DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,260 (hereafter referred to as “the patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the patent.
Instant Application
The Patent
Claim 1
Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core;
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core;
selecting, by at least some of the plurality of CDN components, one or more CDN components from which to obtain CDN resources using the at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism;
selecting, by at least some of the plurality of CDN components, one or more CDN components from which to obtain CDN resources using the at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism;
obtaining, by the at least some of the plurality of CDN components, the CDN resources from the selected one or more CDN components; and
obtaining, by the at least some of the plurality of CDN components, the CDN resources from the selected one or more CDN components;
storing, by the control core, a current CDN configuration of the CDN in an authoritative database.
storing, by the control core, a current CDN configuration of the CDN in an authoritative database;
As to claims 2-15, the claims are anticipated by claims 2-15, respectively, of the patent.
Instant Application
The Patent
Claim 16
Claim 1
A content delivery network (CDN) comprising:
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core
a control core; and
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core
a plurality of CDN components, wherein the plurality of the CDN components is controlled by the control core data.
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core
As to claims 17, 18, 19, and 20, the claims are anticipated by claims 4, 7, 8, and 13, respectively, of the patent.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DRAI et al. (hereafter referred to as “Drai”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0172167 A1.
As to claim 16, Drai discloses a content delivery network (CDN) (Abstract; Fig. 1A; ¶ [0008]) comprising:
a control core (Fig. 1B; ¶ [0076]); and
a plurality of CDN components, wherein the plurality of the CDN components is controlled by the control core data (Fig. 1B; ¶ [0076]).
As to claim 17, Drai discloses wherein the plurality of the CDN components comprises a plurality of cache servers (¶¶ [0087] and [0088]).
As to claim 18, Drai discloses wherein the control core comprises a distributed control core (¶ [0008], in particular, “the operation of software applications in a distributed manner”).
As to claim 19, Drai discloses wherein the control core comprises a distributed system comprising a plurality of machines (¶ [0008], in particular, “the operation of software applications in a distributed manner”).
As to claim 20, Drai discloses wherein the plurality of CDN components comprises one or more tiers of CDN components organized hierarchically (¶¶ [0088] and [0102]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drai, in view of Aull, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0141592 A1.
As to claim 1, Drai discloses a method (Abstract; Fig. 1A; ¶ [0008]) comprising:
controlling, by a control core in a content delivery network (CDN), a plurality of CDN components including at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism using control core data from the control core (Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0076], [0087], and [0088]);
selecting, by at least some of the plurality of CDN components, one or more CDN components from which to obtain CDN resources using the at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism (Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0076], [0087], and [0088]);
obtaining, by the at least some of the plurality of CDN components, the CDN resources from the selected one or more CDN components (Fig. 1B; ¶¶ [0076], [0087], and [0088]).
Drai is silent on storing, by the control core, a current CDN configuration of the CDN in an authoritative database.
However, Aull discloses storing, by the control core, a current CDN configuration of the CDN in an authoritative database (¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify the teachings of Drai in the aforementioned manner as taught by Aull in order to ensure an authoritative database is available for data redundancy and is accurate and current.
As to claim 2, Drai discloses rendezvous, by the at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism, a particular CDN component of the plurality of CDN components to a control core machine that is best or optimal for that particular CDN component (¶ [0068]).
As to claim 3, Drai discloses wherein the control core data comprises resources distributed by the control core (¶¶ [0033] and [0034]).
As to claim 4, Drai discloses wherein the plurality of CDN components comprise: a plurality of cache servers, each constructed and adapted to deliver resources associated with at least one customer of the CDN (¶ [0087] and [0088]).
As to claim 5, Drai discloses wherein said cache servers are customers of the CDN (¶¶ [0012] and [0013]).
As to claim 6, Drai discloses wherein the control core data comprises resources provided by the control core in response to requests from internal CDN components (¶ [0087] and [0088]).
As to claim 7, Drai discloses wherein the control core comprises a distributed control core (¶ [0008], in particular, “the operation of software applications in a distributed manner”).
As to claim 8, Drai discloses wherein the control core comprises a distributed system comprising a plurality of machines (¶ [0008], in particular, “the operation of software applications in a distributed manner”).
As to claim 10, Drai discloses wherein the plurality of CDN components access the control core via one or more control core domain names (¶¶ [0085] and [0086]).
As to claim 11, Drai discloses wherein the plurality of CDN components use the at least one CDN rendezvous mechanism to resolve the one or more control core domain names (¶¶ [0085] and [0086]).
As to claim 12, Drai discloses wherein said control core data comprises control objects (¶ [0108]).
As to claim 13, Drai discloses wherein the CDN comprises one or more tiers of CDN components, organized hierarchically and wherein the at least one control core comprises an origin tier for said control objects (¶¶ [0088] and [0102]).
As to claim 14, Drai discloses wherein a particular CDN component of said plurality of CDN components obtains CDN data using the CDN (¶¶ [0087], [0088], and [0091]).
As to claim 15, Drai discloses wherein the at least some of the plurality of CDN components obtain CDN control core data using the CDN (Fig. 1B; ¶ [0076]).
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drai and Aull as applied above, and further in view of Jacobs et al. (hereafter referred to as “Jacobs”), U.S. Patent. App. Pub. No. 2003/0065708 A1.
As to claim 9, Drai and Aull are silent on wherein the control core uses a distributed consensus algorithm to achieve consensus among the plurality of machines.
However, Jacobs discloses wherein the control core uses a distributed consensus algorithm to achieve consensus among the plurality of machines (¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify the teachings of Drai and Aull in the aforementioned manner as taught by Jacobs in order to ensure as many points of view as possible (in a computer sense) are considered when deciding how to handle object distribution in a computer network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is 571-270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
6/16/26
Prosecution Insights