DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 04/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 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); 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 §§ 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,652,890 (US 11652890 B1, hereinafter “Patent 1”), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,742 (US 11936742 B2, hereinafter “Patent 2”), and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,628 (US 12294628 B2, hereinafter “Patent 3”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Patent 1 (US 11652890 B1), Patent 2 (11936742 B2), and Patent 3 (12294628 B2) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-18 of Patent 1 (US 11652890 B1), claims 1-20 of Patent 2 (11936742 B2), and claims 1-20 of Patent 3 (12294628 B2).
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 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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fallows (US 9462089 B1, hereinafter “Fallows”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17), Fallows discloses:
A method for establishing communications between proxy servers, the method comprising:
establishing, by a proxy supernode, a network connection to an exit proxy, wherein the proxy supernode and exit proxy are within a service provider infrastructure (WebSocket gateway establishing connection with client, edge gateway, and server, Fallows: Col. 3 lines 56-67, Col. 4 lines 1-61);
receiving, by the proxy supernode, a request from the exit proxy to upgrade the network connection between the proxy supernode and the exit proxy, wherein the request includes identification of a WebSocket protocol (receiving upgrade request including specification of supported subprotocols for upgrading HTTP/HTTPS connection to WebSocket connection, Fallows: Col. 8 lines 44-67, Col. 9 lines 1-13); and
in response to the request, returning, by the proxy supernode, a response code to the exit proxy, wherein the response code establishes a WebSocket communication channel between the proxy supernode and exit proxy (sending response including selected WebSocket connection options and upgrading HTTP/HTTPS connection to WebSocket connection based on upgrade request, Fallows: Col. 11 lines 5-31, Col. 16 lines 12-26).
Regarding claim 2, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fallows further discloses:
wherein the response code is an HTTP 101 switching protocol response code (HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocol response, Fallows: Col. 11 lines 5-31).
Regarding claim 3, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fallows further discloses:
wherein the request to upgrade the network connection comprises a GET request (upgrade request including GET request, Fallows: Col. 10 lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 4, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fallows further discloses:
receiving, by the proxy supernode, a data request originating from a client device, wherein the data request includes a URL of a target server (receiving from client application data including location addresses associated with data source and destination, Fallows: Col. 22 lines 36-67, Col. 23 lines 1-18);
generating, by the proxy supernode, a WebSocket message including the data request (encoding data into WebSocket message, Fallows: Col. 23 lines 19-46); and
transmitting, by the proxy supernode via the WebSocket communication channel, the WebSocket message to the exit node (sending WebSocket message via WebSocket connection channel, Fallows: Col. 23 lines 19-46).
Regarding claim 5, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Fallows further discloses:
receiving, by the proxy supernode via the WebSocket communication channel, a second WebSocket message from the exit node, wherein the second WebSocket message includes content from the target server (receiving WebSocket message via WebSocket connection channel, Fallows: Col. 22 lines 36-67, Col. 23 lines 1-46); and
forwarding, by the proxy supernode, the second WebSocket message to a proxy gateway in connection with the client device (forwarding WebSocket message via WebSocket connection channel, Fallows: Col. 22 lines 36-67, Col. 23 lines 1-46).
Regarding claim 6, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Fallows further discloses:
receiving, by the proxy supernode via the WebSocket communication channel, metadata from the exit proxy comprising at least one of: an operating system configuration, a battery level, a network type, a unique identifier (ID), an internet protocol (IP) address, or a geolocation (receiving data including identifiers and IP addresses via WebSocket connection, Fallows: Col. 22 lines 36-67, Col. 23 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 7, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Fallows further discloses:
wherein the proxy supernode transmits the WebSocket message to the exit node based on the metadata (sending WebSocket message based on data, Fallows: Col. 23 lines 19-46).
Regarding claim 8, Fallows teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fallows further discloses:
wherein the WebSocket communication channel is configured to support bidirectional and full-duplex communication between the proxy supernode and the exit proxy (establishing bi-directional, full-duplex WebSocket connection communication channel, Fallows: Col. 2 lines 47-51, Col. 3 lines 56-67, Col. 4 lines 1-61, Col. 16 lines 12-26).
Regarding claims 10-16 and 18-20, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-8. Therefore, claims 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Fallows (US 9723069 B1: Redistributing a Connection), Bouazizi (US 2015/0271233 A1: Method and Apparatus for Dash Streaming Using HTTP Streaming), Dice et al. (US 2020/0099961 A1: Networked Video Management System), Kubota (US 2017/0064003 A1: Session Control Method and Computer-Readable Storage Medium Storing Computer Program), Deshpande (US 2019/0069028 A1: Event Registration and Notification), and Surtani et al. (US 2012/0246190 A1: System and Method for Performing Object Relational Mapping for a Data Grid).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights