DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In response to the Office action mailed on 5/21/2026, the applicants have filed a response: claims 1, 3, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed (U.S. Patent 9,363,134) (Goodspeed hereinafter) in view of Black et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0156586) (Black hereinafter) and Johnston et al. (U.S. Patent 10,282,689) (Johnston hereinafter).
7. As per claim 1, Goodspeed teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining events based on interactions with a web browser; and queueing the obtained events for each of the events [“the client browser 120 creates and queues the event messages according to user interactions and at the same time, the remote assistant application 125 retrieves event messages from the event queue 115,” col. 6, lines 59 – 62].
Goodspeed does not explicitly disclose but Black discloses the queuing comprising, for a given event: identifying, from amongst a plurality of in-memory queues based on the given event, an in-memory queue in which to queue the given event [“a listener that, responsive to receiving notification that a data event has occurred in the in-memory database system, selects a queue in a queue system comprising a plurality of queues to which the data event will be sent and sends the data event to the selected queue to be sent to the data warehouse system,” Cl. 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed and Black available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed to include the capability of event queueing as taught by Black, thereby facilitating efficient event distribution to interested consumers.
Goodspeed and Black do not explicitly disclose but Johnston discloses queuing the given event in the identified in-memory queue based on one or more delivery semantics associated with asynchronous consumption, wherein the one or more delivery semantics specify differentiated queuing metrics applied to the events to determine the identified in-memory queues [“Generally a subscriber to an event monitoring service may desire to have event notifications delivered to application code associated with the subscriber so that some action can be taken. In at least some embodiments, a subscriber may register a subscription (e.g., a path and filter) with the event monitoring service as well as an identifier for a component (web service, REST service, API, etc.), which the subscriber may call in response to a notification from the event monitoring service of a matching event. An event monitoring service may typically employ some kind of messaging infrastructure to deliver event notifications. For example to deliver a notification to a specific component, an event monitoring service may add the event to a message queue from which the event monitoring service, a messaging service or the component reads,” col. 14, line 59 – col. 15, line 6; subscription (e.g., a path and filter) with the event monitoring service as well as an identifier for a component (web service, REST service, API, etc.) mapped to delivery semantics].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black and Johnston available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed and Black to include the capability of providing event access to subscribers as taught by Johnston, thereby facilitating efficient event distribution to interested consumers based on a defined event handling model.
8. As per claim 2, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Goodspeed further teaches wherein the obtained events are generated based on interactions with the web browser [“the client browser 120 creates and queues the event messages according to user interactions and at the same time, the remote assistant application 125 retrieves event messages from the event queue 115,” col. 6, lines 59 – 62].
9. As per claim 7, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the identified in-memory queue is identified based on a type of the given event [“the listener may select or identify a proxy table into which the data event should be entered. For example, in embodiments, the listener may place the data into a proxy table based upon data type, load balancing factors, performance, priority of data, etc.,” ¶ 0039; selection based on data type mapped to identification based on event type].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed and Black available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed to include the capability of event queueing as taught by Black, thereby facilitating efficient event distribution to interested consumers.
10. As per claim 10, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the asynchronous consumption comprises asynchronous transmissions of events to a remote server [“In embodiment, one microbatch listener 340 is created for each proxy table in the system. In embodiments, the microbatch listeners are where the parameters that set the options for writing out to the data warehouse may be specified. For example, the parameters might be the batch size (which may be of any size), time intervals, certain events, or combinations thereof,” ¶ 0038; batch size and time intervals suggest asynchronous delivery to the data warehouse (consumption)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed and Black available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed to include the capability of event queueing as taught by Black, thereby facilitating efficient event distribution to interested consumers.
11. As per claim 11, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Goodspeed further teaches wherein at least some of the obtained events correspond to document object model (DOM)-related events [“With reference to FIG.2b, once the client browser 120 on the client computing device 118 has loaded the page, the executable code is enabled to perform a series of actions. The executable code creates a copy of the model or schema with which it is associated, such as a document object model (DOM), and stores that copy on the data store 110. A DOM will be used for ease of explanation, but it should be under stood that this is merely one example of an object model or schema. The executable code then stores an event message in the event queue 115 with a link or URI to the copy of the DOM stored on the data store 110. Lastly, the executable code binds event handlers to all user interface modules of the Web page and its associated DOM. The function of these event handlers is discussed in detail below,” col. 6, lines 7 – 20].
12. As per claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
13. As per claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
14. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
15. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
16. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Paya et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0187895) (Paya hereinafter).
17. As per claim 4, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 3. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Paya discloses wherein the event detection script or event monitoring service is securely isolated from the web browser using an inline frame [“The inline frameset isolates content from the various data sources. One of these frames includes the login frame 104 displaying user name and password fields. The content for the login frame 104 is obtained from a user authentication service. The cobranding frames 106 may include, for example, a participating web site's cobranding content that is loaded from the web site's server. The frames 104, 106 and frame fragments are downloaded in parallel in one web browser implementation via a protocol such as hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS),” ¶ 0035; “In a web browser embodiment, the invention provides backwards compatibility for web browsers, support for inline and regular frames depending on browser version, navigation buttons such as backward and forward buttons, explicit links in HTML for navigating backward and forward, and event handlers for script navigation. The invention prevents the harvesting of user-credentials or profile data assuming that the underlying protocols such as secure sockets layer are cryptographically secure and that the client web-browser is secure. The strict frame layout assigns each frame a specific location, size and z-index for controlling background versus foreground rendering on the page. Further, the invention may register an event handler on the top-level document that is triggered on navigation to further ensure separation of content,” ¶ 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Paya available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of user data isolation as taught by Paya, thereby facilitating secure handling of disparate content.
18. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Abrahami (U.S. Publication 2024/0211528) (Abrahami hereinafter).
19. As per claim 5, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 3. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Abrahami discloses wherein the event detection script or event monitoring service is securely isolated from the web browser using a secure sandbox [“the security policy is to not allow code running in a sandbox execution environment to interact with the DOM and/or DOM events and to extract or hoist such DOM event interactions selectively for compiling into trusted code that may be executed in a primary execution environment. Accordingly, in this contextual example, the relevant rules applied by the trusted code identification model include: [0145] (1) event is a parameter of the event handler, of Type Event (native browser event type) [0146] (2) Allow access to event.target.value [0147] (3) Allow access to event.which [0148] (4) Do not allow access to any other event attribute,” ¶ 0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Abrahami available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of data isolation using sandboxes as taught by Abrahami, thereby facilitating secure handling of disparate content.
20. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Mounirou et al. (U.S. Patent 11,422,871) (Mounirou hereinafter).
21. As per claim 6, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 2. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Mounirou discloses wherein the identified in-memory queue comprises events queued for responding to a replay request [“The replay event writer function 416 of each worker 418, 430 may then read the events 426, 428, 438, 440 from the respective queues 424, 436 and write them to the event bus 108. If any failure happens, the respective replay event writer function 416 of worker 418, 430 may retry for X number of times, where X may vary according to implementation or be specified by the customer, and if that does not succeed, may move the problematic event to queue 450, and cause a report or log to be sent in response to the replay request 402 indicating the error, such as through the replay work scheduler 412,” col. 18, lines 9 – 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mounirou available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of event archiving and replay as taught by Mounirou, thereby facilitating efficient event recall and replay.
22. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Thiyam et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0113091) (Thiyam hereinafter).
23. As per claim 8, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Thiyam discloses wherein queueing the given event in the identified in- memory queue comprises, prior to adding the given event to the identified in-memory queue: determining that the identified in-memory queue has reached a defined maximum size; and discarding at least one event from the in-memory queue [“FIG. 6 represents example behavior of the queue with an increasing number of cached events being added to the queue. As depicted in FIG. 6, when an amount of cache events reaches a maximum size of the queue, the queue reaches a saturation level and begins to remove least frequently and/or least recently used cache events from the queue and inserts a new cache event,” ¶ 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Thiyam available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of queue capacity management as taught by Thiyam, thereby facilitating efficient event storage within system capacity limitations.
24. As per claim 9, Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Thiyam teach the method of claim 8. Thiyam further teaches wherein the discarded at least one event from the identified in-memory queue is selected based on a position of the at least one event in the identified in-memory queue [“FIG. 6 represents example behavior of the queue with an increasing number of cached events being added to the queue. As depicted in FIG. 6, when an amount of cache events reaches a maximum size of the queue, the queue reaches a saturation level and begins to remove least frequently and/or least recently used cache events from the queue and inserts a new cache event,” ¶ 0050; least frequently/recently used suggests a position within the queue].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Thiyam available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of queue capacity management as taught by Thiyam, thereby facilitating efficient event storage within system capacity limitations.
25. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Mekkattuparamban et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0188494) (Mekkattuparamban hereinafter).
26. As per claim 12, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Mekkattuparamban discloses wherein the identified in-memory queue has a relatively higher capacity than at least one other in-memory queue of the plurality of in-memory queues [“determining capacity of each of the plurality of resource queues, and wherein allocating comprises allocating a new bucket to a resource queue from a round robin list of the resource queues in order of relative capacity of the respective resource queues,” Cl. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mekkattuparamban available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of queue capacity management as taught by Mekkattuparamban, thereby facilitating efficient event storage within system capacity limitations.
27. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mekkattuparamban in further view of Keller et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0124048) (Keller hereinafter).
28. As per claim 13, Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mekkattuparamban teach the method of claim 12. Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mekkattuparamban do not explicitly disclose but Keller discloses wherein the at least one other in-memory queue is associated with at least one other event type having a relatively lower priority than a type of the given event [“each pair of nodes of the plurality of pairs of nodes having a plurality of queues allocated, each plurality of queues allocated to a pair of nodes comprising at least a first and a second queue, the first queue having a high priority, the second queue having a lower priority than the first queue,” ¶ 0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston, Mekkattuparamban and Keller available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Mekkattuparamban to include the capability of queue priority management as taught by Keller, thereby facilitating efficient event storage within system capacity limitations.
29. Claims 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodspeed, Black and Johnston in further view of Kish (U.S. Publication 2016/0249376) (Kish hereinafter).
30. As per claim 14, Goodspeed, Black and Johnston teach the method of claim 1. Goodspeed, Black and Johnston do not explicitly disclose but Kish discloses wherein the plurality of in-memory queues comprises three or more event queues including the identified in-memory queue, at least some of the three or more in-memory queues having a different priority level [“a classifier configured to receive a data packet and assign the packet to one of a plurality of priority transmission queues, wherein each of the plurality of the priority transmission queues includes an associated packet priority level for data transmission and one or more station queues, wherein each station queue is assigned a weight indicative of a transmission channel capacity or a transmission channel priority, and wherein a data packet in a station queue with a higher weight is transmitted before a data packet in a station queue with a lower weight,” Cl. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Kish available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of priority-based queue management as taught by Kish, thereby facilitating efficient event storage and transmission within system capacity and priority limitations.
31. As per claim 15, Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Kish teach the method of claim 14. Kish further teaches wherein each of the three or more in-memory queues comprises a corresponding capacity based on a corresponding priority level [“a classifier configured to receive a data packet and assign the packet to one of a plurality of priority transmission queues, wherein each of the plurality of the priority transmission queues includes an associated packet priority level for data transmission and one or more station queues, wherein each station queue is assigned a weight indicative of a transmission channel capacity or a transmission channel priority, and wherein a data packet in a station queue with a higher weight is transmitted before a data packet in a station queue with a lower weight,” Cl. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Kish available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of priority-based queue management as taught by Kish, thereby facilitating efficient event storage and transmission within system capacity and priority limitations.
32. As per claim 16, Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Kish teach the method of claim 14. Kish further teaches wherein each of the three or more in-memory queues transmits events to a remote server asynchronously based on a corresponding priority level [“a classifier configured to receive a data packet and assign the packet to one of a plurality of priority transmission queues, wherein each of the plurality of the priority transmission queues includes an associated packet priority level for data transmission and one or more station queues, wherein each station queue is assigned a weight indicative of a transmission channel capacity or a transmission channel priority, and wherein a data packet in a station queue with a higher weight is transmitted before a data packet in a station queue with a lower weight,” Cl. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goodspeed, Black, Johnston and Kish available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of obtaining browser-based events as disclosed by Goodspeed, Black and Johnston to include the capability of priority-based queue management as taught by Kish, thereby facilitating efficient event storage and transmission within system capacity and priority limitations.
Response to Arguments
33. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
34. Applicant argues on pages 3 and 4 that Goodspeed and Black fail to teach each and every element of amended claim 1. First, Goodspeed is not cited for queueing events in in-memory queues for asynchronous consumption and Black is not cited for teaching the newly added delivery semantics in amended claim 1. Additionally, Black is cited in combination with Goodspeed as teaching interactions with a web browser. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
35. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, rationale for combining the cited references is recited above.
36. Regarding the claimed differentiated delivery semantics recited on page 5, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “higher-priority, less frequent events …,” etc.) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations are thus interpreted broadly to include the cited portions of Johnston as recited above.
Conclusion
37. 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 WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
