`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`90/014,624 & 90/014,827
`
`12/04/2020
`
`10484511
`
`HOLA-005-US11-EPR
`
`1012
`
`MayPatents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
`P.O.B 7230
`Ramat-Gan, 5217102
`ISRAEL
`
`SORRELL, ERON J
`
`3992
`
`06/21/2022
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`IPR2022-00135
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1111
`Data Co Exhibit 1111
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`Data Cov. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`

`

`
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`LISTON ABRAMSONLLP
`THE CHRYSLER BUILDING
`
`405 LEXINGTON AVE., 46TH FLOOR
`NEW YORK, NY 10174
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`EXPARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,624 & 90/014,827
`
`PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 10484571 .
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosedis a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the aboveidentified exparfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copyis supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time forfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the exparte reexamination requesterwill be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`i
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`3333 LEE PARKWAY
`SUITE 460
`
`DALLAS, TX 75219
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`EXPARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,8278& 90/014,624
`
`PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 10484571 .
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosedis a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the aboveidentified exparfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copyis supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time forfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the exparte reexamination requesterwill be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465(Rev.07-04)
`
`i
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Office Action in ExParte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/014,624 & 90/014,827
`Examiner
`ERON J SORRELL
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`10484511
`Art Unit]
`3992
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`No
`
`~ The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`
`a.[¥]Responsive to the communication(s)filed on 29 March 2022.
`
`(] A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`.
`
`
`
`b.(¥]This action is made FINAL.
`
`c. (_] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for responseto this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date ofthis letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for responsewill result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an exparte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNEDBY37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part!
`1.
`2.
`
`Part Il
`
`1a.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`(1) Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`3.) Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`4.0)
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 1-30 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`
`OOO0O8#B8HOB Acknowledgmentis madeofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or(f).
`
`10. () Other: U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi
`
`Claims 31-66 have been canceledin the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims 6-8,10,13,15-16,18-19 and 23 are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 1-5,9,11-12,14,17,20-22 and 24-30 are rejected.
`
`Claims __ are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on
`are acceptable.
`The proposed drawingcorrection, filed on
`
`has been (7a)
`
`(] approved (7b)
`
`—((} disapproved.
`
`a) LJ All b)
`
`(] Some* c)
`
`(JNone
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1 () beenreceived.
`
`2 C1) not beenreceived.
`
`3 (J beenfiled in Application No.
`4 (_] beenfiled in reexamination Control No.
`
`5 (_] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`9. (J Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an exparte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Exparfe Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11, 453 0.G. 213.
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`PartofPaperNo.
`
`20220505
`
`Page 1
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Brief Summary of the Proceeding
`
`
`
`A Third Party filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of
`
`
`
`
`claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20-22, and 25-30 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,484,511 to Shribman et al.
`
`(“the ‘511 Patent”), said
`
`
`
`
`
`Request being granted the filing date of December 4, 2020 and
`
`assigned control number 90/014, 624.
`
`
`
`
`The Request raised at least one substantial new question of
`
`patentability and an Order Granting Request for Ex Parte
`
`
`
`
`
`Reexamination was mailed on January 21, 2021
`
`in which it was
`
`determined that claims 1-30 would be subject to reexamination.
`
`
`
`
`A non-final Office action was mailed on May 24, 2021 in
`
`
`
`which claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20-22, and 25-30 were
`
`
`
`rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) and/or 35 USC § 103(a).
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner filed a response to the May 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
` Office action on July 22, 2021. The response included arguments
`
`toward the outstanding rejections and new claims 31-66.
`
`
`
`Another Third Party filed a Request for Ex Parte
`
`
`
`Reexamination of claims 1-5, 9, 14, 17, 20-22, 25, and 27-30 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘511 Patent, said Request being granted a filing date of
`
`
`
`
`
`August 11, 2020 and assigned control number 90/014,827.
`
`The second Request also raised at least one substantial new
`
`
`
`
`
`
`question of patentability and an Order Granting Request for Ex
`
`Parte Reexamination was mailed on September, 2021.
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`
`On November 8, 2021 a Decision Merging Proceedings
`
`90/014,624 and 90/014,827 was mailed.
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 7, 2022 a non-final Office action was mailed in
`
`which 1-5,9,11-12,14,17,20-22, and 24-66 were rejected under 35
`
`
`
`USC § 102(b) and/or 35 USC § 103(a).
`
`
`On March 29, 2022 the Patent Owner filed their response to
`
`
`the February 7, 2022 0
`
` fice action. That response included an
`
`amendment
`
`to the claims canceling claims 31-66 and Remarks
`
`directed toward the outstanding Rejections.
`
`Prior Art Listing
`
`
`The following patents/printed publications were cited in
`
`90/014, 624:
`
`i.
`
`huotonen AY
`i898 {TSBN
`
`"Weo Proxy Servers," Prentice Hall PTR,
` OG) (*Luotonen") ;
`
`3
`
`id. Michael K. Reiter and Avid »D, Rul,
`
`"Srowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions,” ACM
`Transactions on Information and System Security, Vol.
`eited in Se
`iL, No,
`I,
`i
`(November 1998}
`("Crowds")
`(alse
`
`Laid. Wessels et al., RFC 2187, "Application of
`
`Thihernet Cache
`(ICP), version 2”
`Networ k Resea:
`Hiego, September |
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`iv. W.5.
`
`Patent No.
`Pa
`O.,
`
`6,701,374 to Gupta et al,
`0,
`70
`
`("Gupta™};
`
`v.
`
`
`Postal,
`DOT EO.)
`
`Prokocol™, STD &, RFC 791,
`(91, September 19381
`("RRC POL"):
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`"ICP and the
`D, Wesseis and KR. Clatty,
`Web Cache," in TEER dournal om Selec
`in Communications, vol.
`16,
`April
`21998, doi: 10,1106 /49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`;
`;
`
`
`
`vi.
`
`
`
`The Definitive Guide,” ISBN 1a:
`"Squid;
`vil. Wessels,
`9780596001629, TSBN-13: 978-05960016289
`O'tReiliy Media;
`i8t Ed.
`(danuary 1, 2004)
`Book™)
`
`("The Squid
`
`
`The following patents/printed publications were cited in
`
`90/014, 827:
`
`
`vill. U.S. Patent No. 6,389,462 to Cohen et al. which issued
`on May 14, 2002 (“Cohen’);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1X. U.S. Patent No. 6,785,705 to Rocherlakota which issued
`on August 21, 2004 (“Kockerlakota”); and
`
`Network Working Group, Request for Comments
`HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2616).
`
`
`
`
`
`(RFC} 2616
`
`Xx.
`
`information Disclosure Statements}
`
`Disc] osure Statements With respect
`
`
` formation
`to the In
`
`
`
` fi led on March 29, 2022,
`
`
`
`(PTO/SB/O8A and O8B or its equivalent)
`
`
`
`the material has been considered with this action,
`
`the
`
`int
`
`
`
`formation cited thereon has been considered to the extent
`
`suggested in
`
`
`
`the MPEP. Note that MPEP §§ 2256 and 2656 indicate
`
`
`consideration to be given to such information
`
`will be normally limited by the degree
`
`the in
`
`
`formation citation has explained
`
`to which the party
`
` the content and relevance
`
` filing
`
`that degree of
`
`
` Ol
`
`the information.
`
`

`

`Application/Contr
`3992
`
`Art Unit:
`
`ol Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`
`Page 5
`
`Any duplicate citations noticed by the examiner have been
`
`lined through.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-5,
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 29,
`
`and 30 are
`
` 103 (a)
`
`rejected under 35 USC §
`
`as being obvious over RFC 2187 in
`
` 103 (a)
`
`
`view offF Wessels;
`
`Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 USC §
`
`as being obvious over RFC 2187 in view o
`
` f Wessels and
`
`view and RFC 791;
`
`Claim 28 is rejected under 35 USC §
`
`
`
`further in
`
`103 (a)
`
`as
`
`
`being obvious over RFC 2187 in view of
`
`Wessels and
`
`
`further in
`
`
`view of The Squid
`
`
`Book;
`
`and Claim 20 is rejected 35 USC § 103 (a)
`
`as being obvious over RFC 2187 in view o
`
` f Wessels and
`
` further in
`
`
`
`view of RFC 791 and The Squid Book.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1-5, 9, 14,
`
`17,
`
`20-22, 25, and 27-30 are rejected
`
`under 35 USC § 102 (b)
`
`as being anticipated by Crowds.
`
`Claim 26
`
`ted under 35 USC 103 (a)
`
`as being obvious over Crowds in
`
`is rejec
`
`
`view of RFC 791.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 23,
`
`and 27-29 are rejected under 35
`
`USC § 103 (a)
`
` AAPA
`as being obvious over Kocherlakota in view of
`
`
`
`and RFC 2616.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number:
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`
`Page 6
`
`The claims of the *
`
`Sil wiil
`
`be given
`
`their
`
`broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation
`
`DUP SUA
`
`bo
`
`to MPEP 2258(5) (SG).
`
`Statutory Basis for Prior Art Rejections
`
`35 USC
`
`$ 102
`
`The
`following is a quotation of
`
`the appropriate paragraphs
`
`
`oO
`
`f pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102
`
`that
`
`
`form
`
`the basis
`
` for the rejections
`
`under this section made
`
`
`
`in
`this Of
`fice action:
`
`
`
` tled
` the invention was patent
` fF application
`
`year prior to the date of
`
`A person shall be enti
`
`to a patent unless —
`
`(b)
`printed publication in this ora
`foreign country or in
`more
`than one
`public use or on sale in this country,
`
`ted or described in a
`
`
`for patent in
`
`the United States.
`
`The
`
`following is
`
`which
`
`
`forms the basis
`
`
`
`in this Of
`Fice action:
`
`35 USC §$ 103
`
`
`
`
`a quotation of
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)
`
`
`for all obviousness rejections set
`
` forth
`
`
`
`
`(a) A
`is not
`
`
`
`
`
`nho
`t be obtained though the invention
`patent
`may
`
`identically disclosed or described as set
`
`
`
` Lt
`the diff rences betw
`n the
`subject
`in section 102,
`and the prior art are
`matter sought
`to be patented
`as a whole would have
`such that the subject matter
`been obvious at
`the time the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` forth
`
`invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill
`subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall
`negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`in the art to
`
`which said
`
`not be
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`I.
`
`ICP-based Rejections
`
`Claim 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 29, and 30 are
`
`rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over RFC 2187 in view of “ICP and the Squid Web Cache” by
`
`Wessels and Claffy (hereinafter “Wessels”).
`
` Referring to claim 1, RFC 2187 teaches a method for
`
`fetching, by a first client device (see local cache in the
`
` figure on page 4 reproduced below), a first content identified
`
`by a first content identifier (see “URLS” at page 4) and stored
`
`in a web server (see “origin server” at page 4,
`
`
`for use with a
`
`
`first server,
`
`
`the method by the first server comprising:
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`iton/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Applicat
`3992
`Art Unit:
`
` CTCT
`
`
`
`receiving,
`
`from the first client device,
`
`the first content
`
`identifier;
`
`RFC 2187 discloses, “Local cache receives an HTTP[1]
`
`request from a cache client.” See page 7. See also page 4 which
`
`discloses the requests are URLS.);
`
`selecting,
`
`in response to the receiving of the first
`
`content identifier from the first client device, a cache in the
`
`network
`
`
`
`RFC 2187 discloses that if none of the other peer caches
`
`
`
`have the requested content,
`
`
`
`a cache is selected to forward the
`
`
`
`
`request to and the selected cache is used to fetch the content.
`
`
`
`
`See page 13 at § 5.3.9., “Since MISS replies were
`received from
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`all peers, we must either select a parent cache or the origin
`
`server...
`
`
`..we forward the request to the peer with the lowest RTT
`
`to the origin server.”
