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 19/269,725 filed on July 15, 2025. Claims 1-28, 31 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “sending, to the first server over the Internet…”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “sending, to the first server over an Internet…”.
Claim 8 recites “the geographical location of the plurality of client devices…”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “a geographical location of the plurality of client devices…”.
Claim 9 recites “the second client device is the quickest…”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “the second client device is a quickest…”.
Claim 15 recites “the determining is based on the received HTTP header according to, or based on, IETF RFC 2616”; the phrase “according to, or based on” is awkwardly worded and could be simplified to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 19 recites “cause the processor to perform the sending of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request…”, the Examiner suggests to amend as “cause the processor to perform the sending of a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request…”.
Claim 21 recites “the first or second server…that communicates over the Internet based on, or according to, using TCP/IP protocol or connection…client that communicates respectively…based on, or according to, TCP/IP protocol or connection”; the phrase “based on, or according to, using” and “based on, or according to” is awkwardly worded and could be simplified to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 23 recites “and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application”, this limitation is redundant of the limitation already recited in claim 11 and may be considered unnecessary repetition.
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2 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 2 recites the limitations "wherein the method further comprising sending, by the first client device…, a first message to the second server, and wherein the first messages comprise the first IP address, the MAC address, or the hostname”". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, because: it first says “a first message” (singular) then refers to “the first messages” (plural); and it refers to “the first IP address” even though no “first IP address” was introduced earlier in the claim (claim 1 also did not recite an IP address).
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 1-5, 14-22, 24, 26, 28 (hereafter “examined claim”) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-13, 15-20 (hereafter “copending claim”) of copending Application No. 19/274,541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the copending claim 1 teaches the limitations of the examined claims 1, 19, 20 (see claims comparison table below). The copending claims teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first client device”, “second server”, “first server”, “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “first device” [i.e. the first device comprises a consumer communication device], “first server”, “first web server”, “first URL” in the copending claims (see claims comparison table below). Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2-5, 14-18, 21-22, 24, 26, 28 recite limitations similar to those of the copending claims 2, 5-7, 10-13, 15-20 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 20
The method according to claim 19, wherein the software application is downloaded from the second server.
Examined claim 19
The method according to claim 1, for use with a software application that includes computer instructions that, when executed by a computer processor, cause the processor to perform the sending of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request, the receiving and storing of the first content, the receiving of the first content identifier, and the sending of the part of, or the whole of, the stored first content, the method is further preceded by:
downloading, by the first client device from the Internet, the software application; and
installing, by the first client device, the downloaded software application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Copending claim 1
A method for use with a first web server that stores a first content that comprises a first web-page or a part thereof and that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the method comprising:
downloading, by a first device from a first server over the Internet, a first software application;
executing, by a first device, the first software application;
receiving, by the first device from the first server over the Internet, the first URL;
sending, by the first device to the first web server over the Internet, a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the received first URL;
receiving, by the first device from the first web server over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first HTTP request, the first content; and
sending, by the first device to the first server over the Internet, the received first content,
wherein the first server comprises a commercial server,
wherein the first device comprises a consumer communication device, and
wherein the first content comprises an audio data, a video data, or any combination thereof.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-22, 24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-11, 16-25 (hereafter “copending claim”) of copending Application No. 19/274,540 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the copending claim 1 teaches the limitations of the examined claims 1, 26 (see claims comparison table below). The copending claims teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first client device”, “second server”, “first server”, “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “communication device” [i.e. the first device comprises a consumer communication device], “first server”, “web server”, “first URL” in the copending claims (see claims comparison table below). Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of application 19/274,540 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-22, 24, 27 recite limitations similar to those of the copending claims 6-11, 16-25 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 26
The method according to claim 1, further comprising storing, operating, or using, a client operating system.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Copending claim 1
A method for use with a web server that stores a first content that comprises a first web-page or a part thereof identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and that stores a second content that comprises a second web-page or a part thereof identified by a second URL, and for use with a communication device that comprises a wireless modem for over- the-air Radio-Frequency (RF) communication, the method comprising:
storing, operating, or using, by the communication device, a client operating system;
receiving, over the Internet by the communication device from a first server via the RF communication using the wireless modem, the first URL;
sending, over the Internet by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem, a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the received first URL to the web server;
receiving, over the Internet by the communication device from the web server via the RF communication using the wireless modem, the first content, in response to the sent first HTTP request;
sending, over the Internet by the communication device to the first server via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the received first content;
receiving, over the Internet by the communication device from the first server via the RF communication using the wireless modem, the second URL;
sending, by the communication device via the over- the-air RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, a second HTTP request that comprises the received second URL to the web server;
receiving, by the communication device from the web server via the over-the-air RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the second content, in response to the sent second HTTP request; and
sending, over the Internet by the communication device to the first server via the over-the-air RF communication using the wireless modem, the received second content,
wherein the communication device comprises, or is part of, a consumer computer device.
Claims 1-28 (hereafter “examined claim”) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 (hereafter “copending claim”) of copending Application No. 19/269,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the copending claim 1 teaches the limitations of the examined claims 1, 26 (see claims comparison table below). Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2-27 recite limitations similar to those of the copending claims 2-27 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 28
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first client device comprises a communication device, and wherein the second server is not a client device.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Copending claim 28
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and wherein the second server comprises a commercially-operated device.
Copending claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that responds to HTTP requests, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a communication device, and
wherein the second server is not a client device.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-19, 21-24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-21 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,401 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). 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, 23 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first client device”, “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], “second server”, and “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “first device” [as both refer to a consumer or communication device], “first web server”, “first server”, and “first URL” in the patent claims. Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 12,301,401 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-19, 21-22, 24, 26-27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 3-5, 8-11, 13-21 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 2
The method according to claim 1, for use with a first server that is not a client device, wherein the receiving of the first URL comprises receiving of the first URL from the first server, wherein the receiving of the second URL comprises receiving of the second URL from the first server, wherein the sending of the received first content comprises sending of the received first content to the first server, and wherein the sending of the received second content comprises sending of the received second content to the first server.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first web server that stores a first content that comprises a first web-page or a part thereof and that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and for use with a second web server that stores a second content that comprises a second web-page or a part thereof and that is identified by a second URL, the method comprising:
executing, by a first device, a web browser application;
receiving, by the first device over the Internet, the first URL;
sending, by the first device by using the web browser application to the first web server over the Internet, a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the received first URL;
receiving, by the first device from the first web server over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first request, the first content;
sending, by the first device over the Internet, the received first content;
receiving, by the first device over the Internet, the second URL;
sending, by the first device by using the web browser application to the second web server over the Internet, a second Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the received second URL;
receiving, by the first device from the second web server over the Internet, in response to the sending of the second request, the second content; and
sending, by the first device over the Internet, the received second content,
wherein the first device comprises a consumer communication device, and
wherein the first or second content comprises an audio data, a video data, or any combination thereof.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 25 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,372 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). 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, 23 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first client device” [comprises a communication device], “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], “second server”, and “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “communication device”, “first web server”, “third server”, and “first URL” in the patent claims. Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and wherein the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides consumers and a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 12,101,372 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-24, 26-27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 3-4, 6-17, 19-20, 25 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 2
The method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem over an Internet from a third server, the first or second URL.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first server that comprises a web server that stores a first web-page that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), for use with a second server that comprises a second web server that stores a second web-page that is identified by a second Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and for use with a communication device that comprises a wireless modem for Radio-Frequency (RF) communication, the method comprising:
sending, by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem over an Internet, a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first URL to the first web server;
receiving, by the communication device from the first web server via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the first web-page, in response to the sent HTTP request;
sending, by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the received first web-page over the Internet;
sending, by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, a second Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the second URL to the second web server;
receiving, by the communication device from the second web server via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the second web-page, in response to the sent HTTP request; and
sending, by the communication device via the RF communication using the wireless modem over the Internet, the received second web-page over the Internet,
wherein the communication device comprises, or is part of, a router device.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 21-24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10, 12-15, 17-18, 21, 24 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,841 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claim 1 teaches substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims 1, 23; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], “second server”, and “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “first web server”, “first server”, and “first URL” in the patent claim (see claims comparison table below). Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and wherein the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides consumers and a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 12,095,841 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 2-6, 10, 12-15, 17-18, 21, 24 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first web server that is configured to respond to Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and is storing a first web-page that is identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the method comprising:
executing, by a first client device, a web browser application;
periodically sending, by the first client device to a first server that is not the first web server over the Internet, a first message associated with a status or an availability of the first client device;
sending, by the first client device to the first web server over an Internet, a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first URL;
receiving, by the first client device from the first web server over the Internet, in response to the HTTP request, the first web-page; and
sending, by the first client device to the first server over the Internet, the received first web-page.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20, 23 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,567 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 16 anticipate the limitations of the examined claims 1, 23 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claims teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], “second server”, and “first content identifier” in the examined claims corresponds to the “first web server”, “first server”, and “first URL” in the patent claims. Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. the server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 12,003,567 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-22, 24, 26-27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 2-5, 7-14, 17-20, 23 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 16
The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second web servers responds to respective Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests, and wherein the sending of the first or second URL to the respective first or second web server over the Internet comprises sending a respective Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the respective first or second URL.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first web server that stores a first content identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and for use with a second web server that stores a second content identified by a second URL, the method comprising:
executing, by a first client device, a web browser application;
receiving, by the first client device from a first server over the Internet, the first URL;
sending, by the web browser application in the first client device to the first web server over the Internet, the received first URL;
receiving, by the first client device from the first web server over the Internet, in response to the sending of the first URL, the first content;
sending, by the first client device to the first server over the Internet, in response to the receiving of the first URL, the received first content;
receiving, by the first client device from the first server over the Internet, the second URL;
sending, by the web browser application in the first client device to the second web server over the Internet, the received second URL;
receiving, by the first client device from the second web server over the Internet, in response to the sending of the second URL, the second content; and
sending, by the first client device to the first server over the Internet, the received second content,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer communication device.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-24, 27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19, 23 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,671,476 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 16 teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims 1, 23; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], and “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “first web server”, and “first URL” in the patent claims (see claims comparison table below). Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and wherein the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides consumers and a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 11,671,476 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-22, 24, 27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 2-5, 7-14, 17-19, 23 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 16
The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second web servers responds to respective Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests, and wherein the sending of the first or second URL to the respective first or second web server over the Internet comprises sending a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the respective first or second URL.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a first web server that stores a first web-page identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and for use with a second web server that stores a second web- page identified by a second URL, the method by a first client device comprising:
storing, operating, or using, a client operating system;
receiving, from a second server, the first URL;
sending, to the first web server over the Internet, the first URL;
receiving, the first web-page from the first web server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first URL;
sending the received first web-page to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first URL;
receiving, from the second server, the second URL;
sending, to the second web server over the Internet, the second URL;
receiving, the second web-page from the second web server over the Internet in response to the sending of the second URL; and
sending the received second web-page, in response to the receiving of the second URL.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-24, 26-27 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-20, 22-23 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,344 in view of US 2008/0028022 issued to Nakagawa et al. (Nakagawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claims 1, 16 teach substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claims 1, 23; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first server” [i.e. the first server that comprises a web server], and “first content identifier” in the examined claims that corresponds to the “web server”, and “first URL” in the patent claims (see claims comparison table below). Thus, the copending claim teaches the examined claims except for the limitation “wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and wherein the second server comprises a commercial device” which are taught by Nakagawa [i.e. an enterprise manufacturing and selling computers provides consumers and a server comprises a web site of sale agency (Nakagawa, 0002-0003, 0022)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claims invention to include the features of Nakagawa with the teachings of patent 11,044,344 in order to provide method and system for supporting responding to inquiries regarding digital content.
The examined claims 2-5, 12, 14-22, 24, 26-27 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 2-5, 8-14, 17-20, 22-23 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 23
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first content comprises web-page, audio, or video content, wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the method further comprising executing, by the first client device, a web browser application or an email application.
Examined claim 1
A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server, the first server stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device comprising:
receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
sending, to the first server over the Internet, a request that comprises the first content identifier;
receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,
wherein the first client device comprises a consumer device, and
wherein the second server comprises a commercial device.
Patent claim 16
The method according to claim 1, wherein the web server responds to Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and wherein the sending of the first URL to the web server over the Internet comprises sending a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first URL.
Patent claim 1
A method for use with a web server that stores a first web-page identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the method by a first client device comprising:
communicating with a second server;
receiving, from the second server, the first URL;
sending, to the web server over the Internet, the first URL;
receiving, the first web-page from the web server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first URL; and
sending the received first web-page to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first URL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-28, 31 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