.DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/446777 filed on 08/29/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1 and 11 is/are independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/16/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-10, 15 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 5, 9-10, 15 and 19-20.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0061129 to Liu et al. (hereafter “Liu”) in further view of US 2012/0106329 to Ahmed et al. (hereafter “Ahmed”) and US 2006/0161395 to Beam et al. (hereafter “Beam”)
As per claim 1, Liu discloses a system comprising:
a remote computing system (FIG. 1; paragraph 15: client devices 11 remotely connected to server computers 13); and
a user device configured to execute a partner application (FIG. 2; paragraphs 0016-0017: “FIG. 2 provides an exemplary framework for monitoring performance of a media player 15 launched by a web browser 14. Media players are known software components for playing multimedia files, such as streaming video. Exemplary media players may include (but are not limited to) Adobe's Flash player and Microsoft's Silverlight player. Web pages often rely upon media players to enhance content delivery. “ [Wingdings font/0xE0] the web browser including the media player) including a partner application module (FIGs. 2; paragraphs 0016-0017: “the media player 15 itself may support plug-ins, such that a performance monitor 16 may be launched by the media player. The performance monitor 16 is a software component executed in the client computing environment to monitor the performance of the media player 15 in a manner further described below.”), wherein the partner application module is configured to:
acquire a first set of partner application events, wherein each partner application event of the first set of partner application events is associated with a user action in the partner application (FIG. 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, and 0026-0028: “The performance monitor is now configured to receive event data from the media player. Event data is received at 40 by the performance monitor.”);
report a first subset of the first set of partner application events to the remote computing system (FIG. 3; paragraphs 0015, 0021, 0023, and 0026-0028: the event(s) is reported/sent from the performance monitor to backend processing (hosted by the web server) in a form of sending every event, sending events in a session, or sending events grouped in more than one sessions);
refrain from reporting a second subset of the first set of partner application events to the remote computing system based on satisfaction of initial event capping conditions that indicate conditions upon which a partner application event should not be reported to the remote computing system (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “Rather than report each event to the backend processor, events are collected in a queue and periodically sent to the backend processor. Thus, each event is placed in a send queue as indicated at 41. For each new event, the queue is checked at 42. For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] instead of sending/reporting every report to the web server, the events are collected/refrained until the number of collected events reaches a threshold or the event is a complete event);
report a first subset of the second set of partner application events to the remote computing system (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “Rather than report each event to the backend processor, events are collected in a queue and periodically sent to the backend processor. Thus, each event is placed in a send queue as indicated at 41. For each new event, the queue is checked at 42. For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] instead of sending/reporting every report to the web server, the events are collected/refrained until the number of collected events reaches a threshold or the event is a complete event); and
refrain from reporting a second subset of the second set of partner application events to the remote computing system (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “Rather than report each event to the backend processor, events are collected in a queue and periodically sent to the backend processor. Thus, each event is placed in a send queue as indicated at 41. For each new event, the queue is checked at 42. For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] instead of sending/reporting every report to the web server, the events are collected/refrained until the number of collected events reaches a threshold or the event is a complete event) based on satisfaction of the updated event capping conditions (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”)).
Liu discloses a threshold (capping condition as claimed) is configurable (paragraphs 0026-0027), however, Liu does not explicitly disclose receive updated event capping conditions from the remote computing system that are different than the initial event capping conditions; acquire a second set of partner application events after receiving the updated event capping conditions; and wherein the remote computing system is configured to report the first subset of the first set of partner application events and the first subset of the second set of partner application events to a partner device.
Ahmed further discloses receive updated event capping conditions from the remote computing system that are different than the initial event capping conditions (paragraphs 0027-0029: “the threshold or probability may be adjusted based upon the result of the transmission, e.g., how many times the transmission has been delayed. In an embodiment, it may be desirable to allow the update and control of the probabilities via a network interface, thereby allowing the probabilities to be set from a remote device, such as a centrally located system administrator.”);
acquire a second set of partner application events after receiving the updated event capping conditions (paragraphs 0027-0029: “For example, a threshold of 0.5 represents an equal probability that the event will be reported and that reporting of the event will be delayed. Similarly, a threshold of 0.3 represents a 30% probability that the event will be reported without any further backoff delay and 70% probability that reporting of the event by this particular M2M device will be delayed.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ahmed into Liu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a delay unit is coupled to the comparator to delay further processing of the event for a time period (Ahmed, paragraph 0009).
Beam further discloses wherein the remote computing system is configured to report the first subset of the first set of partner application events and the first subset of the second set of partner application events to a partner device (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0031-0034: “he communication interface 24 processes the information collected from the device 18 and can provide the information to the local terminal 26 or via the communication network 14 to the remote terminal 16.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] device manager 22 collecting event data from devices 18 to Device manager 22 [Wingdings font/0xE0] device manager 22 sending event data to local config terminal 26/remote configuration terminal 16)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Beam into Liu’s teaching and Ahmed’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of prompt the user to configure at least one of an amount of delay from the defined event occurring before taking an action and whether to repeat a selected action (Beam, paragraph 0006).
As per claim 7, Liu discloses a threshold (capping condition as claimed) is configurable (paragraphs 0026-0027), however, Liu does not explicitly disclose receive the updated event capping conditions while the partner application is being executed on the user device; and transition from using the initial event capping conditions to using the updated event capping conditions while the partner application is being executed on the user device.
Ahmed further discloses receive the updated event capping conditions while the partner application is being executed on the user device (paragraphs 0027-0029: “the threshold or probability may be adjusted based upon the result of the transmission, e.g., how many times the transmission has been delayed. In an embodiment, it may be desirable to allow the update and control of the probabilities via a network interface, thereby allowing the probabilities to be set from a remote device, such as a centrally located system administrator.”); and
transition from using the initial event capping conditions to using the updated event capping conditions while the partner application is being executed on the user device (paragraphs 0027-0029: “the threshold or probability may be adjusted based upon the result of the transmission, e.g., how many times the transmission has been delayed. In an embodiment, it may be desirable to allow the update and control of the probabilities via a network interface, thereby allowing the probabilities to be set from a remote device, such as a centrally located system administrator.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ahmed into Liu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a delay unit is coupled to the comparator to delay further processing of the event for a time period (Ahmed, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 8, Liu discloses wherein the partner application module is configured to report the first subset of the first set of partner application events to the remote computing system as aggregated data that indicates a number of partner application events (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “Rather than report each event to the backend processor, events are collected in a queue and periodically sent to the backend processor. Thus, each event is placed in a send queue as indicated at 41. For each new event, the queue is checked at 42. For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] instead of sending/reporting every report to the web server, the events are collected/refrained until the number of collected events reaches a threshold or the event is a complete event) by type of event.
Ahmed further discloses by type of event system (paragraphs 0029 and 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ahmed into Liu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a delay unit is coupled to the comparator to delay further processing of the event for a time period (Ahmed, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 11, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 17, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in further view of Ahmed and Beam, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2003/0030675 to Ku et al. (hereafter “Ku”)
As per claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate that partner application events that require resolution by the remote computing system should be reported to the remote computing system (FIG. 4: blocks 40-44; paragraphs 0026-0027: “Rather than report each event to the backend processor, events are collected in a queue and periodically sent to the backend processor. Thus, each event is placed in a send queue as indicated at 41. For each new event, the queue is checked at 42. For example, does the number of events in the queue exceed a configurable threshold (e.g., 15 events).”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] instead of sending/reporting every report to the web server, the events are collected/refrained until the number of collected events reaches a threshold or the event is a complete event).
Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein resolution by the remote computing system includes the remote computing system directing the partner application to a specific partner application page.
Ku further discloses wherein resolution by the remote computing system includes the remote computing system directing the partner application to a specific partner application page (paragraph 0016: “The disclosed methodology in an exemplary embodiment has been implemented within a browser program which is operating on the Internet to access a number of different selected websites through separate windows.”) [Wingdings font/0xE0] selected website (application page as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ku into Liu’s teaching, Ahmed’s teaching and Beam’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of user alert signals are generated whenever an underlying display window in a multi-window display environment requires user attention (Ku, paragraph 0005).
As per claim 12, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in further view of Ahmed and Beam, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2014/0258872 to Spracklen et al. (hereafter “Spracklen”)
As per claim 3, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate that partner application events having specified event types should not be reported to the remote computing system, wherein the event types include at least one of partner application open events, partner application install events, partner application reinstallation events, partner application commerce events, partner application page view events, and partner application sign-up events.
Ahmed further discloses wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate that partner application events having specified event types should not be reported to the remote computing system (paragraphs 0029 and 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ahmed into Liu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a delay unit is coupled to the comparator to delay further processing of the event for a time period (Ahmed, paragraph 0009).
Spracklen further discloses wherein the event types include at least one of partner application open events (paragraphs 0053-0054), partner application install events, partner application reinstallation events, partner application commerce events, partner application page view events, and partner application sign-up events.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Spracklen into Liu’s teaching, Ahmed’s teaching and Beam’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a client device configured to remotely access a desktop hosted by a server system determines an event related to a user input for a desktop operation directed to the desktop. The client device receives a plurality of updates to a desktop graphical user interface (GUI) from the desktop hosted by the server system. Then, the client device correlates the event to an update in the plurality of updates to the desktop GUI based on a rule in a set of rules correlating events to updates (Spracklen, paragraph 0007).
As per claim 13, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in further view of Ahmed and Beam, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2002/0141337 to Grandin et al. (hereafter “Grandin”)
As per claim 4, Liu discloses a threshold (capping condition as claimed) is configurable (paragraphs 0026-0027), however, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the user device includes an event list that stores historical partner application events, and wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate whether to report partner application events to the remote computing system based on the historical partner application events included in the event list.
Ahmed further discloses wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate whether to report partner application events to the remote computing system based on the historical partner application events included in the event list (paragraph 0029: “Furthermore, the threshold or probability may be adjusted based upon the result of the transmission, e.g., how many times the transmission has been delayed. In an embodiment, it may be desirable to allow the update and control of the probabilities via a network interface, thereby allowing the probabilities to be set from a remote device, such as a centrally located system administrator.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] the result of the transmission, e.g., how many times the transmission has been delayed (the historical partner application events included in the event list as claimed)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ahmed into Liu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of a delay unit is coupled to the comparator to delay further processing of the event for a time period (Ahmed, paragraph 0009).
Grandin further discloses wherein the user device includes an event list that stores historical partner application events (paragraphs 0014-0015), and events included in the event list (paragraphs 0014-0015).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Grandin into Liu’s teaching, Ahmed’s teaching and Beam’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of using previously received monitored values, the suggested optimum threshold level is specific to the particular network (Grandin, paragraph 0020).
As per claim 14, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in further view of Ahmed and Beam, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2020/0264685 to Jondu et al. (hereafter “Jondu”)
As per claim 6, Jondu does not explicitly disclose wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate that partner application events that are partner-specified test events should be sent to the remote computing system.
Jondu further discloses wherein the initial event capping conditions indicate that partner application events that are partner-specified test events should be sent to the remote computing system (paragraphs 0010 and 0018).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Jondu into Liu’s teaching, Ahmed’s teaching and Beam’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the self-test monitoring device can identify the one or more notification devices based on a type of the test triggering event and transmit a self-test failure report to the one or more notification devices such that the self-test failure report can identify which of the one or more sensors failed its respective self-test (Jondu, paragraph 0010).
As per claim 16, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2022/0319304 to Menzel
There are many types of alarms generated by EPMSs including voltage sags, voltage swells, high-speed transients, harmonic distortion, low power factor, leading power factor, frequency deviations, voltage and current imbalance, and overcurrents just to name a few. Because each parameter is unique, they will (in most cases) use different thresholds to trigger. They may also incorporate a form of delay (sometimes referred to as alarm hysteresis) before triggering to ensure the threshold has been exceeded for a sufficient period of time for the event to be relevant.
US 2020/0073981 to Pilkington
In particular, processing modules 470 may include service module 472 for implementing a monitored service application or the like, and an event generating module 464 associated therewith. As the skilled person will appreciate, the present disclosure is not limited to any particular type of application program or software. Rather, the teachings of the present disclosure may be used in conjunction with any type of computing system, process or application, the operation of which is monitored, and for which events are generated for storage in a log file.
US 2018/0239658 to Whitner
categorization may be delayed, for instance over a subsequent second, minute, hour, day, or month, or more (or less), for instance in cases in which categorization depends upon a sequence of alarms, like a determination that more than a threshold amount of a particular type of alarm from a particular computational entity is received within some threshold amount of time, like more than three alarms in a day.
US 2015/0117174 to Alber
An alert threshold rules table may be included that holds the rules that specify when an alert is to be generated when some drive or media value crosses a threshold. Additionally, the alert tables may include an alert e-mail notification rules table (or other alert communications table) that holds the rules that specify when an e-mail message is sent when an alert is generated.
US 2014/0187890 to Mensinger
The delay prior to the secure server 110 sending a notification to the receiver 102 may be varied by the secure server based on the severity or type of event, and the delay may be configured by a user and/or configured programmatically. For example, a first delay may be used for a first low analyte threshold, but no delay may be used for a second, more severe, low glucose threshold.
US 2008/0274716 to Fok
The communication module 374 can be accessed by a diagnostic monitoring and reporting component 384 that reports both events and log reports to a network 106, 108 (FIG. 2).
US 2007/0027951 to Motoyama
A monitoring system, method, and computer-program product tracks events and device states in a device and sends those events and states to a remote central service center using an Internet access module. The remote central service center monitors the received events and states for errors or warnings. The monitoring software (e.g., a dynamic link library) supports multiple data formats and multiple protocols to more effectively communicate the event and state information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198