DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 04/29/2025, is a Continuation of 18/371349, filed 09/21/2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,323,497.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,497. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,323,497
1. A method of operating a proxy infrastructure, comprising: receiving, at one of a plurality of proxy service agents (Proxy-SAs) within a proxy infrastructure, a proxy protocol request from a client computing device, the proxy protocol request specifying a target and a geographic location for a request to the target to originate from, wherein the geographic location is specified by geographical coordinates; identifying a pool of Proxy-Internet-Capable-Devices-with-Assigned-Public-IP-Address (Proxy-ICDAPIAs) based on the geographic location, each of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs comprising a proxy server assigned with a public Internet Protocol address; identifying a selected Proxy-ICDAPIA within the pool of Proxy-ICDAPIAs based on: (1) randomly choosing the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA; or (2) referencing a throughput metric or quality of service metric of the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA;
and connecting with the target through the selected one of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs such that the connection appears to the target to originate from the specified geographic location.
1. A method of operating a proxy infrastructure, comprising: (a) establishing communication between the proxy infrastructure and a plurality of Proxy-Internet-Capable-Devices-with-Assigned-Public-IP-Address (Proxy-ICDAPIAs), each of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs comprising a proxy server assigned with a public Internet Protocol address, the proxy infrastructure comprising a plurality of proxy service agents (Proxy-SAs); (b) receiving, at one of the plurality of Proxy-SAs, a proxy protocol request directly from a client computing device, the proxy protocol request specifying a target and a geographic location for a request to the target to originate from, wherein the geographic location is specified by geographical coordinates; in response to the proxy protocol request received in (b): (c) based on the specified geographic location, selecting one of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs and ignoring a Proxy-ICDAPIA of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs when the geographical coordinates of the ignored Proxy-ICDAPIA are inside a defined exclusion radius R2 with respect to central point coordinates X,Y and accuracy radius R for the client computing device originating the proxy protocol request, wherein the defined exclusion radius R2 is in a range from 0 to 100 miles and is at least 5 miles lower than the accuracy radius R; and (d) connecting with the target through the selected one of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs such that the connection appears to the target to originate from the specified geographic location.
---
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “units configured to” as recited in claims 15-20.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shribman et al. (2021/0133272).
As per claim 1, Shribman et al. teaches a method of operating a proxy infrastructure, comprising: receiving, at one of a plurality of proxy service agents (Proxy-SAs) within a proxy infrastructure, a proxy protocol request from a client computing device, the proxy protocol request specifying a target and a geographic location for a request to the target to originate from, wherein the geographic location is specified by geographical coordinates [paragraphs 0713-0720];
identifying a pool of Proxy-Internet-Capable-Devices-with-Assigned-Public-IP-Address (Proxy-ICDAPIAs) based on the geographic location, each of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs comprising a proxy server assigned with a public Internet Protocol address [paragraphs 0485-0488];
identifying a selected Proxy-ICDAPIA within the pool of Proxy-ICDAPIAs based on: (1) randomly choosing the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA; or (2) referencing a throughput metric or quality of service metric of the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA [paragraphs 0760-0762]; and
connecting with the target through the selected one of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs such that the connection appears to the target to originate from the specified geographic location [paragraphs 0725-0729].
As per claim 2, Shribman et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the proxy protocol request further comprises authorization credentials, the method further comprising validating the authentication credentials [paragraph 0025].
As per claim 3, Shribman et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the client computing device, a session identifier (ID) associated with the connection with the selected one of the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs [paragraph 0035].
As per claim 5, Shribman et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the proxy protocol request further comprises a first radius and a second radius smaller than the first radius, wherein Proxy-ICDAPIAs within a geographic area between the geographical coordinates and second radius are ignored [paragraph 0118].
As per claim 6, Shribman et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: forwarding, by the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA, a data request to the target, wherein the data request appears to the target to originate from the specified geographic location; receiving, by the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA, the requested data from the target; and forwarding, by the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA, the requested data to the client computing device [paragraphs 0124-0125].
As per claim 7, Shribman et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA is a last link in a chain of proxy servers [paragraph 0128].
As per claim 15, Shribman et al. teaches a system for operating a proxy infrastructure, comprising: a plurality of Proxy-Service-Agent (Proxy-SA) units, each Proxy-Service-Agent unit of the plurality of Proxy-SA units configured to receive a proxy protocol request directly from a client computing device, the proxy protocol request specifying a target and a geographic location for a request to the target to originate from, wherein the geographic location is specified by geographical coordinates [paragraphs 0713-0720];
a plurality of Proxy-Internet-Capable-Devices-with-Assigned-Public-IP-Address (Proxy-ICDAPIAs) of the proxy infrastructure, wherein each of the plurality of the Proxy-ICDAPIAs is assigned to a pool based on a geographic location [paragraphs 0485-0488];
wherein each Proxy-SA unit is configured to connect and to handle a connection to the plurality of Proxy-ICDAPIAs,
wherein a Proxy-SA unit is configured to: in response to the proxy protocol request, select a pool of Proxy-ICDAPIAs based on the geographic location in the proxy protocol request [paragraphs 760-0762];
identify a selected Proxy-ICDAPIA within the pool of Proxy-ICDAPIAs based on: (1) randomly choosing the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA; or (2) referencing a throughput metric or quality of service metric of the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA [paragraphs 0489-0490]; and
connect the client computing device to the selected Proxy-ICDAPIA [paragraphs 0725-0729].
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights