DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 31-49 is pending.
The amendment to the Specification is entered.
Th double patenting rejection is maintained and updated.
Double Patenting
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).
Claims 1, 31-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,126,680 B2 (hereafter ‘680). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
1. (Current application)
A system to transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
means for relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and means for transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
means for tracking a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; means for analyzing a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
1. (‘680)
A system to transparently optimize data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
a device having circuitry therein to:
relay application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modify a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint;
track a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; analyze a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify 680’s teachings of a device having circuitry therein to execute instructions to implement “means” for executing the same instructions.
Claims 31-49 are obvious over claims 2-20 of ‘680 (for reciting the same subject matter).
Claims 1, 31-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 10,225,340 B2 (hereafter ‘340) in view of Barnert (US 2010/0106841). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
1. (Current application)
A system to transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
means for relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and means for transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
1. (‘340)
A computer-implemented method for transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the data session being identified by each endpoint at least to itself in the same way throughout the session, the method comprising:
relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and transparently modifying parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein transparently modifying at least some of the application level data comprises changing the application level data, replacing the application level data, or inserting additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
The above claimed system is obvious over the computer-implemented method of ‘340.
Claim 1 of ‘340 does not disclose: means for tracking a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; means for analyzing a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
Barnert discloses: track a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; analyze a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints ([0036], If the same request is sent again by the client …, the cached response can be sent without having to repeat the request, based on a previously generated session, the SID and sequence number are part of the proxy request).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Barnert’s teachings of response caching to ‘340’s proxying system/method in order to enhance the patent with the capability of providing cached responses and therefore saving network resources required to implement repeated request(s) to the second endpoint.
Claims 31-49 are obvious over claims 2-20 of ‘340 (for reciting the same subject matter).
Claims 1, 31-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 10,841,373 B2 (hereafter ‘373) in view of Barnert. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
1. (Current application)
A system to transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
means for relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and means for transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
1 or 21. (‘373)
A computer-implemented system for transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the data session being identified by each endpoint at least to itself in the same way throughout the session, the system comprising:
relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and transparently modifying parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints;
wherein transparently modifying at least some of the application level data comprises changing the data, replacing the application level data, or inserting additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
Claim 1 of ‘373 does not disclose: means for tracking a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; means for analyzing a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
Barnert discloses: track a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; analyze a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints ([0036], If the same request is sent again by the client …, the cached response can be sent without having to repeat the request, based on a previously generated session, the SID and sequence number are part of the proxy request).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Barnert’s teachings of response caching to ‘373’s proxying system/method in order to enhance the patent with the capability of providing cached responses and therefore saving network resources required to implement repeated request(s) to the second endpoint.
Claims 31-49 are obvious over claims 2-20 of ‘373 (for reciting the same subject matter).
Claim 1, 31-49 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,082,488 B2 (hereafter ‘488) in view of Barnert. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
1. (Current application)
A system to transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
means for relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and means for transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
1. (‘488)
A computer-implemented method for transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the data session being identified by each endpoint at least to itself in the same way throughout the session, the method comprising:
relaying data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and transparently parameters of at least some of the data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints;
wherein transparently modifying at least some of the data comprises changing the data, replacing the data, or inserting additional data such that the first endpoint receives different data than was sent by the second endpoint.
The above claimed device system is obvious over the computer-implemented method of ‘488.
Claim 1 of ‘488 does not disclose: means for tracking a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; means for analyzing a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
Barnert discloses: track a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; analyze a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints ([0036], If the same request is sent again by the client …, the cached response can be sent without having to repeat the request, based on a previously generated session, the SID and sequence number are part of the proxy request).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Barnert’s teachings of response caching to ‘488’s proxying system/method in order to enhance the patent with the capability of providing cached responses and therefore saving network resources required to implement repeated request(s) to the second endpoint.
Claims 31-49 are obvious over claims 2-20 of ‘488 (for reciting the same subject matter).
Claim 1, 31-49 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 31-49 of patent No. 12,069,129 (hereafter ‘129) in view of Barnert. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
1. (Current application)
A system to transparently optimizing data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
means for relaying application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and means for transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints,
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the application level data comprises to change the application level data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
1. (‘129)
A system to transparently optimize data transmission between a first endpoint and a second endpoint in a computer network, said endpoints having a directly established data session therebetween, the system comprising:
a device having circuitry therein to:
relay application level data between the endpoints transparently in the session using a network optimization service; and transparently modify parameters of at least some of the application level data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modify a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints;
wherein to transparently modify at least some of the data comprises to change the data, replace the application level data, or insert additional application level data such that the first endpoint receives different application level data than was sent by the second endpoint.
Claim 1 of ‘129 does not disclose: means for tracking a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; means for analyzing a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints.
Barnert discloses: track a state of a tunneled session between the endpoints; analyze a data query received from a first of the endpoints to match the data query with previously stored data responses, wherein to match the data query comprises to: analyze the data query based on at least one variable, selected from a group consisting of temporal information, ordinal information, frequency information, client information, and identification information; and if a matching response is found, deliver the stored response to the first endpoint without relaying the data query to a second of the endpoints ([0036], If the same request is sent again by the client …, the cached response can be sent without having to repeat the request, based on a previously generated session, the SID and sequence number are part of the proxy request).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Barnert’s teachings of response caching to ‘129’s proxying system/method in order to enhance the patent with the capability of providing cached responses and therefore saving network resources required to implement repeated request(s) to the second endpoint.
Claims 31-49 are obvious over claims 31-49 of ‘129 (for reciting the same subject matter).
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 36, 38, 39, 44-49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 44-49 recite “data” which should be “application level data” and refer back to previously recited “application level data”.
In claims 36, 48, “the transport state of the endpoints” should be “transport states of the endpoints”.
In claim 38, “storing a state” should be “store a state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for relaying application level data”, “means for transparently modifying parameters”, “means for tracking a state of a tunneled session”, “means for analyzing a data query” in claims 1, 32-49.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 32-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “means for relaying application level data”, “means for transparently modifying parameters”, “means for tracking a state of a tunneled session”, “means for analyzing a data query” in claims 1, 32-49 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structural support (such as hardware in computing or networking arts) for each of the “means” plus function limitations in the Specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 31-49 are allowable if the double patenting rejections and the 35 USC 112 rejection are overcome.
The Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Specifically, the prior art of records, individually or in combination, fail to explicitly teach, suggest or render obvious the claimed invention as recited in each independent claim, specifically cited art Knuttson and other considered prior arts do not anticipate nor render obvious “transparently modify parameters of at least some of the data transmitted from the second endpoint to the first endpoint using the network optimization service that modifies a capability to receive a response in a compressed format reported by the first endpoint to cause the second endpoint to transmit a response in a compressed format and modifying a compressed response from the second endpoint to the first endpoint by decompressing the response in order to optimize data communications between the endpoints.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
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 extension fee 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 Hieu Hoang whose telephone number is 571-270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thu Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights