DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the request for reconsideration filed 9/3/2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klein, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0141887 (“Klein”).
With regard to Claim 1, Klein teaches a method for executing, by a terminal, a web application whose set of associated resources is stored on a remote web server, the method including:
detecting, by a gateway, a presence within the terminal of a call to the web application and identifying the remote web server ([0045] describes that a content database at a base station can identify a location at which requested web application content is stored, where [0028] describes that the base station can be a gateway that serves and receives data from user equipment. [0037] describes that the base station can determine content to be downloaded to the content database, such as by identifying content frequently requested from user equipment connected through the base station);
determining a time period corresponding to low traffic associated with the remote web server ([0038] describes that a scheduling component at the base station and/or core network server can determine traffic on a link between the base station and core network, and schedule a download of the content at a time when traffic is below a threshold or the link is under-utilized); and,
downloading at least part of the set of resources during the time period by the gateway ([0038]-[0039] describes that the content is downloaded and stored at the base station).
Claim 9 recites a gateway which executes the method of Claim 1, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claims 11 and 12 recite a program and a medium, respectively, which execute the method of Claim 1, and are likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Klein teaches intercepting, by the gateway, a request from the terminal to a resource among the at least part of the set of resources, and transmitting the resource corresponding to the request to the terminal. [0031] describes that the user equipment can request content from the core network. The base station receives the request, and looks up whether the requested content is stored at the base station. If so, the content is directly delivered from the base station to the requesting device.
Claim 10 recites a gateway which executes the method of Claim 2, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Klein teaches that the at least part of the set of resources is stored on an internal web server of the gateway. Fig. 3 shows that the base station contains both the content database and the delivery component, where [0042] describes that the deliver component serves content stored in the database to requesting users.
With regard to Claim 5, Klein teaches that the at least part of the set of resources is made of static resources. [0029] describes that resources can include media clips and virtually any other type of publicly available content accessible to users.
With regard to Claim 6, Klein teaches that the traffic corresponds to a load of the remote web server. [0038] describes that the base station can determine to download content when traffic on a link is below a threshold, indicating the link is placing a light load on the remote server.
With regard to Claim 7, Klein teaches that the detection comprises an analysis of previous requests from the terminal to a domain name system based on an application database. [0037] describes that the base station can determine content to be downloaded to the content database, such as by identifying content frequently requested from user equipment connected through the base station. [0036] describes that the content comes from a server on the core network. [0066] describes that content requests are made from the user equipment through to the core network domain.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein, in view of Talbert, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0068440 (“Talbert”).
With regard to Claim 3, Klein, in view of Talbert teaches that the interception operates in collaboration with an application container deployed on the gateway in order to isolate the processing within the gateway. Klein teaches the interception process, as described above. Talbert teaches at [0022] that a master system operates to perform actions to optimize provision of services to end user devices. [0025] describes that this can operate within a container environment, where [0070] describes deploying applications in containers to operate on routers, access points, or gateways.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Klein with Talbert. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for additional optimization of service and application delivery.
With regard to Claim 8, Klein, in view of Talbert teaches intercepting, by the gateway, a request from the terminal to a resource among the at least part of the set of resources, and transmitting the resource corresponding to the request to the terminal, wherein the interception comprises an analysis of a first request from the terminal intended for the domain name system, to determine whether the first request corresponds to the web application and, in this case, a storage of an IP address corresponding to the first request, and detection of the request from the terminal to the resource from the IP address.
Klein teaches at [0037] that the base station can determine content to be downloaded to the content database, such as by identifying content frequently requested from user equipment connected through the base station. [0036] describes that the content comes from a server on the core network. [0066] describes that content requests are made from the user equipment through to the core network domain. Talbert teaches at [0016]-[0017] that a system obtains and provides data to the master system, where the data stored and analyzed includes the IP address of a device as well as other state information thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Klein with Talbert. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for additional optimization of service and application delivery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with regard to Claim 1 that Klein does not teach the recited “detecting, by a gateway, a presence within the terminal of a call to the web application.” Applicant first argues that Klein does not detect a call to a web application, because content determining components are located at the base station. Examiner agrees that the components of [0037] are internal modules of the base station, but this does not mean Klein doesn’t teach detecting a call to a web application.
Klein at [0037] describes that the base station detects requests from user equipment to access remote content, where [0028] describes that the base station includes a gateway. The content being requested is repeatedly described throughout Klein as being requested from an application server, such as at [0007], [0026], [0041] and [0045]. Klein is not merely detecting calls to content at the base station; requests for content that are detected by the gateway of Klein are requests for content for a streaming web application. Klein therefore teaches detecting a presence of a call to the web application, by virtue of detecting the requests as they are transmitted through the base station.
Applicant then argues that the base station of Klein is not the same as the claimed gateway, because Klein does not disclose that such a gateway “monitors or inspects terminal-side application behavior, detects the presence of an application call and/or performs any inference based on such detection.” None of these limitations is present in the claim, and therefore it is moot whether the gateway of Klein performs these particular functions. Examiner notes that Applicant’s own specification describes at [0059] that the detection comprises an analysis of previous requests in one embodiment. As Klein detects application calls within a terminal as those application calls are received and processed by the gateway, Klein teaches this limitation.
Applicant then argues that Klein does not teach the recited “identifying the remote web server,” because Klein does not disclose identifying a remote web server as a result of detecting an application call. Examiner notes that the claim does not recite that the identifying of the remote server is carried out as a result of detecting an application call; the claim merely says that the gateway detects a presence of a call and identifies the remote server.
As described in the above rejection, [0037] describes that Klein identifies content requests from user equipment and determines content to be downloaded from the received requests. [0041] describe that user equipment requests content from an application server, and [0045] describes that the base station stores content from one or more application servers. Therefore, the base station identifies the web server, using the calls from the user equipment.
Applicant then argues that Klein does not anticipate the recited “determining a time period corresponding to low traffic associated with the remote web server,” because the scheduling described in Klein only considers the traffic on the link between the base station and core network, rather than conditions regarding a particular server. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, traffic on the link between the base station and the core network is “traffic associated with the remote web server.”
The claim requires that the determined time period correspond to low traffic associated with the remote web server. Traffic between the network on which the remote web server resides and a base station is traffic associated with the remote web server; the traffic on that link both affects the available transmission bandwidth to and from that server to the base station, and at least a portion of that traffic is data transmitted between the application server and the base station. As the traffic on the link is “traffic associated with the remote web server” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining a time period of low traffic on that link is “determining a time period corresponding to low traffic associated with the remote web server,” as claimed.
As Klein teaches each element of Claim 1, for the reasons given in the above rejection as well as in the above remarks, the rejection under §102 is proper. As no other claim has been challenged independently from the rejection of Claim 1, the rejections of those claims under §§ 102-103 also remain proper.
Conclusion
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights