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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 13 recite(s) the limitation "updating VPN server scores". However, there are no VPN servers scores to updates. A previous step that includes generating, assigning, or otherwise including VPN scores to update would address this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20220116273-A1 to Cunningham et al. (“Cunningham”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20220278874-A1 to Gabay et al. (“Gabay”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20080102851-A1 to Bodnar et al. (“Bodnar”).
As to claim 1, Cunningham disclose(s) a method, comprising:
receiving, at a central server, from a user device, a request for a virtual private network server, the request including an intended network usage;
transmitting, to the user device, a list of VPN servers; (Cunningham; file distributed to all client devices; [0026])
receiving, from the user device, network test results comprising network statistics measured between the user device and the VPN servers of the list of VPN servers; (Cunningham; data network performance over time; [0026])
updating VPN server scores for the VPN servers based on the network test results, the intended network usage, and at least one network condition associated with the intended network usage; (Cunningham; data reliability metrics; [0026])
generating an updated list of VPN servers ordered based on the updated VPN server scores; (Cunningham; include new or to remove other VPNs over time depending on the detected performance; [0026])
and transmitting the updated list of VPN servers to the user device. (Cunningham; dynamically updated and distributed by device on network; [0026])
Cunningham does not expressly disclose the request including an intended network usage; (Cunningham discloses selecting a VPN based on client needs; [0015]; but does not specifically disclose intended network usage as a client need)
Gabay the request including an intended network usage. (Gabay; [0032][0033]; context of connection includes game or streaming; i.e. this discloses the intended usage of the connection; request for VPN; [0039])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the context of Gabay and the VPN selection of Cunningham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with VPN connection. Using the context of Gabay would allow for the VPN selection of Cunningham to include factors that are relevant to the session.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cunningham-Gabay does not expressly disclose VPN server scores.
Bodnar discloses updating server scores and ordering list of servers based on scores. (Bodnar; [0022])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the VPN servers of of Cunningham-Gabay and the scores of Bodnar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with network servers. Using the scores of Bodnar would allow for the VPNs of Cunningham-Gabay to be ranked by metrics.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 2, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining an internet service provider associated with the user device; (Cunningham; ISP; [0026])
and adjusting the VPN server scores based on historical connectivity data associated with the ISP. (Cunningham; historical data; [0026]) (See also Bodnar; [0019];[0024])
As to claim 6, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein:
the intended network usage comprises a gaming usage; (Gabay; gaming application; [0025])
and the network statistics comprise latency measurements between the user device and the VPN servers. (Cunningham; latency; [0038])
As to claim 7, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the intended network usage comprises a streaming usage and the network statistics comprise download speed measurements. (Gabay; streaming application; [0033]) (Cunningham; download speed; [0038])
As to claim 8, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the intended network usage comprises a real-time communications usage and the network statistics comprise latency measurements and bandwidth measurements. (Cunningham; latency, bandwidth; [0038])
As to claim 9, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) a system, comprising:
a memory;
and a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receive, at a central server, from a user device, a request for a virtual private network server, the request including an intended network usage;
transmit, to the user device, a list of VPN servers;
receive, from the user device, network test results comprising network statistics measured between the user device and the VPN servers of the list of VPN servers;
update VPN server scores for the VPN servers based on the network test results, the intended network usage, and at least one network condition associated with the intended network usage;
generate an updated list of VPN servers ordered based on the updated VPN server scores;
and transmit the updated list of VPN servers to the user device.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 11, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the network statistics include upload speed measurements and download speed measurements, and the intended network usage comprises an uploading usage or a downloading usage. (Cunningham; download speed; [0038])(Gabay; amount of bandwidth; [0033])
As to claim 13, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a central server, from a user device, a request for a virtual private network server, the request including an intended network usage;
transmitting, to the user device, a list of VPN servers;
receiving, from the user device, network test results comprising network statistics measured between the user device and the VPN servers of the list of VPN servers;
updating VPN server scores for the VPN servers based on the network test results, the intended network usage, and at least one network condition associated with the intended network usage;
generating an updated list of VPN servers ordered based on the updated VPN server scores;
and transmitting the updated list of VPN servers to the user device.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein:
the intended network usage comprises a gaming usage;
and the network statistics comprise latency measurements between the user device and the VPN servers.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 16, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the intended network usage comprises a streaming usage and the network statistics comprise download speed measurements.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 17, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the intended network usage comprises a real-time communications usage and the network statistics comprise the latency measurements and bandwidth measurements.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 18, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the network statistics include upload speed measurements and download speed measurements, and the intended network usage comprises an uploading usage or a downloading usage.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 7.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20210234778-A1 to Bendigeri et al. (“Bendigeri ”).
As to claim 3, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
identifying a geographic location associated with the user device;
and prioritizing VPN servers closer to the geographic location to reduce latency.
Bendigeri discloses identifying a geographic location associated with the user device; (Bendigeri; GPS location; [0055])
and prioritizing VPN servers closer to the geographic location to reduce latency. (Bendigeri; using distance to server to select; [0054])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the VPN servers of Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar and the location and distance of Bendigeri. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with server selection. Using the distance and location of Bendigeri would allow for a server closer to the client to be selected.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
As to claim 4, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
identifying an international Internet exchange hub associated with the user device;
and adjusting the VPN server scores based on proximity to the international Internet exchange hub.
Bendigeri discloses identifying an international Internet exchange hub associated with the user device; (Bendigeri; GPS location; [0055])
and adjusting the VPN server scores based on proximity to the international Internet exchange hub. (Bendigeri; using distance to server to select; [0054])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the VPN servers of Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar and the location and distance of Bendigeri. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with server selection. Using the distance and location of Bendigeri would allow for a server closer to the client to be selected.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable.
As to claim 12, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar-Bendigeri disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the network condition comprises at least one of:
server load, proximity to an international Internet exchange hub, or server creation time.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 19, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar-Bendigeri disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the network condition comprises at least one of:
server load, proximity to an international Internet exchange hub, or server creation time.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20120252457-A1 to Shindo et al. (“Shindo”).
As to claim 5, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
receiving, from the user device, success connectivity data that indicates whether the user device was able to establish a connection with any VPN server from the updated list.
Shindo discloses receiving, from the user device, success connectivity data that indicates whether the user device was able to establish a connection with any VPN server from the updated list. (Shindo; successful connection success rate history; [0126])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the success rate of Shindo and the VPN selection of Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with server selection. Using the history of successful connection of Shindo would allow for selection process to take account historical performance.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
As to claim 10, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar-Shindo disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the VPN server scores are updated further based on at least one of historical connection success rates or real-time server load measurements.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 14, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar-Shindo disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, the operations further comprising:
obtaining an internet service provider associated with the user device;
and adjusting the VPN server scores based on historical connectivity data associated with the ISP.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 20, Cunningham-Gabay-Bodnar-Shindo disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, from the user device, success connectivity data that indicates whether the user device was able to establish a connection with any VPN server from the updated list.
See similar motivation and rejection to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, OSCAR LOUIE can be reached on (571)270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights