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 19/179,272 filed on April 15, 2025. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15-18, 21-22, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “receiving, from the server over the Internet, the first request, in response to the sending of the first request, to the first device over the Internet; sending, by the first device to the server over the Internet…; receiving, by the first device from the server over the Internet…”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “receiving, from the server over the Internet, the first request, in response to the sending of the first request, to the first consumer communication device over the Internet; sending, by the first consumer communication device to the server over the Internet…; receiving, by the first consumer communication device from the server over the Internet…”.
Claims 15-18, 21-22 and 25 recite a plurality of phrases: “according to, or based on”; “based on, or comprises”; “based on, according to, or using”; and “based on, or according to”. Thus, these phrases are awkwardly worded and could be simplified to avoid ambiguity.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 19 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, for use with a software application stored in the first server and associated with a first version number…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first server” in the claim.
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 1-25 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23, 25-26 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1-2 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1-2 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “respective consumer communication device”, “first consumer communication device” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “respective client device”, “first client” in the patent claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 3-25 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 3-23, 25-26 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 2
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises an audio or a video data.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
storing, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective consumer communication device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, a first request;
selecting, in response to the identifying of the first request, an IP address from the group;
sending, over the Internet to a first consumer communication device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, from the first consumer communication device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 1
A method comprising:
storing, by a first server, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective client device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, by the first server, a first request;
selecting, by the first server, in response to the identifying of the first request, an address from the group;
sending, by the first server over the Internet to a first client device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, by the first server from the first client device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, by the first server to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content comprises an audio or a video data.
Claims 1, 15, 17, 24 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,924,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 11 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1, 15, 17 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “respective consumer communication device”, “first consumer communication device”, “first content identifier”, “geographical location” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “client device”, “first client device”, “first URL” [i.e. the URL is considered as content identifier], “first country” [i.e. country is considered as geographical location] in the patent claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claim 24 recites limitations similar to those of the patent claim 7 and is therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 17
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the criterion is based on, or comprises, a geographical location of the first consumer communication device addressed by the selected IP address.
Examined claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, for use with a criterion, wherein the selecting is according to, or based on, the criterion.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
storing, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective consumer communication device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, a first request;
selecting, in response to the identifying of the first request, an IP address from the group;
sending, over the Internet to a first consumer communication device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, from the first consumer communication device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 11
The method according to claim 8, further comprising sending, by the first server to the requesting client device over the Internet, the received first or second content.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first content that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and that is stored in a web server, for use with a second content that is identified by a second URL and that is stored in the web server, for use with a first server that is not a client device, and for use with a group of client devices, wherein each of the client devices in the group is addressable in the Internet using a respective Internet Protocol (IP) address, and wherein each of the client devices in the group in associated with a country, the method comprising:
storing, by a first server, the IP addresses and the respective countries of the client devices in the group;
selecting, by the first server, a first IP address of a first client device from the group that is associated with a first country;
sending, by the first server over the Internet to the web server via the selected first client device, the first URL;
receiving, by the first server over the Internet from the web server via the selected first client device, the first content, in response to the sending of the first URL;
selecting, by the first server, a second IP address of a second client device from the group that is associated with a second country;
sending, by the first server over the Internet to the web server via the selected second client device, the second URL; and
receiving, by the first server over the Internet from the web server via the selected second client device, the second content, in response to the sending of the second URL,
wherein the first content comprises a first web page or a part thereof, and wherein the second content comprises a second web page or a part thereof.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 15, 17 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 3 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1, 15, 17 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “respective consumer communication device”, “first consumer communication device”, “first content identifier”, “geographical location” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “client device”, “first client device”, “first URL” [i.e. the URL is considered as content identifier], “respective physical geographical location” in the patent claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 6, 8 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 5, 7 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 17
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the criterion is based on, or comprises, a geographical location of the first consumer communication device addressed by the selected IP address.
Examined claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, for use with a criterion, wherein the selecting is according to, or based on, the criterion.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
storing, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective consumer communication device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, a first request;
selecting, in response to the identifying of the first request, an IP address from the group;
sending, over the Internet to a first consumer communication device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, from the first consumer communication device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 3
The method according to claim 1, further comprising sending, by the first server to the selected first client device over the Internet, the first URL, in response to the selecting of the first client device, and wherein the receiving of the first content from the selected first client device is in response to the sending of the first URL.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a group of client devices that are each identified in the Internet using a respective IP address and that are each associated with a respective physical geographical location that comprises a country, a city, a street, a ZIP code, a longitude, a latitude, or any combination thereof, the method comprising:
storing, by a first server, the respective physical geographical location of each one of the client devices in the group;
receiving, by the first server from a first device over the Internet, a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL);
selecting, by the first server, in response to the receiving of the first URL, a first client device from the group, based on the respective physical geographical location of the first client device;
receiving, by the first server from the selected first client device over the Internet, a first content;
sending, by the first server to the first device over the Internet, the first content;
receiving, by the first server from the first device over the Internet, a second URL;
selecting, by the first server, in response to the receiving of the second URL, a second client device from the group, based on the respective physical geographical location of the second client device;
receiving, by the first server from the selected second client device over the Internet, a second content; and
sending, by the first server to the first device over the Internet, the second content, wherein the first server is not a client device.
Claims 1-2, 12-18, 21, 23, 25 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8-10, 14-15, 19-22, 24 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,089,135. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 4 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1, 15 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “respective consumer communication device”, “first consumer communication device”, “second device” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “client device”, “second client device”, “first client device” in the patent claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2, 12-14, 16-18, 21, 23, 25 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 8-10, 14-15, 19-22, 24 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 15
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, for use with a criterion, wherein the selecting is according to, or based on, the criterion.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
storing, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective consumer communication device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, a first request;
selecting, in response to the identifying of the first request, an IP address from the group;
sending, over the Internet to a first consumer communication device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, from the first consumer communication device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 4
The method according to claim 1, further comprising sending, by the first server to the first client device, the received first content, or a part thereof.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a web server that stores a first content identified by a first content identifier where the first content identifier comprises, or consists of, a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), for use with a first client device, and for use with a plurality of client devices, each identified over the Internet using a respective IP address, and for use with a first server that stores a list of the IP addresses of the client devices of the plurality of client devices, each of the client devices is operative to communicate over the Internet with the first server, the method by the first server comprising:
selecting a second client device from the plurality of client devices by selecting the IP address of the second client device from the list;
sending, in response to the selecting, the first content identifier to the selected second client device; and
receiving, from the second client device, the first content,
wherein the selecting of the second client device is according to, or based on, a criterion stored in the first server.
Claims 1, 3, 12-17, 19-21, 23, 25 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 16-17, 19-22, 24 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1-2 anticipate the limitations of the examined claim 1 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the similar limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “respective consumer communication device”, “first consumer communication device”, “second device” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “client device”, “second client device”, “first client device” in the patent claims. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 3, 12-17, 19-21, 23, 25 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 3, 5, 10-12, 16-17, 19-22, 24 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of steps comprising:
storing, a group of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective consumer communication device that is currently online and is addressed in the Internet using a respective IP address;
identifying, a first request;
selecting, in response to the identifying of the first request, an IP address from the group;
sending, over the Internet to a first consumer communication device that is addressed by the selected IP address, the first request, in response to the selecting;
receiving, from the first consumer communication device over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, a first content; and
sending, to a second device over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first content is identified by a first content identifier, and wherein the first request comprises the first content identifier.
Patent claim 2
The method according to claim 1, for use with a plurality of client devices that includes the second client device, each identified over the Internet using a respective IP address, wherein the first server stores a list of the IP addresses of the client devices of the plurality of client devices, and wherein the method further comprising:
selecting, by the first server, multiple client devices from the plurality of client devices by selecting the IP addresses of the multiple client devices from the list; and
sending, by the first server, the selected IP addresses in response to the selecting.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first server, for use with a second server that comprises a web server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server responding to HTTP requests and addressed in the Internet using a web server Internet Protocol (IP) address, the second server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with first and second client devices, each of the client devices is operative to communicate over the Internet with the first and second servers, the method by the first server comprising:
receiving, from the first client device, a first message that comprises the web server IP address or the first content identifier;
sending, in response to the receiving of the first message, the first content identifier to the second client device; and
receiving, in response to the sending of the first content identifier, the first content, or a part thereof, from the second client device; and
sending, the received first content, or the part thereof, to the first client device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 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 2010/0042724 issued to Jeon et al., teaches allowing a web server of a contents provider directly provide contents requested by a client located in proximity to the web server.
US 2006/0212584 issued to Yu et al., teaches accelerating downloading and displaying of content in web pages in a peer-to-peer network.
US 2006/0212542 issued to Fang et al., teaches a client downloads content from a peer node in a peer-to-peer network
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