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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1-2, 4-5, 10-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CRUZ et al (US 2020/0016495) in view of van der LUGT et al (US 2015/0178125).
Per claim 1, CRUZ et al teach a system, comprising:
a memory that stores instructions [paras 0047-48, 0051, 0059]; and
a processor that executes the instructions to cause the processor [paras 0048, 0103] to be configured to:
receive, by a first function, a first streaming record associated with an event [paras 0004, 0027-29, 0050—receiving a content stream associated with a session event];
place, by the first function, the first streaming record in a queue with a delay timestamp according to a type of the event [paras 0026, 0029-30, 0032, 0050, 0086, 0125, 0127—waiting in queues over a period of time based on the type of session activity, waiting period while sessions are in progress in a queue];
trigger, in response to placing the first streaming record in the queue, operation of a second function [paras 0040-42, 0125, 0127—activation of functions in queues to maintain order for starting and ending events, providing alerts];
determine, by the second function, if a current time is greater than a delay associated with the delay timestamp for the first streaming record [paras 0084, 0094, 0096, 0125, 0127—predetermined period of time greater than delayed/waiting in queue where session queueing service removes from the queue];
requeue, by the second function, the first streaming record [paras 0004, 0054 0125—re-queuing responsive to an ended session removal];
place, by the second function, the first streaming record into a ready queue if the current time is determined to be equal to or greater than the delay (paras 0061-63, 0092—priority queue placement, FIFO queues for queuing for next session when a session is ready to begin); and
process the first streaming record in the ready queue (paras 0040, 0054-55, 0061-62—enabling FIFO ordering and priority queues for placement of the streaming data).
CRUZ et al teaches the limitations, as applied above, and waiting in queues over a period of time, waiting period while sessions are in progress in a queue (paras 0026, 0030, 0086, 0125, 0127) and activation of functions in queues to maintain order for starting and ending events, providing alerts (paras 0040-42, 0125, 0127); yet fail to explicitly teach “a delay queue”, to “place, by the first function, the first streaming record in a delay queue with a delay timestamp according to a type of the event; trigger, in response to placing the first streaming record in the delay queue, operation of a second function and requeuing into the delay queue if the current time is determined to be less than the delay”.
van der LUGT et al teach a wait queue and ready queue where tasks are placed and scheduled such that the task will be resumed once the task reaches the front of the ready queue (paras 0003-4), wherein a task moves from a ready queue to a wait queue and back to the ready queue (para 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CRUZ with van der LUGT et al for the purpose of provisioning delay and ready queues for requeuing the streamed content based on the current time being less than or greater than the delay, which is well-known in multi-queuing systems that provide different content based on time and priority.
Claims 13 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, CRUZ et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the type of the event is an initialization event, a success event, or a recommendation event; and place the first streaming record in the delay queue if the type of event is the initialization event or the success event [Abstract, paras 0004, 0050, 0061—start and end events of sessions placed in FIFO and priority queues].
Claims 14 and 18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 2, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, CRUZ et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: group the first streaming record with a second streaming record based on the second streaming record corresponding to the type of the event associated with the first streaming record [paras 0029, 0038, 0040, 0053, 0059—forming groups of streaming content into activity groups].
Per claim 5, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: trigger, after requeuing the first streaming record into the delay queue when the current time is determined to be less than the delay associated with delay timestamp, the second function to redetermine if a new current time is greater than the delay associated with the delay timestamp for the first streaming record [CRUZ et al: paras 0004, 0054 0125—re-queuing responsive to an ended session removal and priority queues; van der LUGT et al: paras 0003-4, 0012, 0025-27, 0050-53—enqueuing or queuing again task when time less than the wait, moving from a ready queue to a wait queue and back to the ready queue, based on task latency and expected wait time repositioning in the task queue].
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 5, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 10, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, CRUZ et al further teach wherein the event is associated with a digital communication to attract a user into subscribing to a product or service, perform an action, or a combination thereof [paras 0077-78, 0092—event associated with activity of user subscribed to a streaming channel].
Per claim 11, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, CRUZ et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an effectiveness of a digital communication in facilitating interaction by a user with a product or service based on processing the first streaming record associated with the event [paras 0030-31, 0086, 0094, 0125—user interaction scenarios creating session or activity associated with the streaming event].
Per claim 12, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 11, CRUZ et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: modify the digital communication based on the effectiveness of the digital communication to generate a modified digital communication; and transmit the modified digital communication to the user, another user, or a combination thereof [paras 0041, 0077, 0081, 0125—real-time updating, session changes for digital communication].
Per claim 19, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the computer-implemented method of claim 13, CRUZ et al further teaches further comprising triggering the operation of the first function, the second function, or a combination thereof, based on a preference [paras 0032, 0055, 0063, 0065, 0125—user preference options to further define an event].
III. CLAIMS 6-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of CRUZ et al (US 2020/0016495) in view of van der LUGT et al (US 2015/0178125) and STRAUB et al (US 2016/0014179).
Per claim 6, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: establish a setting specifying the delay timestamp for the type of the event. STRAUB et al further teach specifying time parameters and a delay parameter for the targeted video content (para 0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CRUZ with van der LUGT et al and STRAUB et al for the purpose of enabling the setting of delay timestamps for events, which is well-known in the art to allow for manual configuration.
Per claim 7, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al and STRAUB et al teach the system of claim 6, STRAUB et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a request to modify the setting specifying the delay timestamp for the type of the event; and modify the setting to specify a modified delay timestamp for the type of the event based on the request [paras 0005, 0013, 0047-48, 0078—request for scheduling streaming video comprising the expected play out delay].
Per claim 8, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al teach the system of claim 1, as applied above. CRUZ et al teach session queuing service configuring session start, end, and change time; setting limits for participants, session durations, time remaining (paras 0027, 0029, 0040-41, 0055, 0094). STRAUB et al further teach specifying time parameters and a delay parameter for the targeted video content (para 0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al and STRAUB et al for the purpose of enabling the setting of delay timestamps for events, which is well-known in the art to allow for manual configuration.
Claim 16 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 8, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 9, CRUZ et al with van der LUGT et al and STRAUB et al teach the system of claim 8, van der LUGT et al further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: delay triggering of the operation of the second function performed in response to placing the first streaming record in the delay queue in accordance with the delay indicated by the delay setting [col.10 lines 50-67, col.12 lines 16-57, col.13 lines 18-41—delay queues updated with delay indication and priority scheduling information].
Allowable Subject Matter
IV. CLAIMS 3 and 17 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.
Claim 3 claims: “The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: prevent the first streaming record from being placed in the delay queue if the type of event is the recommendation event”. The feature of prevention based on the event being a recommendation is not specifically taught or suggested in the cited prior art. Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 3, and are therefore objected to under the same basis.
Conclusion
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KASICHAINULA et al (US 2023/0262281); GARCIA-LUNA-ACEVES (US 2021/0243135).
VI. 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.
VII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453