CTNF 18/925,316 CTNF 80266 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the communication filed on 10/24/2024. Claims 1-19 have been examined. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains phrases which can be implied . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0286494) hereinafter referred to as Zheng, and further in view of Chaudhri et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0149581) hereinafter referred to as Chaudhri . Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Zheng taught a method for providing web resources through a zero trust network environment (Zheng Fig. 11 and Paragraph 0090-0093 for example), comprising: receiving a request from a client device to access a web resource through a zero trust network environment, wherein the web resource is external to the zero trust network environment, the request including a first uniform resource locator (URL), and the resource further including a second URL (Zheng Fig. 11 and Paragraph 0090-0093 for example); fetching the web resource based on the first URL (Zheng Fig. 11 and Paragraph 0090-0093 for example); and providing the resource to the client device (Zheng Fig. 11 and Paragraph 0090-0093 for example), but Zheng did not teach generating an alternate resource, the alternate resource including an alternate URL replacing the second URL; and providing the alternate resource to the client device. Chaudhri taught in a content caching system that the caching system (retargetter) can retrieve the content requested by a user from the content server, modify the content such that URLs in the content are changed to point to the retargetter, and then provide the modified content to the requesting user (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zheng and Chaudhri taught that the alternate URL is associated with a domain of the zero trust network environment (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zheng and Chaudhri taught that the first URL is associated with a domain which is not of the zero trust network environment (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zheng and Chaudhri taught that the web resource is a hypertext markup language (HTML) document (Zheng Fig. 11 and Paragraph 0090-0093 for example). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zheng and Chaudhri taught storing the alternate URL with the second URL in a translation table (Chaudhri Paragraph 0139 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zheng and Chaudhri taught receiving a request from the client device to access a web resource from the alternate URL (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example); translating the alternate URL to the second URL (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0147 for example); and generating an instruction to fetch the web resource from the second URL (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). Regarding claims 7 and 17, Zheng and Chaudhri taught fetching the web resource from the second URL (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example); and providing the web resource to the client device (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Zheng and Chaudhri taught generating a second alternate resource, the second alternate resource including a second alternate URL replacing a third URL, wherein the web resource further includes a third URL (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example); and providing the second alternate resource to the client device (Chaudhri Paragraphs 0095 and 0133-0137 for example). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Chaudhri in the caching system of Zheng by incorporating the content acceleration system of Chaudhri in the content caching system of Zheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to accelerate the response times for the requested content thereby improving the end-user experience. Regarding claims 9 and 19, the zero trust network environment is a cloud computing environment which requires a user to provide login credentials in order to access a resource in the zero trust network environment (Zheng Paragraphs 0038, 0082, and 0086 for example) . Double Patenting 08-33 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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,667 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patent claims . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,918 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patent claims . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,981 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are essentially anticipated by the patent claims . Conclusion Claims 1-19 have been rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM EST. 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, William Korzuch can be reached on (571)272-7589. 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. /MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 2 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 3 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 4 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 5 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 6 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 7 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 8 Art Unit: 2491 Application/Control Number: 18/925,316 Page 9 Art Unit: 2491
Prosecution Insights