DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-50 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025, 5/20/2025, 10/29/2025, 04/20/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
A terminal disclaimer filed 06/07/2025 has effectively overcame a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a reference patent (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)).
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive relevant to the subject of this continuation according to its own specific inventive concept. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Figures 1-43b do not support claim about wearable devices claim 23-26. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “Score”, “score is computed”, and “updating a score” are missing from the disclosure and there is no mechanism for calculating score whatsoever in the disclosure. Furthermore, the limitation ““a set of rules” is referenced in the specifications paragraph [0207] but it does not provide a description of how the set of rules are being implemented in reference to the invention.
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Referring to claim 1, that recites
“receiving a request from a requesting client device from multiple client devices for transferring content from the communication network, wherein the request specifies one or more attributes for transferring the content; maintaining respective open communication channels between multiple server devices located in the communication network and multiple proxy devices, each one of the multiple proxy devices is communicating with at least one of the multiple web servers; obtaining data concerning the multiple proxy devices; selecting a specific proxy device from the multiple proxy devices according to a score corresponding to each proxy device of the multiple proxy devices, wherein the score is computed based on the one or more attributes included in the request, the data concerning the multiple proxy devices, and a set of rules; sending a command to a selected server device from the multiple server devices that communicates with the proxy device, to download the content from a specific web server of the multiple web servers; updating a score of a proxy device, in response to an event, for receiving an indication of the proxy device's performance, such as latency, related to the proxy device or to a characteristic of the proxy device; and maintaining an open channel after transfer for additional requests from the requesting client device, which is used to optimize the performance of data transfer via the selected proxy device, to serve consecutive requests of the same sort at fast speeds”
In claim 1, that recites the limitation “receiving a request from a requesting client device from multiple client devices for transferring content from the communication network, wherein the request specifies one or more attributes for transferring the content” is ambiguous and vague, because claim fails to define what constitutes an attribute or how such attribute relates to transferring content. It is unclear whether the attributes correspond to network characteristics, transferring preferences, routing criteria, content characteristics, destination information, or some other parameter? therefore unclear what subject matter falls within the scope of this limitation.
Also the limitation “devices is communicating with at least one of the multiple web servers” lacks clarity regarding required relationship between the proxy device and webserver because it needs to define type of communication session, active, idle, periodic communication therefore the scope is vague.
The limitation “obtaining data concerning the multiple proxy devices”, is overly broad and fails to provide objective boundaries regarding the nature of require data. The limitation needs to clarify what characteristics of the proxy devices must be represented by the data.
The limitations “score” needs to explain how the score is evaluated and “a set of rules” is indefinite because claim provides no limitation regarding the content structure, source or criteria of the rules used to compute the score. As drafted unlimited number of rule sets could satisfy the claim language, rendering the scope uncertain.
The limitation “to download the content from a specific web server of the multiple web servers” is ambiguous because the claim does not explain how the specific web server is identified or selected. The relationship therefore among the selected server device, the selected proxy device and the specific web server is therefore unclear.
The limitation “updating a score of a proxy device, in response to an event” lacks antecedent basis and fails to identify what event triggers the updating operation. Additionally the limitation a characteristic of the proxy device” is vague and indefinite because it does not identify which characteristic is being referenced or provide objective boundaries for determining characteristic.
The limitation “Optimize the performance” How? One doesn’t know how the applicants plans to optimize as it is a relative phrase lacking standard for determining when performance is optimized. Also, the phrase “same sort” is vague and indefinite because it fails to specify what characteristics are used to determine whether requests are of same sort lacks antecedent basis and fails to identify what event triggers the updating operation. Additionally the limitation a characteristic of the proxy device” is vague and indefinite because it does not identify which characteristic is being referenced or provide objective boundaries for determining characteristic. Finally the phrase, “fast speeds” is another relative term because we don’t know how to quantify the fast speeds and is without metes and bounds.
In claim 3, The limitation “address specified by the requesting client device”. It is unclear whether the address refers to IP address, MAC address, URL, email address or physical address? Appropriate clarification is required.
In claim 13, The limitation “any requesting client device” is indefinite beause does it mean every device or any authorized device, or any internet connected device? The scope of availability requirement is uncertain.
In claim 16, The limitation “the requesting client device, the specific proxy device, or each one…comprises a mobile device” It is unclear whether only the requesting client device is mobile, only the selected proxy device is mobile or all proxy devices are mobile, or any one of these alternatives satisfies the claim.
In claim 22, The limitation “comprises is integrated with” is facially defective because PHOSITA cannot determine whether the claim intends comprises, is integrated with or comprises and integrated with. Appropriate corrections are needed.
In claim 23, The limitation “wearable on an organ of a person head” lacks what organs its referring to ear, eye, nose, face, scalp or brain it self.?
In claim 24, The limitation “substantially similar to” is another use of relative terminology without objective boundaries. A PHOSITA cannot determine how similar is sufficient.
In claim 25, The limitation “be part of, a clothing piece of a person” leaves a gap in structural relationship because it could mean sewn into, attached to, packaged with, integrated into etc. Claim has no objective boundary and are required to clarify this claim language.
Dependent claims 2-50 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
There is no prior art rejection for the claims 1-50 as the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as invention. The claims are replete with ambiguous language, unclear action relationships, undefined functional interactions, and internally inconsistent decision logic, undefined functional interactions such that metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. By way of example the claim fails to clearly identify which component performs several recited operation fail to define fails to explain how rules are selected and applied, and lack employing result-oriented language without sufficient accompanying structure. Consequently, the scope of the claimed invention cannot be reasonably ascertained. Because the claim language is insufficiently clear to permit a meaningful comparison with the prior art, no prior art rejection under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103 is applied at this time. Consideration of the patentability over the prior art is deferred pending amendments of the claims to clearly define the invention in a meaningful way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP §
714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added).
"The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
The examiner also requests, when responding to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFTAB N. KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/AFTAB N. KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights