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 .
Claims 1-23 have been examined and are rejected.
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 §§ 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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-23 and 29-33 of U.S. Patent No. US 12401618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the U.S. Patent No. US 12401618.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. US 12401618
1 and 11) A method for handling domain collision, comprising: collecting and storing domain data to an indexing database, the domain data found within at least one of the following: blockchain ledgers, traditional DNS data and domain metadata; accessing the indexing database for domain records and domain metadata pertaining to a first web domain and a second web domain; evaluating, using at least one processor, the indexed data, any learned adjustments therein, and preferences; assigning scores to the first web domain and the second web domain based upon the domain records and the domain metadata; using the respective weights and values available that were returned from the indexing database, adjusting for any preferences; and determining the winner of the collision by selecting the highest scoring domain
1) A method for handling domain collision, comprising: collecting, normalizing, and storing disparate domain data to an indexing database, the domain data found within at least one of the following: blockchain ledgers, traditional DNS data and domain registry metadata; accessing the indexing database for domain records and domain metadata pertaining to a first web domain and a second web domain; evaluating, using at least one processor, the indexed data, any learned adjustments therein, and user-defined preferences; assigning scores to the first web domain and the second web domain based upon the domain records and the domain metadata; wherein the domain records and the metadata are chosen from the following: publicly available whois; RDAP lookups; publicly available DNS Zone files; Blockchain records; DNS Lookup results; DNS Abuse feed data; Domain Marketplace data; Search Engine data; Domain status and expiration; Analytics data from use and logging; using the respective weights and values available that were returned from the indexing database, adjusting for any user-defined preferences; and determining the winner of the collision by selecting the highest scoring domain.
2) The method of claim 1, wherein the domain records and the metadata are chosen at least from the following: publicly available whois; RDAP lookups; publicly available DNS Zone files; Blockchain records; DNS Lookup results; DNS Abuse data; Domain Marketplace data; Search Engine data; Domain status and expiration; Analytics data
3) The method of claim 1, wherein information from the indexing database is chosen from the group, where available: domain name, owner address, registration date, domain records contained, expiration date, namespace, blockchain, smart contract to which the domain is connected, TLD of the domain, and event timestamp.
3) The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning scores using the weights and values and a machine-learning model trained on historical conflict resolution data; resolving domain collision through weighted algorithms applied to metadata derived from blockchain and DNS systems; and wherein the first web domain and the second web domain are each of a domain type selected from the group: distributed ledger-based domains, web2 domain
2) The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning scores dynamically using the weights and values and a machine-learning model trained on historical conflict resolution data; resolving domain collision through weighted algorithms applied to metadata derived from blockchain and DNS systems, optimizing for resolution latency and security and the number of collisions occurring; and wherein the first web domain and the second web domain are each of a domain type selected from the group: web3 domain, web2 domain
4) The method of claim 3, wherein distributed ledger-based domains are web3 domains.
7) The method of claim 4, wherein the first web domain and the second web domain are each of a type selected from the following group: a web2 domain, a web3 domain.
5) The method of claim 1, wherein information from the indexing database is domain metadata.
1) …for domain records and domain metadata pertaining to a first web domain and a second web domain; evaluating, using at least one processor, the indexed data, any learned adjustments therein, and user-defined preferences; assigning scores to the first web domain and the second web domain based upon the domain records and the domain metadata
6) The method of claim 5, wherein domain metadata is chosen from the group, where available: domain name, owner address, registration date, domain records contained, expiration date, namespace, blockchain, smart contract to which the domain is connected, TLD of the domain, and event timestamp.
5) The method of claim 2, wherein information from the indexing database is chosen from the group, where available: domain name, owner address, registration date, domain records contained, expiration date, namespace, blockchain, smart contract to which the domain is connected, TLD of the domain, and event timestamp
7) The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing lookup results from the requested domain; and wherein at least one server computer facilitates execution of the method
4) The method of claim 3, further comprising: providing lookup results from the requested domain; and wherein at least one server computer facilitates execution of the method
8) The method of claim 2, wherein information from the indexing database is chosen from the group, where available: domain name, owner address, registration date, domain records contained, expiration date, namespace, blockchain, smart contract to which the domain is connected, TLD of the domain, and event timestamp
5) The method of claim 2, wherein information from the indexing database is chosen from the group, where available: domain name, owner address, registration date, domain records contained, expiration date, namespace, blockchain, smart contract to which the domain is connected, TLD of the domain, and event timestamp
9) The method of claim 2, further comprising: providing lookup results from the requested domain; and wherein at least one server computer facilitates execution of the method
10) The method of claim 2, wherein the first web domain and the second web domain are each of a type selected from the following group: a web2 domain, a blockchain domain
6) The method of claim 2, further comprising: providing lookup results from the requested domain; and wherein at least one server computer facilitates execution of the method.
7) The method of claim 4, wherein the first web domain and the second web domain are each of a type selected from the following group: a web2 domain, a web3 domain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERMON ASRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4257. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/HERMON ASRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights