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 .
This is a first office action in response to the instant application for letters patent filed on 18 September 2024. Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-22 are presented for examination. Claims 13 and 16 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
N.B.: The translation of prior art CN113099261 does not have reference numbers. Applicant is advised/requested to read the entire document.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-2, 9, 14-15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN113099261A
As per claim 1, Sun teaches a method for processing a domain name resolution request, performed by a first server, comprising: obtaining first request information of a first domain name resolution request sent by a target client, wherein the first request information comprises a domain name to be resolved carried in the first domain name resolution request, and client information of the target client; obtaining a first information set from a server, in response to determining that first target node information corresponding to the first request information is not stored in the first server based on the domain name to be resolved and the client information, wherein the first information set is a collection of first candidate node information corresponding to the first request information; taking at least one first candidate node information in the first information set as the first target node information, and sending the first target node information to the target client. (see explanation below).
Sun discloses a node processing system (for the limitations below, see the entire section that discusses fig 2 and table 3 in the disclosure/specification of Sun) that comprises a node allocation server and a node parsing server. The node allocation server may be a center service (see fig 2 and section in the disclosure that discusses fig 2), the node parsing server may be DNS parsing service, a target object is an anchor (see fig 2 and section in the disclosure that discusses fig 2), and a node is an edge computing node (see fig 2 and section in the disclosure that discusses fig 2).
The node parsing server is configured to: receive a node acquisition request (the first request information) of a target object, wherein the node acquisition request carries a domain name address, position information (client information of a target client) of the target object and a network service party; parse the domain name address to obtain a plurality of initial nodes corresponding to the domain name address; determine, from the plurality of initial node, the position information of the target object and a plurality of candidate nodes corresponding to the network service party, and determine a target weight value of each candidate node; and determine a target node on the basis of the target weight value, and send the target node to the target object. It must be noted that some small-sized operators, such as WASU, China Broadnet, etc …, that cannot be covered with nodes of three major operators. Several BGP nodes (see steps 634 and 636 of the disclosure) are selected and registered in a default line to cover small-sized operators (see table 3 for details). See also the paragraph immediately after table 3 which discloses the following; “Table 3 is a parsing diagram of a DNS, and in an actual application, when the DNS receives a domain name address carried in a node acquisition request of an anchor and determines the province and operator of the anchor, and none of the operators has a corresponding node, the table can be parsed” (which is similar to: according to the domain name to be parsed and the client information, when it is determined that first target node information corresponding to first request is not stored in the first server, a first information set is acquired), and then a default node from the table is acquired for the anchor, so as to ensure that the anchor can normally perform stream pushing, thereby improving user experience.
For emphasis and clarity: It must also be noted that Sun does not explicitly discuss that the first information set is acquired from a second server. However, Sun does disclose that the first server uses the first information set, and specifically, the information set can be acquired from other servers (i.e. a second server); (see Sun, claim 14, “analyzing the domain name address to obtain a plurality of initial nodes corresponding to the domain name address; determining a plurality of candidate nodes corresponding to the position information of the target object and the network service party from the plurality of initial nodes, and determining the target weight value of each candidate node; determining a target node based on the target weight value, and sending the target node to the target object, wherein the target weight value is received from the node distribution server”; it may also be received from other servers such as DNS resolution server, analysis server, and so on. Therefore, one skill artisan before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed would use one of the other servers as the second server to store the information set, thereby facilitating versatility in Sun’s system.
As per claim 2, Sun teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending the first target node information to the target client, in response to determining that first target node information corresponding to the first request information is stored in the first server based on the domain name to be resolved and the client information (see steps 508 of the disclosure).
As per claim 9, Sun implicitly teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: updating node information stored in the first server based on an information set stored in the second server (see table 1and last paragraph before table 1; comprehensively judging the quality of each candidate node based on the target weight value, periodically updating the DNS node coverage, so as to reduce the probability of the single node quality affecting the presenter flow, improving the flow pushing quality).
13. (Cancelled)
As per claim 14-15, they contain the same limitations as the method claim 1 discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, Sun teaches processor and memory (see fig 9 section in the disclosure, components of computing device 900 include among other features, memory 910 and processor 920).
16. (Cancelled)
As per claim 17, Sun teaches the electronic device according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: sending the first target node information to the target client, in response to determining that first target node information corresponding to the first request information is stored in the first server based on the domain name to be resolved and the client information (see the entire section that discusses fig 2 and step 508 in the disclosure/specification of Sun).
As per claim 22, Sun teaches the electronic device according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: updating node information stored in the first server based on an information set stored in the second server (see table 1and last paragraph before table 1; comprehensively judging the quality of each candidate node based on the target weight value, periodically updating the DNS node coverage, so as to reduce the probability of the single node quality affecting the presenter flow, improving the flow pushing quality).
Claims 3-8, 10-12, and 18-21 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZ B JEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached at 5712723949. 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.
/FRANTZ B JEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454