DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 5/13/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 19-20 were amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Argument 1: Denoual relates to transmitting data over an HTTP network. Clients inform the server which subsequent resources to push by inserting a custom Push-Request field into the HTTP request header, containing a URI template or construction rule (e.g., '<Push-Request: URI; segment- {1}.mp4; {2-5}>'). However, Push-Request of Denoual is merely a one-way instruction from the client to the server, representing the client's unilateral expectation of the server's future behavior. It does not disclose any parameters that the target Content Delivery Network (CDN) expects the local client to perform. In Denoual, after sending the request, the client's only action is to passively receive the data and cache it. Denoual does not expose any secondary parameters that the target CDN expects the local client to perform. In Denoual, when a client requests multiple different types of resources, it places multiple Push-Request instances in the HTTP header. This is simply an aggregation of multiple instructions of the same type issued by the same sending client, with the server as both the receiver and the executor. The Office Action interprets two one-way instructions sent to the server as one sent to the server and one sent to the client, which is actually the opposite of description of Denoual.
Examiner’s Response: Denoual teaches a second linkage parameter that the at least one content distribution network expects the local device to execute (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The second linkage parameter is the return code in the response such as HTTP code 200. The content distribution network is the server. The local device is the client.).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., expose any secondary parameters that the target CDN expects the local client to perform) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Argument 2: Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1D of Denoual (reproduced below), after receiving a data frame from the server, in steps 109-110, the client simply determines whether to push a commitment or push data; if so, it stores it in the client cache. The client of Denoual lacks any mechanism to parse related parameters and adjust its data processing strategy accordingly. The client of Denoual is merely a passive data receiver and cache; Denoual does not provide any mechanism that allows the client to generate a local execution strategy from an HTTP header parameter to guide its own operations.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., any mechanism to parse related parameters and adjust its data processing strategy accordingly; any mechanism that allows the client to generate a local execution strategy from an HTTP header parameter to guide its own operations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Argument 3: May also fail to disclose or suggest the aforementioned distinguishing technical features. May relates to configuring VPN tunnels in communication networks. May involves providing a policy page, configuring VPN parameters, generating a policy file, and then sending the policy file to the peer device, which completes the configuration upon acceptance. May operates at the network or transport layer, solving the underlying network security connection problem, rather than handling application-layer data coordination. Furthermore, the "status" in May refers to the state machine during the VPN establishment process, such as "not sent," "waiting for peer acceptance," "established," and "rejected," which are static connection flags, not linkage parameters. May does not disclose how the local device generates an execution policy for data stream processing after obtaining application layer linkage parameters and combining them with the communication status.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., how the local device generates an execution policy for data stream processing after obtaining application layer linkage parameters and combining them with the communication status) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Denoual et al (“Denoual”, US 20170230442).
Regarding Claim 1, Denoual teaches a method for linkage parameter configuration, comprising:
obtaining at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.),
wherein the at least one linkage parameter comprises a first linkage parameter that a local device expects at least one content distribution network to execute (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.)
and a second linkage parameter that the at least one content distribution network expects the local device to execute (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The second linkage parameter is the return code in the response such as HTTP code 200. The content distribution network is the server. The local device is the client.);
writing the at least one linkage parameter into header information of a hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain at least one hypertext transfer protocol request (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.);
and transmitting the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request to the at least one content distribution network to cause the at least one content distribution network to generate a first execution policy based on the at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.).
Regarding Claim 2, Denoual teaches the method of claim 1.
Denoual further teaches wherein writing the at least one linkage parameter into header information of a hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain at least one hypertext transfer protocol request comprises:
obtaining a linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”.),
wherein the linkage parameter template is configured to represent a presentation form of a linkage parameter in the header information (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”.);
determining a position of at least one field in the linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
wherein the at least one field corresponds to the at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.);
writing the at least one linkage parameter into the linkage parameter template based on the position of the at least one field to obtain an endpoint-cloud linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.);
and writing the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter into the header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.).
Regarding Claim 3, Denoual teaches the method of claim 2.
Denoual further teaches wherein determining a position of at least one field in the linkage parameter template comprises:
determining a position of a first field in the linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
wherein the first field corresponds to the first linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.);
and/or determining a position of a second field in the linkage parameter template, wherein the second field corresponds to the second linkage parameter, and the at least one field comprises the first field and/or the second field.
Regarding Claim 4, Denoual teaches the method of claim 1.
Denoual further teaches wherein the first linkage parameter comprises at least one first function linkage parameter, the first function linkage parameter comprises at least one first function linkage sub-parameter and a parameter value of the first function linkage sub-parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
and/or the second linkage parameter comprises at least one second function linkage parameter, the second function linkage parameter comprises at least one second function linkage sub-parameter and a parameter value of the second function linkage sub-parameter.
Regarding Claim 5, Denoual teaches the method of claim 4.
Denoual further teaches wherein in response to the first function linkage parameter comprising a plurality of first function linkage sub-parameters, the respective first function linkage sub-parameters and the parameter values of the first function linkage sub-parameters are represented in a form of key-value pairs (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset identifier is the “;” separator, which is used to combine the parameters (sub-parameters).),
the key-value pairs corresponding to all the first function linkage sub-parameters are combined using a preset identifier (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset identifier is the “;” separator, which is used to combine the parameters (sub-parameters).),
and the combined content is a parameter value of the first function linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset identifier is the “;” separator, which is used to combine the parameters (sub-parameters).).
Regarding Claim 6, Denoual teaches the method of claim 2.
Denoual further teaches wherein writing the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter into the header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request comprises:
obtaining preset header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset header information is the push policy information and parameters.);
and obtaining the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request based on the preset header information and the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset header information is the push policy information and parameters.).
Regarding Claim 7, Denoual teaches the method of claim 1.
Denoual further teaches wherein the method further comprises: parsing the at least one linkage parameter to obtain the second linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.);
and generating a second execution policy based on the second linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.).
Regarding Claim 8, Denoual teaches a method for linkage parameter configuration, wherein the method comprises:
receiving at least one hypertext transfer protocol request, wherein header information of the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request comprises at least one linkage parameter, and the at least one linkage parameter comprises a first linkage parameter that a client expects a local device to execute and a second linkage parameter that the local device expects the client to execute (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter is the return code in the response such as HTTP code 200.”.);
parsing the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain the at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.);
and generating a first execution policy based on the at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”.).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 10.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to write the at least one linkage parameter into header information of a hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain at least one hypertext transfer protocol request by: obtaining a linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
wherein the linkage parameter template is configured to represent a presentation form of a linkage parameter in the header information (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.);
and determining a position of at least one field in the linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
wherein the at least one field corresponds to the at least one linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.).
Regarding Claim 12, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 11.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to write the at least one linkage parameter into header information of a hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain at least one hypertext transfer protocol request by:
writing the at least one linkage parameter into the linkage parameter template based on the position of the at least one field to obtain an endpoint-cloud linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.);
and writing the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter into the header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.).
Regarding Claim 13, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 12.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to write the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter into the header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request to obtain the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request by:
obtaining preset header information of the hypertext transfer protocol request (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset header information is the push policy information and parameters.);
and obtaining the at least one hypertext transfer protocol request based on the preset header information and the endpoint-cloud linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset header information is the push policy information and parameters.).
Regarding Claim 14, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 11.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to determine a position of at least one field in the linkage parameter template by: determining a position of a first field in the linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.),
wherein the first field corresponds to the first linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage parameter template is the way the push policy and parameter is displayed being separated by a “:”. The at least one field is a parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The endpoint-cloud linkage parameter is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.).
Regarding Claim 15, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 14.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to determine a position of at least one field in the linkage parameter template by: determining a position of a second field in the linkage parameter template (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.),
wherein the second field corresponds to the second linkage parameter, and the at least one field comprises the first field and/or the second field (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.).
Regarding Claim 16, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 10.
Denoual further teaches wherein the first linkage parameter comprises at least one first function linkage parameter, the first function linkage parameter comprises at least one first function linkage sub-parameter and a parameter value of the first function linkage sub-parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”.).
Regarding Claim 17, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 16.
Denoual further teaches wherein the second linkage parameter comprises at least one second function linkage parameter, the second function linkage parameter comprises at least one second function linkage sub-parameter and a parameter value of the second function linkage sub-parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546. The second linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-time” or “2”.).
Regarding Claim 18, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 16.
Denoual further teaches wherein in response to the first function linkage parameter comprising a plurality of first function linkage sub-parameters, the respective first function linkage sub-parameters and the parameter values of the first function linkage sub-parameters are represented in a form of key-value pairs (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset identifier is the “;” separator, which is used to combine the parameters (sub-parameters).).
Regarding Claim 19, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 18.
Denoual further teaches wherein the key-value pairs corresponding to all the first function linkage sub-parameters are combined using a preset identifier, and the combined content is a parameter value of the first function linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The linkage sub-parameter and value is the parameter value, such as “push-next” or “5”. The preset identifier is the “;” separator, which is used to combine the parameters (sub-parameters).).
Regarding Claim 20, Denoual teaches the computer device of claim 10.
Denoual further teaches wherein the computer device is further caused to: parse the at least one linkage parameter to obtain the second linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.);
and generate a second execution policy based on the second linkage parameter (Fig. 12a, elements {1201-1204}, par 534-537; par 545-552; The linkage parameter is the type of push policy, such as “Push-Request”. The second linkage parameter and the second execution policy is the type of push policy for a further command, such as “Push-Request” in paragraph 547, which follows the “Push-Request” in paragraph 546.).
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoual in view of May (“May”, US 20130298182).
Regarding Claim 9, Denoual teaches the method of claim 8.
Denoual does not explicitly teach wherein generating a first execution policy based on the at least one linkage parameter comprises: obtaining a current communication state of the local device; and generating the first execution policy based on the current communication state and the at least one linkage parameter.
May teaches wherein generating a first execution policy based on the at least one linkage parameter comprises: obtaining a current communication state of the local device (par 8; Fig. 4A, element 400A, par 86-88; The communication state is one of the values shown on the browser page, such as the type of VPN tunnel being used.);
and generating the first execution policy based on the current communication state and the at least one linkage parameter (par 8; Fig. 4A, element 400A, par 86-88; The communication state is one of the values shown on the browser page, such as the type of VPN tunnel being used. The at least one linkage parameter is another one of the values shown on the browser page, such as the local or remote subnet.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Denoual with the VPN connection of May because it improves security by enabling users to communicate via a private network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Menezes et al (US 20030097448), Abstract - A method for controlling an HTTP client comprises the steps of establishing a connection between the HTTP client and a server and sending an event from the server to the HTTP client. The event passes over the HTTP connection and controls the HTTP client. The HTTP server sends the event without receiving a request for the event from the first HTTP client.
Hall et al (US 20150237110), Abstract - Systems, methods, and computer program products for facilitating web-based interaction with a local system are disclosed. Such systems, methods, and computer program products provide an approach that allows a web client within in a web browser environment to access local hardware and local software--via a web server contained in the local system--in a local computer system. In response to a user input, the web client directs local hardware and local software to perform actions (e.g., writing files and taking pictures). Information related to such actions is returned to the web client via the local web server. The local computer system may be remotely located from the web client and such returned information may be stored and/or executed at a remote site (e.g., cloud database). Security layers may be provided to authenticate the user as well as user permissions for accessing the local computer system.
Lunenfeld (US 20120303605), Abstract - Process for metasearching on the Internet performed by a metasearch engine, comprising: receiving an HTTP request from a client device for the metasearch engine to send at least one search query to a plurality of unique hosts providing access to information to be searched, the HTTP request associated with at least one item that may be ordered from a plurality of items that may be ordered; sending the at least one search query to the plurality of unique hosts; receiving search results from the plurality of unique hosts; incorporating the received search results into a response; causing at least one advertisement associated with the at least one item that may be ordered to be displayed in the response; communicating the response from the metasearch engine to the client device; receiving another HTTP request from the client device for placing an order for the at least one item; processing the order.
Icaza (US 20080120412), Abstract - A system and method for registering one or more services at a location where clients can access the services both locally and remotely is provided. A HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) service multiplexer (HSM) may be accessed at a recognizable location, which may be any suitable location or resource that a client can locate on a local system. The HSM may make a plurality of services available at the recognizable location by binding the location (e.g., a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) to URLs or other resources associated with the services. In this manner, the HSM functions similarly to a domain name service, as HTTP redirections can be issued to enable a single well-known resource to be used for accessing the plurality of registered services.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights