CDN service provider 106 (e.g., "cdnprovider.com"), the same name of the resource to be requested (e.g., "resource.xxx") and the same path where the resource will be found (e.g., "path"). Additionally, the translated URL can include additional processing information (e.g., "additional information");
generate a second domain name cache for DNS requests associated with second geographic characteristic, the second domain name cache including a second plurality of records, each of the second plurality of records associating a respective domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category (See above. Richardson discloses plural DNS servers, plural geographic characteristics, etc., each having similar functions and respective geographic properties, corresponding to the "second" features recited here. See Richardson, FIG. 1, 118, 124, 130, etc.);
receive a request from a third network edge device, the request including an indication of a third geographic characteristic associated with the third network edge device (With reference to the previous illustrative original URL format, the receiving DNS server can parse the "additional information" included in the URL corresponding to the DNS query and apply various request routing criteria to identify one or more DNS server best suited to attempt to resolve the DNS query. For example, the additional information included in the URL can identify service plan information, geographic identifiers, account identifiers or other information utilized by the receiving DNS server to select an appropriate alternative DNS server, Richardson, 7:49-60, emphasis added);
select one of the first domain name cache or the second domain name cache based on a comparison of the third geographic characteristic with the first geographic characteristic and the second geographic characteristic (With reference now to FIG. 7, in an illustrative example, assuming in the various embodiments described with regard to FIGS. 4, 5 and 6 that a receiving DNS server component has resolved a DNS query and identified the IP address of a resource cache component for providing the requested resource, upon receipt of the IP address for the resource cache component 132, the client computing device 102 transmits requests for the requested content to the resource cache component 132. The resource cache component 132 processes the request in a manner described above and the requested content is transmitted to the client computing device 102. Richardson, 9:52-62, emphasis added. In still another embodiment, additional criteria, such as geographic criteria, cost criteria, etc. may be utilized to select a POP from the set of available POPs, Richardson, 12:32-40, emphasis added; and transmit the selected domain name cache to the third network edge device.);
and transmit the selected domain name cache to the third network edge device (With reference now to FIG. 7, in an illustrative example, assuming in the various embodiments described with regard to FIGS. 4, 5 and 6 that a receiving DNS server component has resolved a DNS query and identified the IP address of a resource cache component for providing the requested resource, upon receipt of the IP address for the resource cache component 132, the client computing device 102 transmits requests for the requested content to the resource cache component 132. The resource cache component 132 processes the request in a manner described above and the requested content is transmitted to the client computing device 102, Richardson, 9:52-62, emphasis added).
Richardson does not appear to fully disclose associating domain names with filtering or categorization metadata, or distributing categorized DNS policy information to edge devices for domain filtering purposes. Richardson primarily teaches geographically optimized DNS routing, POP selection, DNS query forwarding, a DNS resolution mapping using POP-specific DNS data stores and geographic selection criteria. While Richardson teaches domain-name-to-DNS-resolution relationships, it does not expressly teach domain categorization or filtering policies associated with those domain records. DeHaine (US 2020/0244529) addresses these missing limitations, For example, par. 0098 teaches generating “network filtering policy” including “a list of domain names and IP networks that can be filtered by a network firewall,” and further teaches translating those policies into DNS records such as “DNS RPZ records”. Par. 0099 additionally teaches distributing those DNS filtering records to edge devices/firewalls using DNS zone transfers.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Richardson with DeHaine because both references are directed to distributed DNS infrastructure and DNS-based network-edge processing. Richardson already teaches geographically differentiated DNS data stores, DNS request handling, and geographic selection of DNS resources, while DeHaine teaches embedded filtering policy and categorized domain information into DNS records and propagating those records to distributed edge devices using DNS zone transfers. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporated DeHaine’s categorized DNS filtering records into Richardson’s geographically optimized DNS architecture to improve distributed DNS filtering efficiency, reduced latency, enable regionalized filtering policy enforcement, and leverage existing DNS propagation infrastructure for scalable edge-device filtering. The combination merely applies known DNS filtering techniques within Richardson’s known geographically distributed DNS system using predictable methods and expected results. By this rationale, claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 14-17, 20, 23-25 and 27, the combination Richardson-DeHaine teaches:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein a said received DNS request includes an indication of a domain name (DeHaine, 0099).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein a said received DNS request includes an indication of a domain name and a respective category for the domain name (DeHaine, par. 0099).
4.The system of claim 1, wherein a said geographic characteristic includes an indication of any one or more of: an economic zone; a country; a state; a city; a town; or a custom region (DeHaine, par. 0011, 0028, and 0081).
7. The system of claim 1, wherein if the second domain name cache comprises fewer than a predetermined number of domain names, then generating the second domain name cache further comprises selecting one or more domain names from the first plurality of domain names for inclusion in the second domain name cache. The Examiner takes Official Notice that including one or more domain names from a first domain name to a second domain name cache based on the condition recited herein is well-known in the art and would have been an obvious combination to the prior art of Richardson-DeHaine.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that the first geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic based on the comparison, then the first domain name cache is selected for transmitting to the third network edge device (Richardson, FIG. 7; DeHaine, fig. 1).
11. The system of claim 1, wherein it is determined that the second geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic based on the comparison, then the second domain name cache is selected for transmitting to the third network edge device (Richardson, FIG. 7; DeHaine, fig. 1).
12. The system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that neither the first geographic characteristic nor the second geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic, then selecting either of the first domain name cache or the second domain name cache is dependent on a similarity of the third geographic characteristic with the first geographic characteristic or second geographic characteristic The Examiner takes Official Notice that including one or more domain names from a first domain name to a second domain name cache based on the condition recited herein is well-known in the art and would have been an obvious combination to the prior art of Richardson-DeHaine.
14. A method for enabling network edge devices to perform domain name categorization and filtering, the method comprising: receiving domain name system (DNS) requests from two or more network edge devices, including a first network edge device associated with a first geographic characteristic and a second network edge device associated with a second geographic characteristic; generating a first domain name cache for DNS requests associated with the first geographic characteristic, the first domain name cache including a first plurality of records, each record of the first plurality of records associating a domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category; generating a second domain name cache for DNS requests associated with the second geographic characteristic, the second domain name cache including a second plurality of records, each of the second plurality of records associating a respective domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category; receiving a request from a third network edge device, the request including an indication of a third geographic characteristic associated with the third network edge device; selecting one of the first domain name cache or the second domain name cache based on a comparison of the third geographic characteristic with the first geographic characteristic and the second geographic characteristic; and transmitting the selected domain name cache to the third network edge device (Richardson, Figs. 1, 7-10; 4:8-20, 6:65-7:14, 7:49-60, 13:44-61, 11:40-50, 9:52-62, 12:32-40; and DeHaine, par. 0098-0099). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 14 is rejected.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein a said received DNS request includes an indication of a domain name (DeHaine, 0099).
16. The method of claim 14, wherein a said received DNS request includes an indication of a domain name and a respective category for the domain name (DeHaine, 0099).
17. The method of claim 14, wherein a said geographic characteristic includes an indication of any one or more of: an economic zone; a country; a state; a city; a town; or a custom region (DeHaine, par. 0011, 0028, and 0081).
20. The method of claim 14, wherein if the second domain name cache comprises fewer than a predetermined number of domain names, then generating the second domain name cache further comprises selecting one or more domain names from the first plurality of domain names for inclusion in the second domain name cache The Examiner takes Official Notice that including one or more domain names from a first domain name to a second domain name cache based on the condition recited herein is well-known in the art and would have been an obvious combination to the prior art of Richardson-DeHaine.
23. The method of claim 14, wherein if it is determined that the first geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic based on the comparison, then the first domain name cache is selected for transmitting to the third network edge device (Richardson, FIG. 7; DeHaine, fig. 1).
24. The method of claim 14, wherein it is determined that the second geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic based on the comparison, then the second domain name cache is selected for transmitting to the third network edge device (Richardson, FIG. 7; DeHaine, fig. 1).
25. The method of claim 14, wherein if it is determined that neither the first geographic characteristic nor the second geographic characteristic matches the third geographic characteristic, then selecting either of the first domain name cache or the second domain name cache is dependent on a similarity of third geographic characteristic with the first geographic characteristic or second geographic characteristic The Examiner takes Official Notice that including one or more domain names from a first domain name to a second domain name cache based on the condition recited herein is well-known in the art and would have been an obvious combination to the prior art of Richardson-DeHaine.
27. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive domain name system (DNS) requests from two or more network edge devices, including a first network edge device associated with a first geographic characteristic and a second network edge device associated with a second geographic characteristic; generate a first domain name cache for DNS requests associated with the first geographic characteristic, the first domain name cache including a first plurality of records, each record of the first plurality of records associating a domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category; generate a second domain name cache for DNS requests associated with second geographic characteristic, the second domain name cache including a second plurality of records, each of the second plurality of records associating a respective domain name with a respective DNS resolution and a respective category; receive a request from a third network edge device, the request including an indication of a third geographic characteristic associated with the third network edge device; select one of the first domain name cache or the second domain name cache based on a comparison of the third geographic characteristic with the first geographic characteristic and the second geographic characteristic; and transmit the selected domain name cache to the third network edge device (Richardson, Figs. 1, 7-10; 4:8-20, 6:65-7:14, 7:49-60, 13:44-61, 11:40-50, 9:52-62, 12:32-40; and DeHaine, par. 0098-0099). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 14 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights