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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 Doc 1
statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050033845 (Perepa) in view of US 7159234 (Murphy).
Regarding claim 1, Perepa teaches or suggests a system for managing digital content, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (¶ 65) to:
receive, by a Content Management Platform, first digital data and second digital data, wherein the first digital content is a time-sensitive content type (¶ 72);
determine, by a Content Delivery Management Module and a Scheduler Module, a type of each of the received first digital data and the received second digital data (¶ 73); and
store, by the Content Delivery Management Module and based on the determined content type, the first digital data and the second digital data in a Content Storage, wherein the first digital content and the second digital content are stored in the Content Storage by storing the first digital content in a first sub-storage before transferring the first digital content to a second sub-storage for release (¶ 74).
Perepa does not expressly disclose but Murphy teaches or suggests storing the second digital content in the second sub-storage for release without storing the second digital content in the first sub-storage (1:30-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Perepa’s system and Murphy’s storage to speed delivery of content different from organization-wide corporate policy announcements, organization-wide announcements of important corporate changes such as acquisitions, organization-wide announcements of financial results for a quarter, short or timed sales promotions for on-line auction companies, and short or timed announcements of benefit plan enrollments periods.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests storing, based on determining that the first digital content is the time-sensitive content type, the first digital content in the first sub-storage that is a Temporary Sub-storage of the Content Storage (Perepa ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests storing, based on the determining that the second digital content is the non-time-sensitive digital content type, the second digital content in the second sub-storage that is a Release Sub-storage of the Content Storage (Perepa ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, by the Scheduler Module, a user interface (UI) to a user based on determining that the first digital content is the time-sensitive digital content; and receive, by the Scheduler Module via the UI, a user input of release schedule information for the first digital content (Perepa ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine, by a Batch Executor Module, whether or not a release time for the first digital content is within a threshold; send, based on determining that the release time is within the threshold and by the Batch Executor Module, a release trigger message to the Content Delivery Management Module; and transfer, based on the release trigger message and by the Content Delivery Management Module, the first digital content from the Temporary sub-storage to a Release Sub-storage of the Content Storage (Perepa ¶ 57).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 15-19, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claims 1-5 supra, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050033845 (Perepa) in view of US 7159234 (Murphy) further in view of US 20150161565 (Kraft).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Perepa does not expressly disclose but Kraft teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, by the Scheduler Module, content status information from the Content Delivery Management Module (¶ 74); and output, based on the content status information and by the Scheduler Module, a user interface (UI) to a user (¶ 278).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Perepa’s system, Murphy’s storage, and Kraft’s status information to learn the progress of publication.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the latter combination teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive, by the Scheduler Module via the UI, a user input for modifying a release schedule of the first digital content; generate, based on the user input and by the Scheduler Module, an updated release schedule information; provide, by the Scheduler Module, the updated release schedule information to the Batch Executor Module (Kraft ¶ 136); generate, by the Batch Executor Module, an updated release trigger message; provide, by the Batch Executor Module, the updated release trigger message to the Content Delivery Management Module; and update, based on the updated release trigger message and by the Content Delivery Management Module, the storing of the first digital content (Kraft ¶ 239). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claims 6, 13, and 20.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that “Zhao does not suggest storing both of first digital content and second digital content in the same second sub-storage for release.” (Resp. 12.) “Further, Applicant submits that the cited art does not suggest storing the first and second digital content in the respective sub-storages as claimed based on the first digital content being a time-sensitive content type and the second digital content being a non-time-sensitive content type.” (Resp. 13.) Perepa and Murphy have been applies, however, to teach or suggest the argued limitations.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20130117408 scribes techniques and apparatuses for arbitration of time-sensitive data transmissions (abs.).
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 Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457