If you can't speak for PJ, then please avoid doing so. She evidently knows
more than you do about these matters.
I'll save you the trouble of
downloading the patent file wrapper. Here is a
portion of the Examiner's
Statement of Reasons for Allowance:
Allowable Subject
Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of
reasons
for
allowance:
Claims 1 and 10:
In light of the arguments set forth
by the Applicant in the Response dated
05/29/2012, the
claims recite allowable
subject matter. See Remarks of 05/29/2012, pg.13-
15. Specifically,
the
prior art discloses publishing a user action and a link to a website
associated
with the user action
on a social networking website based on user
permissions. See Kendall et al.,
U.S. PG-
Publication No. 2009/0182589 Al.
Further, the prior art discloses means of
sending a
notification of
changes to a domain name request, e.g. monitoring
whether a
new domain
name
registration has become active. See Mohammed et al., U.S. PG-Publication
No.
2005/0203875
Al. Still further, the prior art discloses a method for
registering a domain
name and publishing
the new domain to a search website.
See Chen et al., U.S. PG-Publication No.
2008/0270418 Al.
However, the prior
art fails to disclose or suggest the combination of:
A method,
comprising:
• receiving from a client computer communicatively coupled to a
network, by
one or more
server computers communicatively coupled to said
network:
o one or more authentication credentials, for a registrant of a
domain
name,
for
accessing an account on a social networking website; and
o
a delay period after which to publish, on a web page for said account, a
domain
name announcement comprising:
• an announcement of a registration of
said domain name; and
• a hyperlink to a website resolving from said domain
name; and
• responsive to an expiration of said delay period:
o
authenticating to said account, by said one or more server computers
and
using
said one or more authentication credentials, via a social networking
application
programming interface; and
o publishing, by said one or more
server computers, said domain name
announcement to said web page for said
account via said social networking
application programming
interface.
Specifically, the monitoring entity of the Mohammed prior art
reference
monitors
changes to a domain registration using a minimum update
time, wherein "a
minimum update
time is a time in which to reduce the time
until the activity begins. By
contrast, a delay time is
intended to prolong the
time before the activity begins." See Remarks of
05/29/2012, pg.14.
Claims
2-9 and 11-18:
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are dependent on allowable claims 1 and 10.
Accordingly, claims
2-9 and 11-18 are also allowable.
This
appears to me to recite a physical effect. It uses servers
communicatively
coupled to a network to receive and publish a network a
delayed domain name
announcement via a programming interface. Would
you have preferred that it had
used a hammer and chisel to publish it in
stone, instead? Would that have been
enough of a physical effect for you?
Aside from that, the examiner has
stated the reason why he found that
the claims are patentable. He says that it
differs from the prior art reference
Mohammed in that Mohammed teaches a
minimum update time is a time in
which to reduce the time until the activity
begins. By contrast, a delay time is
intended to prolong the time before the
activity begins.
Read that again and try to comment again after you have.
Otherwise, I
repeat my allegation
(using your analysis as further proof) that
you are throwing more heat than
light on the controversy and that 99.999% of
the people who comment on this
patent will never read why the patent was
allowed.