`
`sending,
`
`in response to the selecting,
`
`the first content
`
`identifier to the web server using the selected cache;
`
`
`RFC 2187 teaches forwarding the request to the selected
`
`cache which is used to fetch the content. See page 13 at §
`
`
`
`
`5.3.9., “Since MISS replies were
`received from all peers, we
`
`
`
` forward the request to the peer with the lowest RTT to the
`
`must either select a parent cache or the origin server...
`
`..we
`
`origin server.” See page 11 at § 5.2.5 “If the replying cache is
`
`a patent of the querying cache,
`
`the ICP OPMISS indicates an
`
`invitation to fetch the URL through the replying cache.”
`
`receiving,
`
`in response to the sending,
`
`the first content
`
`from the web server
`
`RFC 2187 teaches the content is fetched through the parent
`
`cache or the origin server. See page 11 at § 5.2.5; and
`
`sending the received first content to the first client
`
`device
`
`
`
`
`
` RFC 2187 discloses ICP is used to select a location from
`
`which to retrieve an object
`
`
`(see abstract) and further discloses
`
` ICP adds delay to HTTP transactions. See page 5. See also page
`
`7, “Local cache receives an HTTP[1] request from the cache
`
`client.” As described by RFC 2187, an HTTP transaction starts
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
` with the HTTP request and would end with the requested object
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`being returned to the requesting client.
`
`Page 10
`
`wherein the first content comprises a web document or
`
`object and wherein the first content identifier comprises a
`
`Uniform Resource Locator
`
`(URL).
`
`RFC 2187 discloses™..the general flow of document requests...
`
`when a cache does not hold the requested object...” See page 3.
`
`See page 4 which discloses the requests are URLs.
`
`
`RFC 2187 fails to explicitly disclose the first server
`
`stores a group of IP addresses and selecting an IP address from
`
`the group of IP addresses in response to receiving the first
`
`content identifier from the first client device. RFC 2187,
`
`
`however, discloses that hosts are identified by their IP address
`
`
`
`
`
`(See page 14, “..inside hosts can be specified by their IP
`
`
`
`addresses as well.”) and further discloses the first server
`
`
`
`performing an ICP query/response process whereby at the
`
`
`to forward the
`
`
`
`conclusion the first server determines where
`
`request
`
`(See page 7 at § 5, “Applying the Protocol”.).
`
`
`
`
`RFC 2187 also fails to explicitly disclose the retrieved
`
`web objects being a web-page, audio, or video.
`
`Wessels,
`
`
`
`
`a paper further describing ICP and its specific
`
`
`application in software called ‘Squid’ which is software
`
`
`
`designed to run on web caches,
`
`teaches selecting,
`
`in response to
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`the receiving of the first content identifier from the first
`
`client device, an IP address from the group.
`
`Wessels teaches,
`
`“The cache originating the ICP_QUERY
`
`collects the reply messages and then chooses a peer cache to
`
`
`retrieve an object.” See page 6. See also figure 2 which shows
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the structure of ICP messages including the SENDER HOST ADDRESS.
`
`
`
`
`
`Note that collecting the query responses would include
`
`
`
`collecting the host address of the responding peers, one of
`
`which is selected to retrieve the object.
`
`
`
`Wessels is analogous to the claimed invention because
`
`Wessels discloses a method sending and receiving HTTP requests
`
`
`
`and replies between web clients and servers like the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`(See section 1.1). Wessels discloses reducing the
`
`
`time it takes to process the requests through the use of web
`
`caches or proxy caches that may store a copy of the requested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Increasing the speed of
`content locally (see section 1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requested content is the problem described in the abstract of
`
`the *511 Patent.
`
`Wessels is properly combinable with RFC 2187 as they by the
`
`same authors, published around the same time, and describe the
`
`same subject matter, namely the internet caching protocol and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its application with different levels of detail. Wessels
`
`
`
`
`provides a greater level of detail and/or specificity with
`
`
`respect to certain features mentioned in RFC 2187. A POSITA
`
`

`

`Applicat
`
`Art Unit:
`
`ion/Control Number: 90/014, 624 + 90/014, 827
`3992
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`having possession of both references would recognize they could
`
`
`
`use Wessels to determine specific implementation details of the
`
`general steps disclosed by RFC 2187.
`
` It would have
`
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the
`
`
`art at the time of
`
`the Patent Owner’s invention combine the
`
`
`teachings of RFC 2187 and Wessels such that the first server
`
`
`
`
`IP addresses from which one IP address is
`stores a group of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selected in response to receiving the first content identifier
`
`
`in RFC 2187. A POSITA having possession of both references would
`
`recognize they describe the same subject matter, namely the
`
`
`
`internet caching protocol and its application with different
`
`
`
`levels of detail. A POSITA would readily recognize they could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use Wessels to determine specific implementation details of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`general steps disclosed by RFC 2187.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 2, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and Wessels
`
` further teaches each of the IP addresses in the group is
`
`associated with a respective client device that is identified
`
`over the Internet using a respective IP address. See page 6 at §
`
`3.1 the cache queries its peers and collects their responses
`
`which include
`
`
`their respective
`
`
`
`IP address. See figure 2 on page
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`5. The peers are clients with respect to other web caches higher
`
`
`
`up the hierarchy.
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`in the
`
`
`art at the time of
`the Patent Owner’s invention to modify RFC
`
`
`
`
`
`2187 such that the first server stores a group of IP addresses
`
`
`wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is associated with
`
`a respective client device
`
`
`that is identified over the
`
`
`Internet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`using a respective IP address. A POSITA having possession of
`
`
`both references would recognize they describe the same subject
`
`
`
`
`
`matter, namely the internet caching protocol and its application
`
`
`
`
`
`with different levels of detail. A POSITA would readily
`
`
`recognize they could use Wessels to determine specific
`
`
`implementation details of the general steps disclosed by RFC
`
`2187.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 3, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 2
`
`(as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches sending of the first content identifier to the
`
`web server comprises sending, by the first server,
`
`the first
`
`content identifier to the client device addressed by the
`
`selected IP address. RFC 2187 discloses, “If the peers are using
`
`ICPFLAGSRC_RITT feature, we forward the request
`
`to the peer
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`with the lowest RTT to the origin server.” See page 13 at §
`
`5.3.9. Note the peer with the lowest RTT is a client with
`
`respect to the origin server.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 4, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 3 (as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches wherein the sending of the first content
`
`identifier to the web server further comprises sending, by the
`
`client device addressed by the selected IP address,
`
`the first
`
`content identifier to the web server, and receiving,
`
`from the
`
`web server,
`
`the first content. RFC 2187 discloses “If the peers
`
`are using ICP FLAG SRC_RTIT feature, we forward the request
`
`to
`
`the peer with the lowest RTT to the origin server.” See page 13
`
`at § 5.3.9. Note one of the caches 1s selected to which
`
`forward the request. That selected cache is then used to fetch
`
`the requested content
`
`
`from the origin server.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 5, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 3 (as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches wherein the receiving of the first content from
`
`the web server comprises receiving the first content from the
`
`client device addressed by the selected IP address. See also
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`
`page 11 at § 5.2.5. “fetching the URL through the replying
`
`caches. See also page 13 at § 5.3.9, “If the peers are using
`
`ICPFLAGSRC_RITT feature, we forward the request
`
`to the peer
`
`with the lowest RTT to the origin server.”
`
`
`
` Referring to claim 9, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 2
`
` further teaches wherein each of the IP addresses in the group is
`
`(as shown above), and Wessels
`
`associated with a respective client device that is identified
`
`over the Internet using a respective IP address and is currently
`
`online.
`
`Wessels teaches a cache queries its peers and collects
`
`their responses which include the responding peer’s respective
`
`
`
`IP address. See figure 2 on page 5. See also page 6 at § 3.1.
`
`The peers are clients with respect to the web cache higher up
`
`the hierarchy. See also page 14, “.hosts can be specified by IP
`
`addresses as well.” See also Wessels § 4.4 at page 9, Note that
`
`only the alive peers respond.
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`art at the time of the Patent Owner’s invention to include the
`
`
`
`
`first server storing a group of IP addresses wherein each of the
`
`IP addresses in the group is associated with a respective client
`
`
`
`

`

`Art Unit:
`
`Applicat
`t:
`
`ion/Control Number: 90/014, 624 + 90/014, 827
`3992
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`device that is identified over the
`Internet using a respective
`
`
`
`IP address and is currently online. A POSITA having possession
`
` of both references would recognize they describe the same
`
`
`
`
`
`subject matter, namely the internet caching protocol and its
`
`
`
`
`application with different levels of detail. A POSITA would
`
`
`readily recognize they could use Wessels to determine specific
`
`
`implementation details of the general steps disclosed by RFC
`
`2187.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 11, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and Wesssels
`
` further teaches by the first server:
`
`sending, a ‘keep alive’ message to each of the client
`
`devices that are identified over the Internet using by the
`
`stored IP addresses; and waiting for a response to the ‘keep
`
`alive’ message from each of the client devices.
`
`
`
`
`Wessels teaches using the ICPQUERY message is used
`
`
`
`
`determine if peers are reachable or ‘alive’ and the first server
`
`
`
`waits for 20 consecutive queries without a response before
`
`determining a peer to be ‘dead’ and marking it as such. See §
`
`4.4 at page 9.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`in the
`
`
`
`
`art at the time of the Patent Owner’s invention to incorporate
`
`
`sending keep alive messages to each client and wait for
`
`
`responses to the messages into the process performed by the
`
`
`
`
`first server of RFC 2187 in order to reduce the possibility of
`
`
`incurring a two-second timeout while implementing ICP as
`
`suggested by RFC 2817. See page 9 at § 5.1.4.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 12, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 11 (as shown above), and Wessels
`
` further teaches that responsive to not receiving, by the first
`
`server, a response to the ‘keep alive’ message from a client
`
`device,
`
`removing the IP address of the non-responsive third
`
`client device from group of IP addresses
`
`
`Wessels discloses that after 20 consecutive queries without
`
`a reply,
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`server removes the peer from the list of peers it
`
`
`expects replies from. See § 4.4 at page 9.
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`
`art at the time of the Patent Owner’s invention to incorporate
`
`
`sending keep alive messages to each client and wait for
`
`
`responses to the messages into the process performed by the
`
`
`
`
`first server of RFC 2187 in order to reduce the possibility of
`
`
`
`in the
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`
`incurring a two-second timeout while implementing ICP as
`
`suggested by RFC 2817. See page 9 at § 5.1.4.
`
`
`
` Referring to claim 14, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels
`
`discloses the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and
`
`
`RFC 2187 further discloses the method is for use with a
`
`criterion stored in the first server, wherein the selecting is
`
`according to, or based on,
`
`the criterion.
`
`RFC 2187 discloses,
`
`“We essentially always choose the peer
`
`with the lowest RTT.” See page 9 at § 4.3. The determined round
`
`trip time to the origin server is used as the selection
`
`criterion.
`
`
`
` Referring to claim 17, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels
`
`discloses the method according to claim 14
`
`(as shown above), and
`
`RFC 2187 further discloses wherein the criterion is based on, or
`
`comprises, a response time when communicating.
`
`RFC 2187 discloses,
`
`“We essentially always choose the peer
`
`with the lowest RTT.” See page 9 at § 4.3. The determined round
`
`trip time is a response time.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
` CTCT
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
` Referring to claim 21, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches the first server is a Transmission Control
`
`Protocol/Internet Protocol
`
`(TCP/IP) server that communicates
`
`over the Internet with client devices based on, according to, or
`
`using, TCP/IP protocol or connection.
`
`
`RFC 2187 discloses the first server being a TCP server. RFC
`
`
`2187 discloses marking a peer down “when a TCP connection fails,
`
`and up again when a diagnostic TCP connection succeeds.” See §
`
`5.1.3 at page 9.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 22, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches the first server communicates over the Internet
`
`based on, or according to, one out of UDP, DNS, TCP, FTP, POP#,
`
`SMTP, or SQL standards.
`
`RFC 2187 discloses, “..ICP uses UDP as an underlying
`
`transport..”. See page 9 at § 5.1.4
`
`

`

`ion/Control Number: 90/014, 624 + 90/014, 827
`3992
`
`Page 20
`
`Applicat
`t:
`
`Art Unit:
`
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 24, RFC 2178 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`
`
`further teaches for use with a second client device (sibling
`
`(as shown above), and Wessels
`
`cache),
`
`
`
`the method further comprising, by the first server:
`
`
`
`receiving a message from the second client device and
`
`responsive to the receiving of the message from the second
`
`client device, adding the IP address of the second device to the
`
`group of IP addresses.
`
`Wessels discloses,
`
`“The cache originating the ICP QUERY
`
`collects the reply messages and then chooses a peer cache.” See
`
`page 6 at § 3.1. The sibling or peer caches would be considered
`
`a client with respect to a higher-level cache or origin server
`
`
`it makes requests from.
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the
`
`
`
`
`art at the time of the Patent Owner’s invention to include the
`
`
`
`
`receiving a message from the second client device and responsive
`
`
`to the receiving of
`
`
`the message from the second client device,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adding the IP address of the second device to the group of IP
`
`
`
`addresses. A POSITA having possession of both references would
`
`recognize they describe the same subject matter, namely the
`
`
`
`internet caching protocol and its application with different
`
`
`
`levels of detail. A POSITA would readily recognize they could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`use Wessels to determine specific implementation details of the
`
`general steps disclosed by RFC 2187.
`
`
`
`Referring to claim 29, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
` further teaches the method is for use with a software
`
`application that includes computer instructions that, when
`
`executed by a computer processor, cause the processor to perform
`
`the steps of the claim 1.
`
`RFC 2187 discloses, “Squid and Harvest allow for complex
`
`
`hierarchical configurations.” See page 4 at § 2. Note that Squid
`
`
`is a software package.
`
` Referring to claim 30, RFC 2817 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`
`
`the method according to claim 1, and RFC 2187 further teaches
`
`wherein the web server comprises a web server that is a
`
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) server responding to HTTP and
`
`addressed in the Internet using a web server Internet Protocol
`
`(IP) address.
`
`
`
`RFC 2187 discloses when the local cache (‘first server’)
`
`receives an HTTP request
`
`
`from a client it can send the request
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 22
`
`directly to the origin server. See the figure on page 4. RFC
`
`
`2187 further describes the HTTP transactions which include HTTP
`
`
`
`
`request and HTTP replies. See page 5. HTTP transactions use IP
`
`addresses.
`
`Claims 25, 26, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC 2187 in view of Wessels as
`
`applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RFC 791.
`
`
`
` Referring to claim 25, RFC 2187 in view of Wessels teaches
`
`the method according to claim 1
`
`(as shown above), and RFC 2187
`
`further teaches forwarding the request to a parent cache with
`
`the lowest RTT to the origin server. See § 5.3.9. at page 13.
`
`
`The request is forwarded to the parent cache with the lowest RTT
`
`
`
`
`
`to the origin server so the parent cache issue the request using
`
`
`the content identifier to the origin server and such a request
`
`would have the parent cache as the source.
`
`
`
`RFC 2187 in view of Wessels fails to explicitly disclose
`
`using the selected IP address as the source address when sending
`
`
`
`the first content identifier to the web server.
`
`

`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,624 + 90/014, 827
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 23
`
`
`RFC 791 is the Internet Program Protocol
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(IP Protocol)
`
`
`
`Specification which sets forth the manner of transmitting data
`
`between sources and destinations on interconnected systems. RFC
`
`791 is analogous to the claims because the claims are directed
`
`toward requesting and receiving data over a network making use
`
`
`
`
`of IP Protocol
`
`addresses.
`
`RFC 791 teaches that the when sending transmissions
`
`from a
`
`source to a destination connected over the
`
`internet underlying
`
`packets comprise headers that include the source and destination
`
`addresses (see
`
` figure 4 at page 11 ~~
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would be obvious to combine the teachings of RFC 791
`
`
`
`
`with RFC 2187 because RFC 2187 discloses the use of IP addres
`
`se