DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the application filed on 09/17/2024. The present application is being examined under the pre- AIA first to invent provisions.
2. Status of the claims:
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3a. Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of US Patent 12,095,850 B2.
Regarding claim 1, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses an optimization service discovery method for optimizing data transmission by multi-session applications, comprising: receiving an optimization service lookup query from one of a plurality of user clients in a network, each of said user clients executing a multi-session application ( Claim 1); and identifying an optimization service and responding to the query with a network address of one or more servers providing said optimization service ( Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising authenticating or authorizing said one of the plurality of user clients prior to responding to the query ( Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein responding to the query with a network address comprises responding to the query with network addresses of only some of the servers providing the optimization service ( Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 3 wherein said some of the servers are selected based on load balancing algorithms, actual current load of the servers, network distance and/or network cost between the servers and the user client requesting the service, availability of the servers, administrative policy, or time of day ( Claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said multi-session applications include different types of multi-session applications ( Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses a method of providing a network prioritization optimization service for delivery of content to one of a plurality of user clients in a network, the method comprising: receiving a query for content source prioritization from one of a plurality of user clients in a network, each of said user clients executing a multi-session application ( Claim 7); and responding to the query with an identification and network addresses of a set of content sources and an order of priority of the content sources ( Claim 7).
Regarding claim 7, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said query identifies addresses of content sources known to the requesting user client ( Claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said query requests addresses of content sources ( Claim 9).
Regarding claim 9, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said set of content sources includes content sources that were previously unavailable to the multi-session application of the requesting user client ( Claim 10).
Regarding claim 10, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said set of content sources is identified using a peer discovery optimization service ( Claim 11).
Regarding claim 11, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising establishing sessions to said set of content sources in accordance with said order of priority ( Claim 12).
Regarding claim 12, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising sending a query for a content object to a caching optimization service ( Claim 13).
Regarding claim 13, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists on a content server, and if so, transmitting the content object or part thereof existing on the content server to the user client ( Claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists a content server, and if not, transmitting one or more queries for the content object to one or more content sources and storing responses on the content server ( Claim 15).
Regarding claim 15, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising prefetching associated content objects at a content server with not requested by a user client ( Claim 16).
Regarding claim 16, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising performing an optimization service lookup in response to a query from one of a plurality of user clients to identify said network prioritization optimization service ( Claim 17).
Regarding claim 17, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising identifying said set of content sources using a peer discovery optimization service ( Claim 18).
Regarding claim 18, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising receiving the query via a server-side application component ( Claim 19).
Regarding claim 19, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said order of priority of the content sources identifies a ban on one or more content sources ( Claim 20).
Regarding claim 20, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 further comprising receiving a request at a QoS arbitration service for allocation of class of service, and denying or granting said request ( Claim 21).
Regarding claim 21, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses the method of claim 6 wherein said content sources comprise different types of sources and said order of priority is based on the type of content source ( Claim 22).
Regarding claim 22, US Patent 12,095,850 B2 discloses an QoS arbitration service method for allocation of class of service by multi-session applications, comprising: receiving a request for allocation of class of service from one of a plurality of user clients in a network ( Claim 21), each of said user clients executing a multi-session application ( Claim 1); and denying or granting said request ( Claim 21).
3b. Regarding US Patent 11,477,272 B2, Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of 11,477,272 B2 for similar reason as US Patent 12,095,850 B2.
3c. Table
Double Patenting Table
Instant Claims
16/887,999
Patented Claims
12,095,850 B2
Claim 1. An optimization service discovery
method for optimizing data transmission by multi-
session applications, comprising:
receiving an optimization service lookup query
from one of a plurality of user clients in a network,
each of said user clients executing a multi-session
application; and
identifying an optimization service and
responding to the query with a network address of
one or more servers providing said optimization
service.
Claim 1, An optimization service discovery having optimized data transmission by multi-session applications, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory, coupled to the one or more processors, storing code that when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
providing a plurality of different optimization services for optimizing multi-session application performance;
receiving at a service locator server an optimization service lookup query from one of a plurality of user clients in a network, each of said user clients executing a multi-session application, wherein the query includes one or more requested types of class-of-service, and the class-of-service includes a minimum throughput;
selectively identifying at the service locator server one or more optimization services from the plurality of different optimization services, and responding to the query from the user client with a network address of one or more servers providing said one or more selectively identified optimization services, wherein (i) at least one of the one identified optimization services includes data directing at least one of the user clients to a content source that includes cached content that is responsive to a data query of the user client directed to the content source and (ii) the content source includes the cached content in response to direction at least one of the optimization services; and enforcing conditional access to the one or more selectively identified optimization services based on one or more of: location of the user client, authorization token, or additional type of conditional policy, previous use by the user client of one or more optimization services not included in the one or more selectively identified optimization services.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising
authenticating or authorizing said one of the
plurality of user clients prior to responding to the
query.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: authenticating or authorizing said one of the plurality of user clients prior to responding to the query.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1 wherein
responding to the query with a network address
comprises responding to the query with network
addresses of only some of the servers providing
the optimization service.
Claim 3. The system of claim 1 wherein responding to the query with a network address comprises responding to the query with network addresses of some, but not all, of the servers known to the service locator providing the optimization service.
Claim 4. The method of claim 3 wherein said
some of the servers are selected based on load
balancing algorithms, actual current load of the
servers, network distance and/or network cost
between the servers and the user client requesting
the service, availability of the servers,
administrative policy, or time of day.
Claim 4. The system of claim 3 wherein said some of the servers are selected based on load balancing algorithms, actual current load of the servers, network distance and/or network cost between the servers and the user client requesting the service, availability of the servers, administrative policy, or time of day.
Claim 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said
multi-session applications include different types
of multi-session applications.
Claim 5. The system of claim 1 wherein said multi-session applications include different types of multi-session applications, including different types of peer-to-peer applications to access different types of peer-to-peer networks or different types of non-peer-to-peer applications that use multiple sessions to retrieve content.
Claim 6. A method of providing a network
prioritization optimization service for delivery of
content to one of a plurality of user clients in a
network, the method comprising:
receiving a query for content source prioritization
from one of a plurality of user clients in a network,
each of said user clients executing a multi-session
application; and
responding to the query with an
identification and network addresses of a set of
content sources and an order of priority of the
content sources.
Claim 7. A system-of providing a network prioritization optimization service for delivery of content to one of a plurality of user clients in a network, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory, coupled to the one or more processors, storing code that when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a query for content source prioritization from one of a plurality of user clients in a network, each of said user clients executing a multi-session application; and identifying a set of content sources and an order of priority of each of the content sources responsive to the query based on the following aspects of content delivery: topological locality of the network; cost of links between the multi-session application of the one user client and the content source; network congestion of the links; cached content stored in at least one of the content sources at a direction of an optimization service, wherein the cached content is responsive to a data query of at least one of the user clients; compliance with management policies of the network; and alignment with provisioning and capacity allocation of the network; and
responding to the query by providing to the client from whom the query is received an identification and network addresses of a set of content sources and the order of priority of the content sources.
Claim 7. The method of claim 6 wherein said query identifies addresses of content sources known to the requesting user client.
Claim 8. The system of claim 7 wherein said query identifies addresses of content sources known to the requesting user client.
Claim 8. The method of claim 6 wherein said
query requests addresses of content sources.
Claim 9. The system of claim 7 wherein said query requests addresses of content sources.
Claim 9. The method of claim 6 wherein said set of content sources includes content sources that were previously unavailable to the multi-session application of the requesting user client.
Claim 10. The system of claim 7 wherein said set of content sources includes content sources that were previously unavailable to the multi-session application of the requesting user client.
Claim 10. The method of claim 6 wherein said set
of content sources is identified using a peer
discovery optimization service.
Claim 11. The system-of claim 7 wherein said set of content sources is identified using a peer discovery optimization service.
Claim 11. The method of claim 6 further comprising establishing sessions to said set of content sources in accordance with said order of priority.
Claim 12. The system of claim 7 further comprising establishing sessions to said set of content sources in accordance with said order of priority.
Claim 12. The method of claim 6 further
comprising sending a query for a content object to
a caching optimization service.
Claim 13. The system of claim 7 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: sending a query for a content object to a caching optimization service comprising one or more dedicated content servers.
Claim 13. The method of claim 12 further
comprising determining if the content object or
part thereof exists on a content server, and if so,
transmitting the content object or part thereof
existing on the content server to the user client.
Claim 14. The system of claim 13 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: determining if the content object or part thereof exists on the one or more dedicated content servers, and if so, transmitting the content object or part thereof existing on the content server to the user client.
Claim 14. The method of claim 12 further
comprising determining if the content object or
part thereof exists a content server, and if not,
transmitting one or more queries for the content
object to one or more content sources and storing
responses on the content server.
Claim 15. The system of claim 13 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: determining if the content object or part thereof exists on the one or more dedicated content servers, and if not, transmitting one or more queries for the content object to one or more content sources and storing responses on the content server.
Claim 15. The method of claim 12 further
comprising prefetching associated content objects
at a content server with not requested by a user
client.
Claim 16. The system of claim 13 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: prefetching associated content objects at on the one or more dedicated content servers not requested by a user client.
Claim 16. The method of claim 6 further
comprising performing an optimization service
lookup in response to a query from one of a
plurality of user clients to identify said network
prioritization optimization service.
Claim 17. The system of claim 7 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: performing an optimization service lookup in response to a query from one of a plurality of user clients to identify said network prioritization optimization service.
Claim 17. The method of claim 6 further
comprising identifying said set of content sources
using a peer discovery optimization service.
Claim 18. The system of claim 7 wherein
execution of the code by the one or more
processors causes the one or more processors to
perform operations further comprising: identifying
said set of content sources using a peer discovery
optimization service.
Claim 18. The method of claim 6 further
comprising receiving the query via a server-side
application component
Claim 19. The system of claim 7 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: receiving the query via a server-side application component.
Claim 19. The method of claim 6 wherein said
order of priority of the content sources identifies a
ban on one or more content sources.
Claim 20. The system of claim 7 wherein said order of priority of the content sources identifies a ban on one or more content sources.
Claim 20. The method of claim 6 further
comprising receiving a request at a QoS arbitration
service for allocation of class of service, and
denying or granting said request.
Claim 21. The system of claim 7 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: receiving a request at a QoS arbitration service for allocation of class of service, and denying or granting said request.
Claim 21. The method of claim 6 wherein said
content sources comprise different types of
sources and said order of priority is based on the
type of content source.
Claim 22. The system of claim 7 wherein said content sources comprise different types of sources and said order of priority is based on the type of content source.
Claim 22. An QoS arbitration service method for
allocation of class of service by multi-session
applications, comprising: receiving a request for
allocation of class of service from one of a
plurality of user clients in a network, each of said
user clients executing a multi-session application;
and denying or granting said request.
Claim 21. The system of claim 7 wherein execution of the code by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising: receiving a request at a QoS arbitration service for allocation of class of service, and denying or granting said request.
(Claim 1) each of said user clients executing a multi-session application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Agarwal et al. (hereinafter “Agarwal”) (US 2009/0089438 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Agarwal discloses an optimization service discovery method for optimizing data transmission by multi-session applications, comprising:
receiving an optimization service lookup query from one of a plurality of user clients in a network (a client requesting optimization service by specifying real-time requirement for hi-definition video stream applications at the service-aware lookup services (Agarwal,[0056] )), each of said user clients executing a multi-session application ( clients are being organized in peer-to-peers, peer-to-peer multi-session application (Agarwal,[0056] )); and
identifying an optimization service ( an optimal service access point is disclosed being determined among a set of candidates for the service using a service –aware lookup services; in addition, Agarwal discloses in [0013] and [0038] various email services such as Yahoo1.com, Yahoo2.com, and Yahoo3.com that are mapped by their access point locations (Agarwal,[0039] )) and responding to the query with a network address of one or more servers providing said optimization service ( a candidate service endpoint selected as an optimal endpoint being sent to a client using network address of a host via a lookup service (Agarwal,[0056] )).
Regarding claim 2, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising authenticating or authorizing said one of the plurality of user clients prior to responding to the query( authentication and login are made before a client can use a lookup server to access a choosing service access point (Agarwal,[0046] )).
Regarding claim 3, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 1 wherein responding to the query with a network address comprises responding to the query with network addresses of only some of the servers providing the optimization service ( a candidate service endpoints selected as an optimal endpoint being sent to a client using network address of a host via a lookup service; because the end point is selected not all of them provide the service (Agarwal,[0056] )).
Regarding claim 4, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 3 wherein said some of the servers are selected based on load balancing algorithms, actual current load of the servers, network distance and/or network cost between the servers and the user client requesting the service, availability of the servers, administrative policy, or time of day(Agarwal discloses content delivery cost between a client requesting a service at a service host (Agarwal, [0055])).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103a which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5a. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Andersen et al. (hereinafter “Andersen”) (US 2006/0161670 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 1.
Agarwal does not disclose wherein said multi-session applications include different types of multi-session applications.
Andersen discloses wherein said multi-session applications include different types of multi-session applications (Andersen discloses different peer-to-peer services are optimized in terms of required bandwidth and computer capacity ( [0024])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Andersen’s teachings different per-to-peer services with optimization feature into Agarwal’s teachings optimization service discovery system in order to improve the availability and efficiency of digital rights management services in the context of peer-to-peer services (Andersen, [0015]).
7. Claims 6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber (US 2003/0074507 A1), in view of Chow et al. (hereinafter “Chow’) (US 2003/0228869 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Weber discloses a method of providing a network prioritization optimization service for delivery of content to one of a plurality of user clients in a network, the method comprising:
receiving a query for content source prioritization from one of a plurality of user clients in a network (Weber discloses a request for accessing channels that reaches a resource is disclosed, where the channels have a priority order ( [0021])); and responding to the query with an identification and network addresses of a set of content sources and an order of priority of the content sources(some channels are disclosed having high priority, and some channels are disclosed having low priority; implicitly the processors in the channels will have the same priorities; where the channels are being identified as channels 1-10 for example, and address is the address of the page that the channels are accessing; (the channels are equated to content sources because the content are being accessed by sources (channels) that deliver the content (page)) ( [0022])).
Weber does not disclose each of said user clients executing a multi-session application.
Chow discloses each of said user clients executing a multi-session application (Chow discloses a user is interacting using request in a multi-session and multi-application ( [0020])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Chow's interacting feature using request in a multi-session and multi-application within Weber's method of QoS arbitration service. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to provide the capability to upgrade the service from a default service to a better service (Chow, abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6 wherein said order of priority of the content sources identifies a ban on one or more content sources (service is provided up to allocated bandwidth, no service is received if bandwidth need is higher that allocated bandwidth; it is also disclosed that each channel is assigned a priority associated with an allocated-bandwidth service that is a QOS (Weber, [0016])).
Regarding claim 20, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6 further comprising receiving a request at a QoS arbitration service for allocation of class of service (an arbitration unit is disclosed having desired quality-of-service guarantees for each channel, where the channel is accommodating request from requesters (Weber, [0013])), and denying or granting said request (service is provided up to allocated bandwidth, no service is receive if bandwidth need is higher that allocated bandwidth (Weber, [0016])).
8. Claims 7-8, 10, 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Chow as applied to claims 6 and 19-20 above, and in further in view of Previdi et al. (hereinafter “Previdi”) (US 2009/0144390 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose wherein said query identifies addresses of content sources known to the requesting user client.
Previdi discloses wherein said query identifies addresses of content sources known to the requesting user client (Previdi discloses the network address of content server that the request for content is sent to ( [0041])).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Previdi feature within in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to route a request for content based on attribute information of a P2p computer (Previdi, [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose wherein said query requests addresses of content sources.
Previdi discloses the feature wherein said query requests addresses of content sources (Previdi discloses the network address of content server that the request for content is sent to ( [0041])).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Previdi feature within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to route a request for content based on attribute information of a P2p computer (Previdi, [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose wherein said set of content sources is identified using a peer discovery optimization service.
Previdi discloses wherein said set of content sources is identified using a peer discovery optimization service (Previdi discloses a content server address from a requester being determined in a P2P network using an IGP routing information ( [0043])).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Previdi feature within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to route a request for content based on attribute information of a P2p computer (Previdi, [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising performing an optimization service lookup in response to a query from one of a plurality of user clients to identify said network prioritization optimization service.
Previdi discloses further comprising performing an optimization service lookup in response to a query from one of a plurality of user clients to identify said network prioritization optimization service (Previdi discloses a content server address from a requester being determined in a P2P network using an IGP routing information; where IGP information is used to optimize resources usage (see Fig2B) ( [0043])).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Previdi feature within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to route a request for content based on attribute information of a P2p computer (Previdi, [0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising identifying said set of content sources using a peer discovery optimization service.
Previdi discloses further comprising identifying said set of content sources using a peer discovery optimization service (a content server address from a requester being determined in a P2P network using an IGP routing information ( [0043])).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Previdi feature within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to route a request for content based on attribute information of a P2p computer (Previdi, [0070]).
9. Claims 9, 11-15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Chow as applied to claims 6 and 19-20 above, in further in view Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”) (US 2006/0212584 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose wherein said set of content sources includes content sources that were previously unavailable to the multi-session application of the requesting user client.
Yu discloses wherein said set of content sources includes content sources that were previously unavailable to the multi-session application of the requesting user client (Yu discloses caching optimization service as presented and handled by the peer clients also includes a dedicated content source server for when the all the peers are not online. In addition, there can also be mirror sites or locations for caching content. Each peer client can be interpreted and treated similar to an always-on IP node that can cache data files or portions of the data into a file cache, such that they can later be a provider for others for request the same data in the future, thus optimizing a retrieval service ( [0029], [0032], and [0034])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising establishing sessions to said set of content sources in accordance with said order of priority.
Yu discloses further comprising establishing sessions to said set of content sources in accordance with said order of priority (peer list is checked for connected peers as content sources first before going to the source content server for any requested data; where the content is retrieves a network 400 if it is available; the Examiner has equated the first choice to retrieve the content as s a priority; by order of priority, a peer that is chose first because having connectivity and IP address in an established session, if said peer is not available a query is made to another peer; the first peer has the first priority ( [0026])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising sending a query for a content object to a caching optimization service.
Yu discloses further comprising sending a query for a content object to a caching optimization service (Yu discloses caching optimization service as presented and handled by the peer clients also includes a dedicated content source server for when the all the peers are not online. In addition, there can also be mirror sites or locations for caching content. Each peer client can be interpreted and treated similar to an always-on IP node that can cache data files or portions of the data into a file cache, such that they can later be a provider for others for request the same data in the future, thus optimizing a retrieval service ( [0029], [0032], and [0034])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Weber, Show, and Yu disclose the method of claim 12.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists on a content server, and if so, transmitting the content object or part thereof existing on the content server to the user client.
Yu discloses further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists on a content server, and if so, transmitting the content object or part thereof existing on the content server to the user client (Yu discloses requesting client can receive the data from the content source server, if there are no other peers or mirror sites available ( [0032] and [0034])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Weber, Show, and Yu disclose the method of claim 12.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists a content server, and if not, transmitting one or more queries for the content object to one or more content sources and storing responses on the content server.
Yu discloses further comprising determining if the content object or part thereof exists a content server, and if not, transmitting one or more queries for the content object to one or more content sources and storing responses on the content server (Yu discloses requested data is normally found within the content server or a mirror site, and later the peers can also store and cache portions of the data, which is updated within an indexing server for future references and retrievals, e.g., ( [0023], [0029-32], and [0034])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Weber, Show, and Yu disclose the method of claim 12.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising prefetching associated content objects at a content server with not requested by a user client.
Yu discloses further comprising prefetching associated content objects at a content server with not requested by a user client (Yu discloses data stored in the caches of the peers or the content server can also be considered a pre-fetch prior to or before the next peer client that would be requesting it; a search is done first in a cache before going to the server with which the server is connected to when responding to a user request ( [0030-32] and [0034])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose further comprising receiving the query via a server-side application component.
Yu discloses further comprising receiving the query via a server-side application component (Yu discloses peer list stored within the control server as well as the indexing server, which contains a list of what is available; the request or query is received at the content server or indexing server, which would be considered a server-side component ([0022] and [0032])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available (Yu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 21, Weber and Show disclose the method of claim 6.
Weber in view of Show do not disclose wherein said content sources comprise different types of sources and said order of priority is based on the type of content source.
Yu discloses wherein said content sources comprise different types of sources and said order of priority is based on the type of content source (Yu discloses order of priority is to check for peers first before going to the content server; a content is disclosed being in a group of servers, if a particular content is not available in a group of servers, the requester will redirect the request to another group of servers; by doing so a priority is being established ( [0026])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yu’s teachings within Weber’s teachings in view of Show’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to identify which filed is loaded and available ( [0032]).
9. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Chow.
Regarding claim 22, Weber discloses an QoS arbitration service method for allocation of class of service by multi-session applications, comprising:
receiving a request for allocation of class of service from one of a plurality of user clients in a network (Weber discloses an arbitration unit is disclosed having desired quality-of-service guarantees for each channel, where the channel is accommodating request from requesters ( [0013])), and denying or granting said request (Weber discloses service is provided up to allocated bandwidth, no service is received if bandwidth need is higher that allocated bandwidth ( [0016])).
Weber does not disclose each of said user clients executing a multi-session application.
Chow discloses each of said user clients executing a multi-session application (Chow discloses a user is interacting using request in a multi-session and multi-application ( [0020])).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Chow's interacting feature using request in a multi-session and multi-application within Weber's method of QoS arbitration service. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to provide the capability to upgrade the service from a default service to a better service (Chow, abstract).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457