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 . 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 07-30-2024 has been considered. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
835 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 1 for example, recites a server and, therefore, is a machine. The claim recites the limitation of “…receive… a message… generate a domain link based on the message; determine a standard domain; generate a universal link based on the standard domain and the domain link; and transmit the universal link…”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a human simply writing/generating a first address/link (domain link) using a pen and paper based on the received message, writing/generating another address/link (universal link) on paper using an obtained standard domain and the first address. Thus, the claim recites a mental process when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation (“server, transceiver, processor”) appears to be generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere “…receive… a message… generate a domain link based on the message; determine a standard domain; generate a universal link based on the standard domain and the domain link; and transmit the universal link…” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 8 and 15 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 narrow the generation of domain link to include, determining a domain name and a domain parameter based on the message, transmitting the domain parameter to an encryption module of the server, receiving an encrypted domain parameter; and determine the domain link based on the domain name and the encrypted domain parameter. However, determining the domain link based on the domain name and the encrypted domain parameter is a step that can be perform in human mind or a human using pen and paper. Transmitting the domain parameter and receiving encrypted domain parameter are considered extra solution activity/pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite that to generate the universal link based on the standard domain, the processor is configured to: add a type parameter to the standard domain, wherein the type parameter corresponds to redirecting a uniform resource locator (URL); add a URL parameter to the standard domain, wherein the URL parameter includes the domain name; and add an identification parameter to the standard domain, wherein the identification parameter includes the encrypted domain parameter. However, the steps of adding a type parameter, URL parameter and identification parameter to standard domain can be perform in human mind or a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite that determining the standard domain includes, determining a registered location of a user of the first user device and determining the standard domain based on the registered location. However, these additional elements could be performed in human mind. A human could determine a registered location of a person and determine standard domain simply by looking at information on a piece of paper regarding registered location of a person and standard domine. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 add the limitation of: receive a request for an authentication file of the standard domain from the first user device; and transmit the authentication file to the first user device, wherein the authentication file includes a list of application identifications. However, receiving a request for authentication file and transmitting authentication file are considered extra solution activity/pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 add the step of receiving a request for a decryption key from the first user device; determine an application identification of an application of the first user device based on the request for the decryption key; and determine that the authentication file includes the application identification. However, these steps could be performed in human mind. A human could receive a request for data/key and assign an application identification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not improve the functioning of the computer, nor add an inventive concept.
Claims 7 and 14 recite transmitting the decryption key to the first user device, which is considered as extra solution activity/pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0019691), hereinafter Bouvet in view of Buchheit et al. (US Patent No.7,499,996).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Bouvet discloses, a server comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate with a first user device and a second user device (paragraph [0090], “reception means 144, designed to receive a first request for access to the service, originating from the user terminal via the xDSL gateway”); and a processor, communicatively coupled to the transceiver (paragraph [0087], “a microprocessor 141”), and configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a message to the second user device from the first user device; (paragraph [0057], in step E6 the terminal T4 send a request to xDSL (second user device) for service, in step E7 the message is received by platform 14 in reception step E8);[generate] a domain link based on the message; determine a standard domain; generate a universal link based on the standard domain and the domain link (paragraph [0060], “in step E12 of constructing the universal address …the service platform 14 constructs a universal address…the universal address is of the form: ‘http://QoSvl_ BR-2000_CoS-VlT- 180 .www. PFS.com /ValidateQoS?lD’. Thus, the quality-of-service parameters determined by the service platform 14 are specified in the part of the universal address which defines the name of the host, or domain name [standard domain] composed of labels separated by a full stop…the last part of universal address, here ‘ValidateQos?AD’ indicate an address on the server [domain link]”); and transmit the universal link to the second user device (paragraph [0060], the universal address is routed in step E13 to the xDLS gateway).
While Bouvet discloses a domain link, Bouvet does not explicitly disclose generate a domain link. However, in an analogous art, Buchheit discloses in response to a request generating a domain link (column 3, lines 31-42, generate network address or link url).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bouvet with Buchheit. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a link to access requested resources of resource providers.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet in view of Buchheit, further in view of Fliam et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0074092), hereinafter Fliam.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Bouvet as modified does not explicitly disclose but in an analogous art, Fliam discloses, wherein to generate the domain link based on the message, the processor is configured to: determine a domain name and a domain parameter based on the message (paragraph [0049], “identify associated domain names of the content”, paragraph [0050], “a new domain name may be generated for one or more identified domain name…a new domain name may comprise information associated with the user device, which may be in the form of metadata, may comprise additional metadata, such as a license key”); transmit the domain parameter to an encryption module of the server; receive an encrypted domain parameter (paragraph [0051], “encrypt domain names”, it is noted that encrypted domain names include metadata[domain name parameter]”); and determine the domain link based on the domain name and the encrypted domain parameter (paragraph [0053], “The encrypted domain names may allow the user device to access addresses of the requested content form a proxy DNS that is able to decrypt the encrypted domain names”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Bouvet with Fliam. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine domain name including additional data to gather analytics about the requesting user and preventing access to the original domain names of content requested from the user device by encrypting the domain name including additional data.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Bouvet as modified furthermore discloses wherein to generate the universal link based on the standard domain, the processor is configured to: add a type parameter to the standard domain, wherein the type parameter corresponds to redirecting a uniform resource locator (URL)(Fliam, paragraph[0051], “The encrypted domain name may be constructed in such a way that an attempt by a user device to resolve the encrypted domain name using a DNS query may cause a DNS server servicing the query to redirect the user device to a proxy DNS”); add a URL parameter to the standard domain, wherein the URL parameter includes the domain name (Bouvet, paragraph [0049], “The content is customarily designated by a …‘URL’… For example, the address is of the form http://<host>/contentl, indicating that the content is accessible using the “http” protocol… and where <host>designates a server name, in the form of an IP address or of a domain name…”), and content1,an address of the content on the server”) ; and add an identification parameter to the standard domain, wherein the identification parameter includes the encrypted domain parameter (Fliam, paragraph [0015], “A generated unique domain name may comprise metadata associating the generated unique domain name to a specific user device… Generated unique domain names may be encrypted”) .
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet in view of Buchheit, further in view of Jones et al. (US Patent/ Publication No.2018/0349375), hereinafter Jones.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Bouvet as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Jones discloses, wherein to determine the standard domain, the processor is configured to: determine a registered location of a user of the first user device; and determine the standard domain based on the registered location (abstract, “receives requests for geographically restricted domains and generates unique registrant identifiers responsive to the request based on the physical geographic location of the registrant and a related proximity condition. Each of the unique registrant identifiers identifying a registrant content server, and each of the registrant content servers storing content associated with the corresponding unique registrant identifier”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Bouvet with Jones. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide access to content to user based on user’s location.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet in view of Buchheit, further in view of Shah et al. (US Patent No. 10,599,860), hereinafter Shah.
As pe claims 5, 12 and 19, Bouvet as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Shah discloses, receive a request for an authentication file of the standard domain from the first user device; (column 8, lines 26-35, a login request from a user seeking access is received), and transmit the authentication file to the first user device, wherein the authentication file includes a list of application identifications (column 8, lines 58-62, a list of application is rendered to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Bouvet with Shah. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of providing user with applications that user has permission and is allowed to access.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvet in view of Buchheit and Shah, further in view of Ackerly (US Publication No. 2021/0273930), hereinafter Ackerly..
As per claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20, Bouvet as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Ackerly discloses, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a request for a decryption key from the first user device; determine an application identification of an application of the first user device based on the request for the decryption key; determine that the authentication file includes the application identification (paragraph [0057], requesting, by the second client device, from the access control management system, the information associated with the encrypted data object (310), paragraph [0060], “the information 208 includes an identifier of the data object 206, cryptographic data associated with the encrypted data object 206 (e.g., a key for decrypting the encrypted data object 206), and an identification of each individual authorized to receive the cryptographic data”), and transmit the decryption key to the first user device (paragraph [0088], “decrypting, the encrypted data with the decrypted key”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Bouvet with Shah. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow the sender of the encrypted data to control decryption keys for decrypting data.
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cattone et al. (US Patent No.10,430,487) discloses, a system to share content utilizing universal link format. The system may include an access request detector, a universal link interpreter, and a communication module. The access request detector may detect a request to access target content provided by a resource host computer. The universal link interpreter may determine that the request is associated with a uniform resource locator (URL) that comprises one or more directives for directing the requested content to an execution environment suitable for a platform of the client computer, may detem1ine a platform of the client computer, and determine execution environment for the requested
target content. The universal link interpreter may then interpret the one or more directives in the URL, based on the determined execution environment.
Yan (US Publication No.2016/0292291) discloses, methods and apparatuses for opening a webpage, invoking a client, and creating a light application. The method for opening a webpage comprises: receiving a webpage opening request containing a link; according to the link, searching a preset application list for a client application and/or a light application corresponding to the link; and when the client application and/or the light application exists in the application list, opening the client application and/or invoking the light application to open a webpage corresponding to the link.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ali Abyaneh whose telephone number is (571) 272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from (8:00-5:00). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned as (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).
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437