Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application 19/179,247 filed on April 15, 2025. Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 17, 19, 20, 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “wherein the receiving of the request comprises receiving the request from a client device”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “wherein the receiving of the request comprises receiving the request from the client device”.
Claim 17 recites “storing, by the client device in response to the receiving, the received web-page, so that the client device is configured to provide the received web-page without accessing a web server”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “storing, by the client device in response to the receiving, the received content, so that the client device is configured to provide the received content without accessing a web server”.
Claims 19, 20, 22 recite a plurality of phrases: “according to, or based on”; “based on, is according to, or uses”; “based on, or according to”; and “during, as part of, or”. Thus, these phrases are awkwardly worded and could be simplified to avoid ambiguity.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-29 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claim 1 anticipates the limitations of the examined claims 1, 29 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claim teaches substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “server device” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “first server” in the patent claim. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2-28 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 2-28 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 29
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium is part of a server device.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium for use with a group of communication devices, each of the communication device stores and executes a respective Internet browser, each of the communication devices is identified in the Internet using a respective Internet Protocol (IP) address, and each of the communication devices communicates over the Internet via a wireless network, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
periodically receiving, from each of the communication devices in the group over the Internet, a respective message associated with an availability status of the respective communication device;
storing, the respective received availability status and the respective IP address of each of the communication devices in the group, in response to the receiving of the respective message;
receiving, over the Internet, a request for content that comprises audio or video content;
selecting, a communication device from the group based on the associated stored availability status;
sending, to the selected communication device over the Internet, the request; and
receiving, from the selected communication device over the Internet, the requested content, in response to the sent request.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a group of communication devices, each of the communication devices is identified in the Internet using a respective Internet Protocol (IP) address, the method comprising:
periodically receiving, by a first server from each of the communication devices in the group over the Internet, a respective message associated with an availability status of the respective communication device;
storing, at the first server, the respective received availability status and the respective IP address of each of the communication devices in the group, in response to the receiving of the respective message;
receiving, by the first server over the Internet, a request for content that comprises audio or video content;
selecting, by the first server, a communication device from the group based on the associated stored availability status;
sending, by the first server to the selected communication device over the Internet, the request; and
receiving, by the first server from the selected communication device over the Internet, the requested content, in response to the sent request.
Claims 1-11, 13-28 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23, 25-28 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 2, 3 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1, 2, 3 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 4-11, 13-28 recites limitations similar to those of the patent claims 4-23, 25-28 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 3
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 2, wherein the content is a web page that is stored in a web server, wherein the content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the request comprises a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request.
Examined claim 2
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the content is identified by a content identifier, and wherein the request comprises the content identifier.
Examined claim 1
Anon-transitory computer readable medium for use with a group of communication devices, each of the communication device stores and executes a respective Internet browser, each of the communication devices is identified in the Internet using a respective Internet Protocol (IP) address, and each of the communication devices communicates over the Internet via a wireless network, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
periodically receiving, from each of the communication devices in the group over the Internet, a respective message associated with an availability status of the respective communication device;
storing, the respective received availability status and the respective IP address of each of the communication devices in the group, in response to the receiving of the respective message;
receiving, over the Internet, a request for content that comprises audio or video content;
selecting, a communication device from the group based on the associated stored availability status;
sending, to the selected communication device over the Internet, the request; and
receiving, from the selected communication device over the Internet, the requested content, in response to the sent request.
Patent claim 3
The method according to claim 2, further comprising receiving, by the first server from the selected communication device, a web-page that is identified by the URL, in response to the sending of the HTTP request by the first server to the selected communication device.
Patent claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving by the first server of the HTTP request comprises receiving the HTTP request from a client device
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a group of communication devices, each of the communication devices is identified in the Internet using a respective Internet Protocol (IP) address, the method comprising:
periodically receiving, by a first server from each of the communication devices in the group, a respective message associated with an availability status of the respective communication device;
storing, the first server, the respective received availability status and the respective IP address of each of the communication devices in the group, in response to the receiving of the respective message;
receiving, by the first server, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL);
selecting, by the first server, a communication device from the group based on the associated stored availability status; and
sending, by the first server to the selected communication device, the HTTP request.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see PTO-892).
US 2009/0248793 issued to Jacobsson et al., teaches providing content in a network.
US 2006/0212584 issued to Yu et al., teaches accelerating downloading and displaying of web page content in a peer-to-peer network.
US 8,577,724 issued to Gandhi et al., teaches serving requests by selectively using a plurality of response providers.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4242. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571)272-4170. 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.
/MINH CHAU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights