DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The IDS filed 12/30/2022 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rieger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0120372) as cited on the applicant’s IDS filed 12/30/2022, hereinafter referred to as Rieger.
Regarding claim 1, Rieger discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a request for digital content from a digital device (paragraph 86, request for content); receiving configuration information associated with the digital device, account constraints associated with a user of the digital device, and information on resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, capabilities of client device, user preferences, and bandwidth availability); identifying an alternative output event based on the configuration information, the account constraints, and the resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, determining requested content may be provided on different platform); and executing the alternative output event (paragraph 86, content delivery).
Regarding claim 8, Rieger discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the computer readable storage medium is not a transitory signal per se, wherein the program instructions are executable by a processor to cause the processor to conduct a method comprising: receiving a request for digital content from a digital device (paragraph 86, request for content); receiving configuration information associated with the digital device, account constraints associated with a user of the digital device, and information on resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, capabilities of client device, user preferences, and bandwidth availability); identifying an alternative output event based on the configuration information, the account constraints, and the information on resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, determining requested content may be provided on different platform); and executing the alternative output event (paragraph 86, content delivery).
Regarding claim 15, Rieger discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the computer-readable storage medium is not a transitory signal per se, wherein the program instructions are executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to conduct a method comprising: receiving a request for digital content from a digital device (paragraph 86, request for content); receiving configuration information associated with the digital device, account constraints associated with a user of the digital device, and information on resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, capabilities of client device, user preferences, and bandwidth availability); identifying an alternative output event based on the configuration information, the account constraints, and the information on resources available on the digital device (paragraph 86, determining requested content may be provided on different platform); and executing the alternative output event (paragraph 86, content delivery).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger in view of Carter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0054614), hereinafter referred to as Carter.
Rieger disclosed techniques for optimizing delivery of content in a network. In an analogous art, Carter disclosed techniques for providing filtered content over a network. Both systems are directed toward determining how to deliver requested content to a user.
Regarding claim 2, Rieger discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: transforming the digital content based on the alternative output event being a transformation event, the configuration information, the account constraints, and the information on resources available on the digital device to produce dynamically transformed digital content; and sending the dynamically transformed digital content (paragraph 211, selects coding and parameters for data delivery).
Rieger does not explicitly state sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device. However, modifying content for the requesting device itself was well known in the art as evidenced by Carter. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rieger by adding the ability for sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device as provided by Carter (see paragraph 22, provides filtered content for display on requesting client device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that providing content in this way would assist in improving the user’s experience with received content (see Carter, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: reducing quality of the digital content responsive to an amount of data available at a current billing cycle surpassing a threshold to produce reduced quality digital content; and sending the reduced quality digital content to the digital device (Carter, paragraph 72, content filtered based on data plan usage).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event further comprises outputting an alert indicating that quality has been reduced to avoid extra charges on the digital content (Carter, paragraph 72, notification of content filtering).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises removing reference information or greeting information from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 76, content filtered based on determined relevance).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event further comprises outputting an alert indicating that the reference information or the greeting information has been removed from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 81, notification of excluded items).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein: identifying the alternative output event comprises determining that the digital content would output at a higher quality on another digital device associated with a user account associated with the digital device; and executing the alternative output event comprises sending a recommendation that
outputting the digital content on the other digital device would present in a higher quality (Rieger, paragraph 35, selects device based on providing higher quality than that available with first device, and paragraph 126, recommends delivery at particular device to user).
Regarding claim 9, Rieger discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: transforming the digital content based on the alternative output event being a transformation event, the configuration information, the account constraints, and the information on resources available on the digital device to produce dynamically transformed digital content; and sending the dynamically transformed digital content (paragraph 211, selects coding and parameters for data delivery).
Rieger does not explicitly state sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device. However, modifying content for the requesting device itself was well known in the art as evidenced by Carter. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rieger by adding the ability for sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device as provided by Carter (see paragraph 22, provides filtered content for display on requesting client device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that providing content in this way would assist in improving the user’s experience with received content (see Carter, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: reducing quality of the digital content responsive to an amount of data available at a current billing cycle surpassing a threshold to produce reduced quality digital content; and sending the reduced quality digital content to the digital device (Carter, paragraph 72, content filtered based on data plan usage).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event further comprises outputting an alert indicating that quality has been reduced to avoid extra charges on the digital content (Carter, paragraph 72, notification of content filtering).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises removing reference information or greeting information from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 76, content filtered based on determined relevance).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event further comprises outputting an alert indicating that the reference information or the greeting information has been removed from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 81, notification of excluded items).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein: identifying the alternative output event comprises determining that the digital content would output at a higher quality on another digital device associated with a user account associated with the digital device; and executing the alternative output event comprises sending a recommendation that
outputting the digital content on the other digital device would present in a higher quality (Rieger, paragraph 35, selects device based on providing higher quality than that available with first device, and paragraph 126, recommends delivery at particular device to user).
Regarding claim 16, Rieger discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: transforming the digital content based on the alternative output event being a transformation event, the configuration information, the account constraints, and the information on resources available on the digital device to produce dynamically transformed digital content; and sending the dynamically transformed digital content (paragraph 211, selects coding and parameters for data delivery).
Rieger does not explicitly state sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device. However, modifying content for the requesting device itself was well known in the art as evidenced by Carter. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rieger by adding the ability for sending the dynamically transformed digital content to the digital device as provided by Carter (see paragraph 22, provides filtered content for display on requesting client device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that providing content in this way would assist in improving the user’s experience with received content (see Carter, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises: reducing quality of the digital content responsive to an amount of data available at a current billing cycle surpassing a threshold to produce reduced quality digital content; and sending the reduced quality digital content to the digital device (Carter, paragraph 72, content filtered based on data plan usage).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event comprises removing reference information or greeting information from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 76, content filtered based on determined relevance).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein executing the alternative output event further comprises outputting an alert indicating that the reference information or the greeting information has been removed from the digital content (Carter, paragraph 81, notification of excluded items).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rieger and Carter discloses wherein: identifying the alternative output event comprises determining that the digital content would output at a higher quality on another digital device associated with a user account associated with the digital device; and executing the alternative output event comprises sending a recommendation that
outputting the digital content on the other digital device would present in a higher quality (Rieger, paragraph 35, selects device based on providing higher quality than that available with first device, and paragraph 126, recommends delivery at particular device to user).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vuornos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0198883) disclosed techniques for customizing content for delivery in a network-operator system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493