DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s claim amendment in view of the Remarks filed 09/26/2025, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 12, 14 – 15, 17 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 25 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
A method, comprising:
detecting, a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp, a session (mental process: a human-being i.e., a therapist is looking at his watch to close his appointment only therapy session at 8 PM);
identifying, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the session, an event scheduled for execution in the session at a second timestamp subsequent to the first timestamp (mental process: the therapist inquiring, before closing his therapy session at 8 PM, on his appointment book that there will be one more therapy session at 8:15 PM);
providing, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp less than or equal to a threshold, a element configured to extend the session to at least the second timestamp (mental process: the therapist keeping his therapy session open till 8:15).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the steps are performed “by one or more processors coupled to memory”;
wherein the session is a “computing session”.
A user interface element.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, prong 2
Likewise, to step 2A, prong 2, the claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 1 and 19 are a system and product claims of the abstract method claim 14 above. Thus, the analysis and findings for abstract claim 14 applied to claims 1 and 19 respectively and also are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 2, 15 and 20:
are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
invoke, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events scheduled to be executed in the session at a plurality of timestamps (mental process: the therapist inquiring, before closing his therapy session at 8 PM, on his appointment book).
Step 2A, prong 2
The claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, prong 2
Likewise, to step 2A, prong 2, the claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 7 and 17:
are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
detect the condition based on duration of inactivity in the session being greater than or equal to a timeout value (mental process: the therapist notice that no patients has walked into his office before his closing time of 8 PM.).
Claims 7 and 17 recite the following additional element:
wherein the session is a “computing session”.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, prong 2
Likewise, to step 2A, prong 2, the claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 3 recite the following additional elements:
The data structure is maintained by the one or more processor.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with determining a strength, recommendation, or predicted outcome of a strategy. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements in the claim merely add pre-extra solution activity to the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, prong 2
Likewise, to step 2A, prong 2, the claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with determining a strength, recommendation, or predicted outcome of a strategy. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements in the claim merely add pre-extra solution activity to the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitation recites an abstract idea:
identify a second event at a third timestamp responsive to a second detection of the condition (mental process)
determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the second event is not configured for execution in the computing session (mental process).
terminate the computing session without provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session (mental process).
Claims 6 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the session is a “computing session”.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, prong 2
Likewise, to step 2A, prong 2, the claims fail to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, the claims fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technology itself. The claims culminate with extending a computing session based on future schedule event. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements are considered mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitation recite an abstract idea:
automatically extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp responsive to the difference less than the threshold (mental process).
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
No new additional elements.
Step 2A, prong 2
Claim 12 fails to recite any new additional elements relative to claim 1. Thus, the analysis and findings for step 2A, prong 2 incorporates the analysis and findings of claim 1, however, the analysis and findings include consideration of claims 12 as a whole.
Step 2B, prong 2
Claim 12 fails to recite any new additional elements relative to claim 1. Thus, the analysis and findings for step 2A, prong 2 incorporates the analysis and findings of claim 1, however, the analysis and findings include consideration of claims 12 as a whole.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., (US 2017/0279922 A1) (hereinafter “Sharma”) in view of Tan (US 2017/0099293 A1) (hereinafter “Tan”) and Ganu (US 2016/0112520 A1) (hereinafter “Ganu”).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses; a system [i.e., computing device (see ref. 100 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)], comprising:
one or more processors [i.e., processor (see ref. 110 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)], coupled to memory [i.e., the processor couple to machine readable storage medium (see ref. 120 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)], to:
detect a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp, a computing session established by the one or more processors [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”];
identify, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event scheduled for execution [i.e., pending job (page 3, para 0030)] in the computing session [i.e., determine if there are any pending service requests being handled by the cloud server (page 2, para 0016 and 0024), (see figure 2) i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter 212 can wait for the service request to be processed so that the connection is idle before the server portion of the connection is closed (page 3, para 0030), (see figure 2)]; and
provide, based on a difference between a second timestamp and the first timestamp less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., current_time – last_activity >= inactivity_threshold? (see figure 4), (page 2, para 0016 and 0024) Note; compares the elapsed time between the last detected activity and the current time and when the difference is within the threshold, the session remains active], a element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Sharma does not disclose;
a user interface and an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
provide a user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
However, Ganu discloses;
an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp [i.e., a user is scheduled to have an online meeting session between 1 pm and 3 pm (page 2, para 0030), (page 5, para 0054)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
invoke, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events [i.e., when a service request for a new job for a particular client computing device is received, the database is updated to indicate a pending job for the client computing device (page 3, para 0030)].
Sharma does not disclose;
scheduled to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps.
However, Ganu discloses;
a data structure maintains a plurality of events scheduled to be executed in a computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., the network server storing user calendar information (page 2, para 0029 - 0030), (page 5, para 0054) Note; a user calendar is used by a user to schedule many different scheduled events].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 3, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 2, wherein the data structure is maintained by the one or more processors [i.e., the database (page 3, para 0030)].
Regarding claim 4, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
wherein the data structure is maintained on one or more servers remote from the one or more processors, and the one or more servers are configured to aggregate the plurality of events from a plurality of client devices comprising a client device of the one or more processors associated with a same account identifier.
However, Ganu discloses;
a data structure is maintained on one or more servers remote from one or more processors, and the one or more servers are configured to aggregate a plurality of events from a plurality of client devices comprising a client device of the one or more processors associated with a same account identifier [i.e., the network server storing user calendar information (page 2, para 0029 - 0030), (page 5, para 0054) Note; a user calendar is used by a user to schedule many different scheduled events].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event.
However, Ganu discloses;
wherein one or more processors are further configured to:
determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event [i.e., detecting Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)/Lync session metadata to identify session type (page 2, para 0020), (page 3, para 0031)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify a second event at a third timestamp responsive to a second detection of the condition [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2)];
determine, based on a keyword of the second event, that the second event is not configured for execution in the computing session [i.e., determine if there are any pending service requests being handled by the cloud server (page 2, para 0016 and 0024), (see figure 2) i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter 212 can wait for the service request to be processed so that the connection is idle before the server portion of the connection is closed (page 3, para 0030), (see figure 2)]; and
terminate the computing session without provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session [i.e., close the server portion of the connection if it determines that there are no pending service requests for the connection being processed by cloud servers (page 2, para 0024)].
Regarding claim 7, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
detect the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”].
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from one or more servers remote from the one or more processors, upon establishment of the computing session with the one or more servers via an authentication handshake process [i.e., transport layer security (TLS) handshake /secure sockets layer (SSL) secure persistent connections and authentication exchange (page 1, para 0008), (page 3, para 0031)], the timeout value for the computing session, the timeout value established by an administrator of the computing session that is different from a user that established the computing session [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2)].
Regarding claim 9, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide the user interface element with a configuration to extend the computing session to at least a third timestamp that is the amount of time taken from the second timestamp [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Sharma does not disclose;
determine, based on a parameter of the event, an amount of time taken to execute the event.
However, Ganu discloses;
determine, based on a parameter of the event, an amount of time taken to execute the event [i.e., estimate remaining meeting duration based on calendar end time (page 1, para 0030)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 10, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp; and prevent, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event.
However, Tan discloses;
one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp [i.e., the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)]; and
prevent, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event [i.e., extend session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 11, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
initiate a counter responsive to provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp; and terminate the computing session responsive to expiration of the counter without detection of an interaction with the user interface element.
However, Tan discloses;
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
initiate a counter responsive to provision of the user interface element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp [i.e., time remaining 1055 (see figure 10), (page 15, para 0189)]; and
terminate the computing session responsive to expiration of the counter without detection of an interaction with the user interface element [i.e., the secure session to end at the end of the time remaining 1055 (see figure 10), (page 1, para 0189)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
Regarding claim 12, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
automatically extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp responsive to the difference less than the threshold [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Regarding claim 13, Sharma discloses; the system of claim 1, wherein the event comprises a communication channel scheduled between the computing session and a second computing session remote from the one or more processors [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Regarding claim 14, Sharma discloses; a method, comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors, coupled to memory [i.e., the processor couple to machine readable storage medium (see ref. 120 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)], a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp, a computing session established by the one or more processors [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”];
identifying, by the one or more processors, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event for execution [i.e., pending job (page 3, para 0030)] in the computing session [i.e., determine if there are any pending service requests being handled by the cloud server (page 2, para 0016 and 0024), (see figure 2) i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter 212 can wait for the service request to be processed so that the connection is idle before the server portion of the connection is closed (page 3, para 0030), (see figure 2)]; and
providing, by the one or more processors, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., current_time – last_activity >= inactivity_threshold? (see figure 4), (page 2, para 0016 and 0024) Note; compares the elapsed time between the last detected activity and the current time and when the difference is within the threshold, the session remains active], a element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Sharma does not disclose;
a user interface and an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
provide a user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
However, Ganu discloses;
an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp [i.e., a user is scheduled to have an online meeting session between 1 pm and 3 pm (page 2, para 0030), (page 5, para 0054)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 15, Sharma discloses; the method of claim 14, comprising:
invoking, by the one or more processors responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., when a service request for a new job for a particular client computing device is received, the database is updated to indicate a pending job for the client computing device (page 3, para 0030)].
Regarding claim 16, Sharma discloses; the method of claim 14 [i.e., (see claim 14 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
determining, by the one or more processors based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event.
However, Ganu discloses;
determine, based on a keyword of the event, that the computing session executes the event [i.e., detecting Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)/Lync session metadata to identify session type (page 2, para 0020), (page 3, para 0031)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Sharma discloses; the method of claim 14, comprising:
detecting, by the one or more processors, the condition based on a duration of inactivity in the computing session being greater than or equal to a timeout value [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”].
Regarding claim 18, Sharma discloses; the method of claim 14 [i.e., (see claim 14 above)].
Sharma does not disclose;
receiving, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp; and preventing, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event.
However, Tan discloses;
receive, via the user interface element, an instruction to extend the computing session to the at least the second timestamp [i.e., the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)]; and
prevent, responsive to the instruction, termination of the computing session to at least the second timestamp to reduce an occurrence of an authentication process to re-establish the computing session to execute the event [i.e., extend session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187)
Regarding claim 19, Sharma discloses; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions [i.e., the processor couple to machine readable storage medium (see ref. 120 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)] that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to [i.e., the processor couple to machine readable storage medium (see ref. 120 of figure 1), (page 1, para 0011)]:
detect a condition to terminate, at a first timestamp, a computing session established by the one or more processors [i.e., determines if a connection between a client computing device and a cloud server [“a computing session”] is idle for a preconfigured amount of time (page 4, para 0043), (see ref. 410 of figure 4 and figure 2) Note; the point in time at which the idle period exceeds the threshold i.e., last_activity necessarily corresponds to a specific time, which constitutes the claimed “first timestamp”];
identify, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, an event for execution [i.e., pending job (page 3, para 0030)] in the computing session [i.e., determine if there are any pending service requests being handled by the cloud server (page 2, para 0016 and 0024), (see figure 2) i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter 212 can wait for the service request to be processed so that the connection is idle before the server portion of the connection is closed (page 3, para 0030), (see figure 2)]; and
provide, based on a difference between the second timestamp and the first timestamp less than or equal to a threshold [i.e., current_time – last_activity >= inactivity_threshold? (see figure 4), (page 2, para 0016 and 0024) Note; compares the elapsed time between the last detected activity and the current time and when the difference is within the threshold, the session remains active], a element configured to extend the computing session to at least the second timestamp [i.e., if there is a pending service request, connection interrupter instructions 122 can delay closing the server portion of the connection until the service request has been processed (page 2, para 0016) i.e., wait for the service request to be processed…(page 2, para 0024)].
Sharma does not disclose;
a user interface and an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp.
However, Tan discloses;
provide a user interface element configured to extend a computing session to at least a second timestamp [i.e., a security mode window 1060 allow the client/recipient to choose to extend their secure session by selecting yes 1065 (page 15, para 0189), (see figure 10)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma by adapting the teachings of Tan to allow clients/recipient to extend session securely (See Tan; page 15, para 0187).
However, Ganu discloses;
an event scheduled for execution at a second timestamp [i.e., a user is scheduled to have an online meeting session between 1 pm and 3 pm (page 2, para 0030), (page 5, para 0054)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sharma and Tan by adapting the teachings of Ganu to estimate the session duration to hand off a particular client device to a better access point for delay-sensitive and/or disruption sensitive application session (See Ganu; page 2, para 0030).
Regarding claim 20, Sharma discloses; the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to:
invoke, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps [i.e., when a service request for a new job for a particular client computing device is received, the database is updated to indicate a pending job for the client computing device (page 3, para 0030)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432