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 Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/924,113 last filed on October 23rd, 2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined, directed to CONNECTION REQUEST FORWARDING SYSTEM THAT FORWARDS CONNECTION REQUEST FROM CONNECTION SOURCE TO ONE OF PLURALITY OF INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE, NON-TRANSITORY RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING CONNECTION REQUEST FORWARDING PROGRAM STORED THEREIN.
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 limitations are found in claim 1 for example:
Directed to a system, with distributed components including
“…a communication device… that is to “perform communications”…
and “…a control device…” that is to act as a “…forwarding device”…
The term “device” is interpreted as a generic placeholder term, along with generic placeholder “means” language, and coupled with functional language, and are not tied to sufficient structure, the “processor” is not strictly limited to hardware implementations as there can be virtualized or virtually implemented processors.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specifications shows that both “devices” are components within a system 30, which refers to a “gateway” and it’s possible to be realized on a cloud service (Filed Specifications: ¶¶ [0014] and [0018]). This means that the entire “system” of “devices”/components can be implemented through a virtualized approach, with virtualized components, and that includes virtualized processors.
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 1-17 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 in claim 1, with:
“…a communication device… that is to “perform communications”…
and “…a control device…” that is to act as a “…forwarding device”…
invokes 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.
A review of the filed Specifications shows that both “devices” are components within a system 30, which refers to a “gateway” and it’s possible to be realized on a cloud service (Filed Specifications: ¶¶ [0014] and [0018]). This means that the entire system of components can be implemented through a virtualized approach, with virtualized components, and that includes virtualized processors.
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.
Dependent claims following claim 1 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 7,873,734 B1 to Eidelman et al. (referred to hereafter as “Eidelman”).
As to claim 1, Eidelman further discloses a connection request forwarding system comprising:
a communication device that performs communication between a connection source and a plurality of information processing systems (Eidelman discloses of a similar system of distributed components, such that there are several choices for intermediary system components that are involved in the communications between a client/source issuing requests and a plurality of content servers at the back end. For example, there are gateway(s) and proxy server(s), which can be integrated or packaged with applications. Gateways can be interpreted the “communication device,” separate from the next “control device.” Eidelman discloses about gateways that facilitate the communications between clients and the backend content servers, e.g., Eidelman: col. 2, ll. 1-12, col. 8, ll. 49-62, col. 9, ll. 18-33, and col. 13, ll. 43-45); and
a control device including a processor, and configured to act, when the processor executes a connection request forwarding program, as a connection request forwarding device that receives a connection request transmitted from the connection source, and forwards the connection request to one of the plurality of information processing systems (The proxy server can utilize applications or be implemented as an application, and can act as a forwarding system, to forward the request, coming from a user, to the appropriate back end server systems that can handle the request, e.g., Eidelman: col. 8, ll. 49-62, and col. 13, ll. 43-45, col. 14, ll. 27-28 and Figs. 2 and 5),
wherein, when a forwarding condition of the connection request is satisfied, at least on a basis of an HTTP request of the connection request, the connection request forwarding device forwards the connection request to the information processing system associated with the forwarding condition (Examiner’s Note: The “forwarding condition” is not defined here within the claim and is broadly interpreted as any valid URL link that would lead to a some data that can be retrieved from a content (or information processing) server.
With that in mind and following the above steps and interpretations, Eidelman discloses about requests that are forwarded onto the content servers based upon various qualifying or valid links/strings in the URL address, e.g., Eidelman: col. 15, ll. 21-34 and 50-60, and col. 16, ll. 21-38 and Fig. 7).
As to claim 2, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 1,
wherein the connection request forwarding device forwards the connection request, when the forwarding condition is satisfied at least on a basis of a path included in a request line of the HTTP request (The system can handle HTTP requests, e.g., Eidelman: col. 9, ll. 18-33).
As to claim 3, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 2,
wherein the connection request forwarding device decides that the forwarding condition is satisfied, when the path includes a specific first character string (Following claims 1-2, the proxy server would decide on what’s considered valid or recognized within the URL and send it to the appropriate backend server, where this first character string can be referring to any section, so any valid/recognized domain name would suffice, e.g., Eidelman: col. 16, ll. 8-38 and col. 17, ll. 8-55 and Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 4, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 3,
wherein, when the first character string indicates a specific region, the forwarding condition is associated with the information processing system located in the specific region (Following claims 1-3, Eidelman discloses that requests can contain information on country of origin, e.g., Eidelman: col. 10, ll. 51-55).
As to claim 5, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 3,
wherein, when the first character string indicates a specific tenant using the information processing system, the forwarding condition is associated with the information processing system for the specific tenant (Following claims 1-3, Eidelman discloses that the proxy server can identify users, or tenants within a company, e.g., Eidelman: col. 2, ll. 49-67 and col. 16, ll. 29-38, col. 17, ll. 34-55 and Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 6, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 3,
wherein, when the first character string indicates a specific function of the information processing system, the forwarding condition is associated with the information processing system for performing the specific function (Following claims 1-3, Eidelman discloses that the system can distinguish between different categories and in turn different categories that the various backend servers deal with, and so in some highlighted examples, the system can identify and recognize a banking or financial request vs other types and categories of requests, e.g., Eidelman: col. 16, ll. 23-39 and col. 17, ll. 34-55 and Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 7, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 2,
wherein, when the forwarding condition is satisfied, and an instruction to edit the path is associated with the forwarding condition, the connection request forwarding device edits the path according to the instruction (Following claims 1 and 2, Eidelman discloses that the system can make changes to the URL, e.g. Eidelman: col. 15, ll. 24-50 and Fig. 6).
As to claim 8, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 1,
wherein the connection request forwarding device forwards the connection request, when the forwarding condition is satisfied, at least on a basis of a value of a specific header in a header field of the HTTP request (The proxy server can forward along the request, when it identifies/determines a valid string within the header, e.g., Eidelman: col. 9, ll. 64 – col. 10, ll. 8, and col. 10, ll. 27-47).
As to claim 9, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 8,
wherein the connection request forwarding device decides that the forwarding condition is satisfied, when the value of the specific header includes a specific second character string (Following claims 1 and 8, and similar to claim 3, under this particular branch, the “character string” is different here. And similar to what claim 8 established, any character string within the header section that is valid and recognized by the proxy server would be acted upon and the request would be forwarded, e.g., Eidelman: col. 9, ll. 64 – col. 10, ll. 8, and col. 10, ll. 27-47).
As to claim 10, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 9,
wherein, when the second character string indicates a specific tenant using the information processing system, the forwarding condition is associated with the information processing system for the specific tenant (Following claims 1, 8 and 9, Eidelman further discloses that within the header, the access device identifier can identify additional user specific related information, e.g., Eidelman: col. 9, ll. 64 – col. 10, ll. 8, and col. 10, ll. 27-47).
As to claim 11, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 9,
wherein, when the second character string indicates a specific function of the information processing system, the forwarding condition is associated with the information processing system for performing the specific function (Following claims 1, 8 and 9 and similar to claim 6, Eidelman further discloses that header information can be indicative of a type of request, e.g., Eidelman: col. 15, ll. 21-31 and col. 16, ll. 56-65, and col. 17, ll. 29-44).
As to claim 12, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 1, wherein the connection request forwarding device is configured to:
forward the connection request, when the forwarding condition is satisfied but a prohibition condition on the connection request forwarding is not satisfied (If a prohibiting condition is not met or no “red flags” are raised, then the system is not running into any problems with the requests and everything would just continue to operate under normal conditions and requests are forwarded along, ); and
keep from forwarding the connection request when the prohibition condition is satisfied, although the forwarding condition is satisfied (Eidelman discloses about scenarios wherein the system can prevent user access, given their requests, if something unexpected like an error of some sort is detected, e.g., Eidelman: col. 2, ll. 49-56).
As to claim 13, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 12,
wherein the connection request forwarding device decides that the prohibition condition is satisfied, when an IP address of the connection source is a specific IP address (Following claims 1 and 12, the proxy server can identify aspects of the user request by IP address, which could trigger some prohibition condition, e.g., Eidelman: col. 4, ll. 42-46).
As to claim 14, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 12,
wherein the connection request forwarding device decides that the prohibition condition is satisfied, when the HTTP request includes a specific third character string (Following claims 1 and 12, and similar to claim 3, but other this particular branch, the proxy server can evaluate and determine if any portion of the URL or portions that identify as a string, can lead to something that’s prohibited, e.g., Eidelman: examples from Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 15, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 14,
wherein the third character string indicates a specific tenant using the information processing system (Following claims 1, 12, and 14, and similar to claim 5, the proxy server can identify users, or tenants within a company, e.g., Eidelman: col. 2, ll. 49-67 and col. 16, ll. 29-38, col. 17, ll. 34-55 and Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 16, Eidelman further discloses the connection request forwarding system according to claim 14,
wherein the third character string indicates a specific user using the information processing system (Following claims 1, 12, and 14, “users” are interpreted as similar but less restrictive than “tenants” as the user can be individuals and do not have to belong to any larger group/organization, and with that in mind, the proxy server can identify user identities from their requests, e.g., Eidelman: col. 2, ll. 49-67 and col. 16, ll. 29-38, col. 17, ll. 34-55 and Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 as Eidelman further discloses of the system and medium to carry out the steps involved (e.g., Eidelman: col. 6, ll. 5-10).
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.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 7,873,734 B1 to Eidelman in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2004/0044622 A1 to Blott et al. (referred to hereafter as “Blott”).
As to claim 17, Eidelman does not fully further disclose of the connection request forwarding system according to claim 1,
wherein, when the forwarding condition is not satisfied, the connection request forwarding device transmits an error message to the connection source, instead of forwarding the connection request (Eidelman does not expressly disclose about sending error related messages back to the user/source.
Blott more expressly discloses of a similar scenario wherein the system can alert/notify the user when there is an issue like unauthorized access (e.g., Blott: ¶¶ 30 and 34)
Based upon Blott’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate this feature teaching within Eidelman’s teachings, because it would be beneficial for the user/source to be notified if there is something that can be easily remedied).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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 at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455