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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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.
3. Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively of US. Patent No. 12,206,648 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application are broadening the scope of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively of US. Patent No. 12,206,648 B2, by eliminating the limitation of the “transmitting, by the VPN server to the first host device based at least in part on selecting the first exit IP address, the first query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device”, and by eliminating the limitation of: “transmitting, by the VPN server to the second host device based at least in part on selecting the first exit IP address, the second query for retrieving the second data of interest from the second host device”.
Claim 1 of Application # 18/977,846
Claim 1 of US. Patent No. 12,206,648 B2
Limitation 1: configuring a VPN server to receive a first data request for the VPN server to retrieve first data of interest from a first host device
Limitation 1: receiving, at a VPN server, a first data request for the VPN server to retrieve first data of interest from a first host device
Limitation 2: configuring the VPN server to utilize a first exit internet protocol (IP) address to transmit a first query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device
Limitation 2: selecting, by the VPN server, a first exit internet protocol (IP) address to transmit a first query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device
Limitation 3: configuring the VPN server to determine, based at least in part on transmitting the first query, that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device
Limitation 4: determining, by the VPN server based at least in part on transmitting the first query, that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device
Limitation 4: configuring the VPN server to suspend, based at least in part on determining that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device, utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device
Limitation 5: suspending, by the VPN server based at least in part on determining that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device, utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device
Limitation 5: configuring the VPN server to utilize the first exit IP address to transmit a second query for retrieving second data of interest from a second host device
Limitation 6: selecting, by the VPN server, the first exit IP address to transmit a second query for retrieving second data of interest from a second host device
Same comparison applies between claim 8 of the instant application and claim 8 of US. Patent No. 12,206,648 B2, and between claim 15 of the instant application and claim 15 of US. Patent No. 12,206,648 B2.
4. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simanel et al. (US. Pat. No. 10,972,436 B1) in view of Jenne et al. (US. Pub. No. 2013/0031621 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simanel discloses a method in a virtual private network (VPN) (See Col.; Lines 6-10 of Simanel for a reference to providing services to users in a Virtual Private Network (VPN)), the method comprising:
configuring a VPN server to receive a first data request for the VPN server to retrieve first data of interest from a first host device (See Col.14; Lines 14-21 and Fig. 1 & Fig. 2; 209 of Simanel for a reference to once the user device 102 establishes a secure connection with VPN server 104, user device 102 initiates a request for accessing media streaming server (e. g. first target server 132));
configuring the VPN server to utilize a first exit internet protocol (IP) address to transmit a first query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device (See Col.14; Lines 30-36 and Fig. 2; 211 of Simanel for a reference to VPN server logic 110 takes the private IP address of the user device (assigned by the VPN gateway 108) and combine it with the external IP address of the VPN server 104 to form a unique session identification string [Exit IP address]);
Simanel does not explicitly disclose configuring the VPN server to determine, based at least in part on transmitting the first query, that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device; configuring the VPN server to suspend, based at least in part on determining that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device, utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device; and configuring the VPN server to utilize the first exit IP address to transmit a second query for retrieving second data of interest from a second host device.
However, Jenne discloses configuring the VPN server to determine, based at least in part on transmitting the first query, that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device (See Par. [22]-[24] of Jenne for a reference to a security application on the server [that may be within a VPN; see Par. [28]] may detect a threat destined for host 105 and originating from the source IP address of the network node, and therefore, determines to block communication from this particular IP address);
configuring the VPN server to suspend, based at least in part on determining that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device, utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device (See Par. [22], [26] of Jenne for a reference to upon detecting the threat of a particular source IP address, all communication from that source, and destined to host 150, is blocked [Suspended] via switch 101 [First exit node]); and
configuring the VPN server to utilize the first exit IP address to transmit a second query for retrieving second data of interest from a second host device (See Par. [26] of Jenne for a reference to switch 101 [First exit] receives requests from each the host, source and the server to determine whether the switch 101 will receive any packet or packets will be dropped [Communication is blocked at the first exit]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jenne to Simanel. The motivation of combination is improving the system’s efficiency, by improving the system’s security and reducing threats from untrusted sources. (Jenne; Par. [22]-[25]).
Regarding claim 2, Simanel does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the VPN server to end suspension of utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device based at least in part on determining that the first host device has ceased to block the first exit IP address.
However, Jenne discloses configuring the VPN server to end suspension of utilization of the first exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device based at least in part on determining that the first host device has ceased to block the first exit IP address (See Par. [22]-[24], [33], [46] and Fig. 3 of Jenne for a reference to the host device may defend against known threats and may request additional filtering parameters on transmitting traffic, and may remove filtering parameters and allow transmitting traffic from previously blocked IP addresses).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jenne to Simanel. The motivation of combination is improving the system’s efficiency, by improving the system’s security and reducing threats from untrusted sources. (Jenne; Par. [22]-[25]).
Regarding claim 3, Simanel does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the VPN server to determine, periodically, whether the first host device has ceased to block the first exit IP address.
However, Jenne discloses configuring the VPN server to determine, periodically, whether the first host device has ceased to block the first exit IP address (See Par. [22], [33], [46] and Fig. 3 of Jenne for a reference to the host device may defend against known threats and may request additional filtering parameters on transmitting traffic, and may remove filtering parameters and allow transmitting traffic from previously blocked IP addresses. The host device applies a periodic real-time monitoring of threats caused by IP addresses).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jenne to Simanel. The motivation of combination is improving the system’s efficiency, by improving the system’s security and reducing threats from untrusted sources. (Jenne; Par. [22]-[25]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Simanel and Jenne, specifically Simanel discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the VPN server to select, based at least in part on determining that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device, a second exit IP address for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device, the second exit IP address being different from the first exit IP address (See Col.3; Lines 50-62, Col. 9; Lines 4-8, Col. 19; Line 65 – Col. 20; Line 5 of Simanel for a reference to pool logic 122 stores a pool of exit nodes to be assigned for requests. Proxy logic 116 selects the appropriate exit node from the pool randomly different from the blocked exit node).
Regarding claim 5, Simanel does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the VPN server to utilize a second exit IP address to transmit a third query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device, the second exit IP address being different from the first exit IP address.
However, Jenne discloses configuring the VPN server to utilize a second exit IP address to transmit a third query for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device, the second exit IP address being different from the first exit IP address (See Par. [22]-[26] of Jenne for a reference to upon detecting the threat and blocking the communication from the threatening source IP address, switching the communication from switch 101 to switch 102, which is the second egress point [Second exit IP node with a different IP address] to communicate requests to host 105).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jenne to Simanel. The motivation of combination is improving the system’s efficiency, by improving the system’s security and reducing threats from untrusted sources. (Jenne; Par. [22]-[25]).
Regarding claim 6, Simanel does not explicitly disclose wherein configuring the VPN server to determine that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device includes configuring the VPN server to receive, based at least in part on transmitting the first query, a response from the first host device indicating that the first host device has declined to provide the first data of interest.
However, Jenne discloses wherein configuring the VPN server to determine that the first exit IP address is blocked by the first host device includes configuring the VPN server to receive, based at least in part on transmitting the first query, a response from the first host device indicating that the first host device has declined to provide the first data of interest (See Par. [22]-[24] of Jenne for a reference to a security application on the server [that may be within a VPN; see Par. [28] may detect a threat destined for host 105 and originating from the source IP address of the network node, and therefore, determines to block communication from this particular IP address).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jenne to Simanel. The motivation of combination is improving the system’s efficiency, by improving the system’s security and reducing threats from untrusted sources. (Jenne; Par. [22]-[25]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Simanel and Jenne, specifically Simanel discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the VPN server to determine a negative correlation between the first exit IP address and the first host device to indicate that the first exit IP address is not to be utilized for retrieving the first data of interest from the first host device (See Col.21; Lines 40-44, Col. 24; Lines 8-12; Col. 26; Lines 49-63 of Simanel for a reference to VPN Server Logic 110 controls the database that contains information about the users, requests performed, networks used, exit nodes used, types of exit nodes requested and similar data. Databases are updated based on the correlation between the user device and the assigned exit node [Positive correlation with the assigned exit point implies a negative correlation with the blocked exit point]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, including a virtual private network (VPN) server (See Simanel; Fig. 6; Computing system 600), comprising: a memory (See Simanel; Fig. 6; Memory 608); and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory (See Simanel; Fig. 6; Processor 602).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, which when executed by a processor associated with a virtual private network (VPN) server (See Simanel; Fig. 6; Computer readable medium 606).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Budvytis et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0080302 A1) discloses a method for clustering of virtual private network (VPN) servers used in VPN services to preserve privacy, to circumvent censorship, and/or to access geo-filtered content to the user device.
Lazauskas et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0067990 A1) discloses optimized server picking in a virtual private network (VPN).
Dahlberg (US. Pub. No. 2021/0099428 A1) discloses methods and systems for determining importance of hosts and/or IP addresses of an entity.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
