Patent Grant
11223544
This application is related to copending application, entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR QUEUING REQUESTS AND PROVIDING QUEUE STATUS, Ser. No. 11/014,269, filed on Dec. 16, 2004, the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is related to queuing, and in particular, to apparatus and processes for queuing access to network resources.
2. Description of the Related Art
Many online processes involve large numbers of users attempting to access networked systems and resources with limited capacity. For example, with respect to online auctions, there may be a limited number of items, such as tickets, being auctioned, and a large number of users that want to bid for such items at about the same time or within a short period of time. In many conventional systems, when such a situation occurs, the system may not be able to process all user requests, and so many users may be provided with an error message informing them that system access is not currently available and instructing users to attempt to access the system at a later time. This can cause user frustration and discourage many users from further attempting to access the system.
In addition, with some conventional systems, when large numbers of users attempt to access the system at about the same time, the system may disadvantageously fail to provide orderly or fair access to the system resources.
One embodiment of the present invention provides apparatus and methods for queuing access by large numbers of Internet or other network-based users to networked systems and resources with limited capacity, such as, by way of example, situations where demand far exceeds resources.
In one example embodiment, a queuing process provides user access to network resources, such as those involved in ticket transactions, in a fair, systematic, and deterministic manner while maintaining transaction state information with the detection of implicit or explicit abandonment of user places in the queue.
Advantageously, inordinate processing resources are not expended on the maintenance of user connections to the system prior to being serviced by the limited system resource. Additionally, in order to allow a wide variety of user clients or terminal-types, including those with limited processor power, to access a server-based system, functionality on the user side is optionally kept simple. By way of example, the user terminal can be a computing device executing a browser, such as a browser-equipped personal digital assistant, cell phone, interactive television, or personal computer.
To further ensure equitable access to the limited system resources, the queue is preferably resistant to tampering such that a user's position in the queue is controlled by the server side, rather than the client or user terminal side. Preferably, the system recovers from server-side failures substantially transparently to end-users.
One example embodiment provides a method of queuing ticketing requests using a ticketing computer system, the method comprising: receiving at a ticketing computer system an electronic request for a ticket transmitted from a user browser; queuing the request within the ticketing computer system; transmitting an instruction from the ticketing computer system to the browser, the instruction causing the browser to transmit messages at a periodic rate to the ticketing computer system during a first period; determining if the browser has ceased transmitting messages for at least a first duration during the first period; determining if the browser is transmitting messages at greater than a first frequency during the first period; in response to determining that the browser has ceased transmitting messages during the first period or that the browser is transmitting messages at greater than a first frequency during the first period, determining that the request is not to be fulfilled; and responding to the request when the browser has not ceased transmitting messages during the first period and is not transmitting messages at greater than a first frequency during the first period.
Another example embodiment provides a ticket system that queues ticket requests, the system comprising: a ticket queue in computer readable memory that queues a ticketing request received from a client system prior to fulfilling the ticketing request; and a ticketing request processing module stored in computer readable memory configured to cause the client system to repeatedly transmit messages to the ticket system during a first period, and in response to determining that the client system has ceased transmitting messages during the first period, to remove the ticketing request from the ticket queue and/or cause the ticketing request to go unfulfilled.
Still another example embodiment provides an electronic ticketing management method, the comprising: receiving at a computer ticketing system a ticketing request from a networked first request source; determining if a number of ticket-related communications from the first request source exceeds a first amount in a first window of time; and at least partly in response to determining that the number of ticket-related communications from the first request source exceeds the first amount in the first window of time, preventing at least one ticket related request from the first request source from being serviced.
One example embodiment provides an electronic ticketing management method, comprising: rendering a ticketing Web page form for display to a user; determining if the user has a ticket in a reserved state by accessing information stored in computer readable memory; retrieving from computer readable memory a value related to an amount of time the user has to complete the Web page form before expiration of the ticket reservation; electronically determining if the ticket reservation has expired at least partly as a result of the user failing to timely complete the Web page form; and after determining that the ticket reservation has expired, causing a reservation expiration notice to be presented to the user.
Another example embodiment provides a method of queuing requests using a computer system, the method comprising: receiving at a computer system an electronic request transmitted for a resource from a client computer associated with a user; electronically queuing the request; transmitting an instruction from the computer system to the client system, the instruction intended to cause the client system to transmit messages to the computer system during a first period at a first rate; determining if the client system has ceased transmitting the messages for at least a first duration during the first period; at least partly in response to determining that the client system has ceased transmitting messages during the first period, determining that the request is not to be fulfilled, and based at least in part on determining that the client system has not ceased transmitting messages during the first period, responding to the request.
Throughout the following description, the term “Web site” is used to refer to a user-accessible server site that implements the basic World Wide Web standards for the coding and transmission of hypertextual documents. These standards currently include HTML (the Hypertext Markup Language) and HTTP (the Hypertext Transfer Protocol). It should be understood that the term “site” is not intended to imply a single geographic location, as a Web or other network site can, for example, include multiple geographically distributed computer systems that are appropriately linked together. Furthermore, while the following description relates to an embodiment utilizing the Internet and related protocols, other networks, such as networked interactive televisions, and other protocols may be used as well.
In addition, unless otherwise indicated, the functions described herein are preferably performed by executable code and instructions running on one or more general purpose computers, terminals, personal digital assistants, cellular phones, or the like. However, the present invention can also be implemented using special purpose computers, state machines, and/or hardwired electronic circuits. The example processes described herein do not necessarily have to be performed in the described sequence, and not all states have to be reached or performed.
Embodiments of the present invention can be used with numerous different operating systems, including by way of example and not limitation, Microsoft's Windows operating systems, Sun's Solaris operating systems, Linux operating systems, Unix operating systems, Apple OS X or other Apple operating systems, as well as other operating systems.
Further, while the following description may refer to “clicking on” a link or button, or pressing a key in order to provide a command or make a selection, the commands or selections can also be made using other input techniques, such as using voice input, pen input, mousing or hovering over an input area, and/or the like.
As will be described below, in an example embodiment, a transaction includes a user request transmitted via a browser over a network to access certain computer-controlled resources. By way of example and not limitation, the resources can be associated with tickets or with handling ticket transactions, such as the sale or transfer of tickets. A ticket, for example, can represent the right to utilize a reserved or general admission seat at an entertainment/sports venue, on an airplane or other mode of transportation, and so on.
The resources can also be associated with other types of transactions, such as, by way of example and not limitation, product sale transactions, information request transactions, and so on. The user request is queued until the request can be serviced by the responding system. By way of example, the queue time can depend on the number of requests, the load on the responding system, complexity/processing time of each request, and/or the duration of time such resource is used/reserved by each request. By way of example, a request can relate to selecting and/or paying for seats for an event. The system can hold or reserve the selected seats for a specified period of time and/or until the user completes a specified task, such as entering payment information for the tickets, and/or approving the ticket purchase.
While the request is still in the queue, a delay or wait symbol is displayed on receipt of a server sleep message, and the browser sleeps for a specified period of time and then contacts the server again. The delay or wait symbol cam be, by way of example, a rotating horizontal striped bar, a clock, or other symbol. An example Web page depicting such a delay or wait symbol is illustrated in
In addition, if a browser does not proceed correctly through a certain predetermined sequence of pages, such as Web pages, before issuing a request, the request will not be entered into the queue, or will be removed from the queue or ignored.
With reference to
The user terminal includes a browser or other network access software capable of performing basic Internet functionality such as rendering HTML code and accepting user input. The browser stores small pieces of information, such as digital cookies, locally, such as in user terminal non-volatile memory. The information can be accessed and included in future requests made via the browser. By way of example, a cookie can store customer, session, and/or browser identification information. The browser also accepts messages. For example, the browser can accept messages received over a network, such as the Internet 108, that cause the browser to “sleep” (to cease sending requests over the network) for a designated time period after which the browser then reconnects to a predetermined web address with a specified request message. Optionally, the request message can conventionally include a uniform resource locator (URL).
The following example components can be invoked or used during or in relation to a queuing process. The components can include session tokens, a front end switching network 110, a state and information data cache which can be stored in a first set of servers 112 that forms a high capacity front end, a second set of servers 114 that includes application servers, a third set of servers 116 responsible for controlling master queues of transactional customers, and core ticketing server system 118, which will be explained in greater detail below. Other embodiments can use or invoke different components then the foregoing components and/or can invoke additional components.
A description of the session token will now be provided. The session token is a piece of data generated as a user initiates certain ticketing core transactions. This session token is optionally encrypted to prevent tampering and contains components to direct the transaction's flow through the process including, by way of example, the issuing server's identification, the time of transaction initiation, and the resource type.
In an example embodiment, the session token has a structure that contains some or all of the following components, and their type:
session_sequence_number: The session_sequence_number is used to hold the state of a session within the transaction process. By way of example and not limitation, the state can be a “transaction not started” state, a “seats reserved payment not made” state, and so on. The session_sequence_number is used to detect duplicate inbound requests from outer layers of the network as well as to detect an improper sequence of requests as compared to the standard transaction process. In addition, the session_sequence_number can be used to distinguish duplicate identical requests caused by a user refreshing web page, or to distinguish multiple internal servers needing the same result sets as opposed to end users attempting to add multiple requests into the queue. For the former, cached results may be returned. For the latter, such requests may be denied or older requests may be removed from the queue.
session_number: The session number is a numeric, alphanumeric, or other code used to uniquely identify a session within a queuing server system. Being numeric or alphanumeric, the session_number can be used as a quick index for finding the internal session structure, without the need to resort to time consuming search techniques.
source_queuing server: The source_queuing server field contains the queuing server system id that initially issued the session token. Since a session is related to a ticket selling or transfer context on the core ticketing system (sometimes referred to as the “host”), under normal circumstances once a queuing server system 116 initiates a session, the session is completed on the same queuing server system. The source_queuing server field enables the proxy and application layers to route an inbound request from a user browser to the same queuing server at each step in the transaction. On failure of a queuing server system, session tokens intended for the failed system can be submitted to other queuing server systems in the network. When a queuing server receives a session token with a source queuing server number not matching its own id, the queuing server will assume there has been a server failure of the server corresponding to the id, and will attempt to take ownership of the session.
queue_id: A given queue server may handle many queues. By way of example, resources to communicate to each core ticketing server 118 may, in certain embodiments, need a separate physical queue. Such queues for each ticketing server 118 may be further broken down depending on the type of resources or for resources with certain privilege level, and each of those resources may need a queue corresponding to the nature of the request type. This queue identifier in the queue_id field may be used to quickly identify the physical queue the session is currently associated with.
queuing server_Ip: As similarly discussed above with respect to the source_queuing server field, the queuing server_ip field is used to quickly route requests from the application and proxy layers to the queuing server currently owning or managing the session.
cache_id: The cache_id is used to quickly find an active task within the queuing server associated with a session. When a command has been issued which takes a substantial amount of time, such as more than 1 second (though other time periods can be used) by way of example, to complete, a task is created. By way of example, the command can be a reserve seats command, which may involve tasks such as pricing and inventory updating. On subsequent poll requests issued by the user browser, a session token with an associated cache_id allows the status of this task to be quickly determined. By way of example, the poll requests can be issued periodically by the browser at times or periods specified by the server system. The cache_id can optionally be used in addition to the session_sequence_number in order to detect duplicate or out of sequence requests and appropriately handle responses that are already generated.
serving_order: The serving order is a field which contains a priority and a time component. The serving order is used when a queuing server attempts to take ownership of a session from another failed queuing server. The priority portion is used to determine which of multiple queues a session will be assigned. The time portion is optionally derived from a clock tick on the core ticketing system. In the event of a server failure, this allows sessions generated on different queuing servers to be roughly compared in priority to sessions generated on other servers.
Front end switching network. The front-end switching network 110 (also referred to as a proxy layer) dynamically directs user requests to an appropriate server sets based on relative server load, server availability, and the request transaction state.
A state and information data cache that is maintained in the server network. The state and information data cache holds copies of some or all transactional information for each active customer as well as information regarding each customer's progress through the transaction process. The data cache optionally also holds static or relatively static system-wide information to avoid the need for core ticketing server system 118 intervention.
A first set of servers 112 that forms a high capacity front end. This first set of servers 112 responds directly to simple or selected requests for information. The first set of servers 112 can optionally forward selected or more complex requests or transactional requests to deeper level servers. The first set of servers 112 can enforce transaction flow rules. The flow rules can be stored within the first set of servers 112, the second set of servers 114, or elsewhere. In combination with the front end switching network 110 and state cache, this layer can detect and block unreasonable or suspicious transaction flow rates that may be indicative of access by undesirable entities. Such unreasonable or suspicious transaction flow rates may be associated with robots under the control of ticket scalpers or the like which may be trying to buy or temporarily tie up tickets so that other users cannot purchase the tickets via the system, and would instead be more likely to buy tickets from the scalper at a significant premium over face value.
In one optional embodiment, a second set of servers 114 includes application servers that are responsible for generating transactional pages, populating the data cache, providing logic and/or rules for the transaction flows, and sequencing requests to the ticketing transactional core servers.
A third set of servers 116 is responsible for controlling the master queues of transactional customers. By way of example, the controllers can perform the following actions: maintain variable transaction timers (such as reservation timers), detect transaction abandonment, prioritize customers based on transaction type and resource requested, calculate estimated time until requests will be serviced, suggest or determine redirect timings, detect or determine ticketing core system load, manage inbound core transactional flow, and detect transactions that can be handled by the third set of servers without being forwarded to the core transactional system servers, discussed below. The queue managers can continuously and/or periodically monitor the core system load, and forward queued requests to the core system as sufficient resources become available. This process can optionally occur independently of inbound requests.
A set of core ticketing servers 118 is responsible for handling basic transactions such as inventory management, financial information, and customer data.
In an example embodiment, the basic flow of the system for transactions in progress is based on polling of the system by the user browser. The browser initiates a request which is placed in a queue. By way of example, the queue can be a priority queue, a first-in-first-out queue, a last-in-last-out queue, or other type of queue. Until this request completes or the user abandons the transaction, a sequence of messages passes between the browser and a corresponding responding server on a periodic basis. The rate of these messages is variable and can be based on system load and/or on the location of requests within a queue. For example, at different system load thresholds, different message rates can be used, so that the higher the system load, the lower the message rate. The failure of the browser to transmit messages within a predetermined period indicates that the user may have abandoned the transaction.
Optionally, a relatively shorter predetermined period of time may be used to determine whether a request is a possibly (as opposed to a highly likely) abandoned request. If a browser message has not been received within the shorter period of time, the request may be allowed to remain in the queue, but the request will not be serviced until another message is received for such session. A relatively longer predetermined period of time may be used to detect a request which has a higher likelihood or certainty of being abandoned. If a browser message has not been received within the longer period of time, the request can optionally be removed from the queue permanently. The ongoing message communication is optionally achieved without user intervention by having the responding server pass timed redirect messages back to the browser. If the message includes a URL, then by repeating the message, the browser is “refreshing” the URL.
A customer or user web request is directed by the front end switching network to the appropriate set of servers. The switching network bases its decision as to which server is to handle the request on one or more of the following criteria.
1) The failure status of hardware in each section of the server set.
2) The available processing resources in the various sections of the server set.
3) If the transaction has already been initiated via a prior request. If this has occurred, the switch network attempts to pass the request through a similar path to minimize or reduce inter-server data movement.
4) Based on data collected from various sources. Based on the collected data, these servers in conjunction with the high capacity front end, can block transactions which are initiated by automated systems, such as robots operated by scalpers or other undesirable entities, as opposed to legitimate users.
The high capacity front-end server receives the browser issued request, determines the request disposition, and selects the appropriate actions to be taken. An example request disposition process is depicted by
1) At state 202, if the request is for information that is held in the data cache, at state 204 this information is optionally handled directly by the high capacity front end server.
2) At state 206, if the there is a request for the status of an in-progress transaction, at state 208, the request is forwarded to the queue managers. Incomplete transactions result in the generation of redirect web pages, otherwise requests are forwarded to the application layer for web page generation.
3) At state 210, if the request is for information not stored in the data cache or if the request is part of the transaction flow, at state 212, the request is forwarded to the appropriate application server as chosen by rules similar to those used by the switching network. At state 214, if the application server cannot generate results completely within itself, at state 216, the application server can initiate transactions with the queuing servers.
The front-end server includes a request throttle that provides or attempts to provide substantially equal computing resources to users accessing or attempting to access the resources, while enforcing certain “Access and Interference” rules of use. By way of example, the rules of use can specify that users are not to use any robot, spider, other automatic device, or manual process to monitor or copy ticketing web pages or the content contained thereon or for any other unauthorized purpose without the site operator's prior written permission. The rules of use can additionally specify that users are not to use a device, software or routine to interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the system and/or associated web site. The rules of use can specify that users are not to take an action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the system infrastructure or resources. The rules of use can further specify that users are not to copy, reproduce, alter, modify, create derivative works, or publicly display Web site content, except for the user's own personal, non-commercial use without the prior permission of the system operator.
In one embodiment, the fair access core throttle is optionally implemented using the following logical components: a session management module, a proxy network verification module, and a real-time throttle module.
The session management module independently manages the creation and validation of substantially tamper-proof sessions and browser cookies. Cookies generated by the session management module are encrypted, and made unique via a code and/or the like. The session management module provides its peer modules, including selected or all server side components, with unencrypted access to active session and browser cookies.
The proxy network verification module provides the fair access core throttle module with a public interface, exposed directly to the public Internet or other public network, for network verification. If the core throttle module determines that action, such as blocking access, should be taken against an individual source IP address because of violation of the access and/or interference rules, the verification module first verifies that the source address associated with the offending use is not that of a known proxy network. For example, the system can keep a list of known robots, which can then be blocked immediately. Known proxy networks have their IP addresses optionally stored in network byte order, such as in two DB hash files. The compiled DB files are optionally optimized for fast real-time lookups. During network verification, an example embodiment of the throttle module uses the client IP address, the contents of the two DB hash files, and corresponding binary arithmetic to determine whether or not the source IP is that of a known proxy network. The proxy network verification module thereby limits the scope of a potential block to a selected individual client, rather than inadvertently blocking a collection of proxied clients that are not violating the rules.
The fair access core throttle module utilizes features provided by the session module and the proxy network verification module. The core throttle module is responsible for determining when to deny access to system's web infrastructure. The throttle module records a series of attributes associated with a given request: browser id (BID), session id (SID), source IP, network CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) block, time stamp, and/or block state. The request attributes are stored in a shared memory file system, and subsequent requests are ensured “sticky” by upstream networking hardware, such as cache servers that can optionally be operated by third party entities. The network attribute is in whole or in part the result of a common bit mask applied to the client IP address. Its granularity is selectable and configurable. For example, a bit mask, such as a 24 bit mask, is applied to the source IP addresses so that entire class C′s (corresponding to networks of 256 or fewer devices) can be tracked. Optionally, other size masks can be used and other class sizes can be tracked. The core throttle module uses the following configurable windows (floating time period, in seconds), to determine violation of policy or rules: the CIDR window, and the cookie (SID/BID) window. Each window has a corresponding maximum number of requests specified.
If the request maximum is reached during the configured time period, subsequent requests are blocked from the corresponding IP address. The duration of the block time is also configurable. Optionally, the throttle module will track source IP address, rather than SID/BID, if client cookie information is unavailable. The throttle module employs the network verification module, prior to applying a block to a given source IP address.
If a request is routed to an application server, then upon receiving the request, the application server can perform one or more of the following actions:
1) Generate web pages and populate the data cache for system wide information pages
2) Populate the data cache from core servers
3) Detect invalid motion through the transactional process, such as the use of the browser back button or the accessing an information page by directly entering the corresponding URL into the browser address field, rather than navigating to the information page by first passing through the appropriate other information pages.
4) Update the state cache with transactional data
5) Issue core transaction requests to the queue management servers
The queue management servers perform one or more of the following actions on various requests:
1) New transactions initiate the generation of a new session token. The queue managers determine the correct queue into which the transaction should be placed based on core server status, the nature of the inventory being requested, and/or the transaction type.
2) The session token is received by the queue managers on subsequent requests so that the queue manager can quickly associate the inbound request with transactions being managed by the server.
3) Requests for core static data are either service out of a local cache or forwarded to the core servers as necessary.
4) The queue managers optionally continually examine core system load and forward queued requests to the core as resources become available. This process happens independently of inbound requests. The queue manager may also automatically complete a transaction without forwarding it to the core based on data inferred from recent transactions.
5) As requests complete in the core ticketing server system 118, the queue managers start transaction timers such that a lack of communication from the user after a transaction has been queued or completed will be determined to be an abandonment.
6) Status requests can result in transaction complete responses, transaction abandoned responses, or transaction in-progress responses. If a transaction is considered to be in-progress, an estimate of time until the transaction or transaction request will be serviced is calculated based at least in part on the transaction's place in queue and/or the rate at which the core is able to handle requests. From this estimate the system can dynamically determine the redirect frequency.
In particular, in an example embodiment, the queue managers can provide a host load throttle that dynamically determines the number of concurrent requests that should be allowed to access the ticketing core at a given point in time. The host load throttle manages the concurrent requests so as to achieve or attempt to achieve the following goals:
1) attempt to or succeed in maintaining core load centered around a specified average or median response time.
2) ensure the number of connections with user terminals do not drop below a specified floor value.
3) ensure the number of connections do not grow above a specified ceiling value.
4) limit the rate of growth of host or core load in response to spikes in demand so that host load grows smoothly.
5) react to changes in demand smoothly both on increases and decreases in changes in demand
6) react more aggressively as far as decreasing host load to achieve the goal than would be done to increase host or core load.
The algorithm variables involved in appropriately throttling or controlling concurrent requests include:
frequency: This algorithm is called periodically at a very specific rate. Based on this frequency the algorithm translates call counts (the number of times the algorithm has been called over a specific or selected time frame) into times.
new allowed_request_count: The number of requests the host can accept which will most closely achieve the goals.
current_request_count: The number of requests currently active on the host.
request_floor: The lowest number of outstanding requests the algorithm will allow.
request_ceiling: The highest number of outstanding requests the algorithm will allow.
desired_host_response_time: The optimal or preferred host load in terms of the time it takes to respond to a request.
maximum request_increase_rate: The maximum number of new requests that can be added to the host per unit time
current_host_load: The current measurement of the host's response time.
tracking_steps: The rate in terms of calls at which the algorithm will achieve the desired host load. The tracking steps can be selected to obtain a relatively steady state system load, in a graceful manner. For example, a desired average system load is optionally achieved with relatively small deviations from the average load, rather than fluctuating wildly around the desired average load. Thus, the appropriate selection of the tracking steps, as described below, avoids the system overacting to sudden demands, and avoid having the system to attempt to respond to short, extreme spikes in demand.
The algorithm uses a function similar to the n item geometric mean equation:
eln(desired_load/current_load)/tracking steps
An example throttle process is illustrated in
adjustment value=eln(desired_load/current_load)ltracking_steps
At state 310, the new number of requests allowed to access the ticketing core at a given point in time is determined. For example, the new number can be calculated based on the current number and the adjustment value. By way of further example, the following equation can be used to calculate the new number of requests, though other equations and techniques can be used as well:
New Number of Requests=Integer[Round_UP(adjustment value*current number of requests)]
where the new number of requests is set equal to the integer portion of the rounded-up value of the adjustment value multiplied by the adjustment value. At state 312, if the adjustment value is less than a first threshold “M”, such as a very small value or fraction of a request, then the value of the new number of requests is modified in the appropriate direction by a number of requests “N”. For example, N can have a value of +2 or −2.
At state 314, if the number of requests are increased, the new request count is adjusted to ensure that that request adjustment amount is less than maximum request increase rate. In addition, at state 316, the new request count is adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that the new request count falls within the range defined by the request floor and the request ceiling.
Requests issued via user browsers are typically asynchronous with respect to requests from other user browsers. There are two example occasions when asynchronous requests can time out: before the request is processed if the request hasn't been “pinged” recently by the user browser (implying the user has canceled his request); and if the request has been processed but has not been “picked up” by the user, wherein the user has not completed the next transaction step within or approximately within the allotted time.
It is very likely that in some cases requests will be made, but then, before they can be serviced, the customer will abandon their request. For example, a common scenario is that the user will select tickets for potential purchase, and “navigate” the user web browser away from the system Web site before completing the ticket purchase process. As similarly discussed above, the system attempts to prevent users from unduly reserving tickets when the user is no longer interested in the tickets, so the system optionally requires the user browser to keep polling the system to indicate that the user is still interested in the ticket.
Optionally, each time the user browser pings or polls the request, the browser will be notified of an estimated wait time or poll timing. The proxy layer can determine the poll timing or interval based on the estimated wait time. The system can transmit the notification over the network to the user browser. The browser uses the poll interval or timing information to time future polling operations. The estimated time can be divided by a given number, such as 10. A “fudge factor” is optionally provided to ensure that the request is not dropped as a result of the network being slow, rather than a failure of the browser to poll. If the result is greater than a first threshold, such as 45 seconds, the browser will poll again after a first delay, such as 45 seconds. If the result is less than a second threshold, such as 4 seconds, the browser will poll again after a second minimum delay, such as 4 seconds.
If the request is now ready to be processed but it hasn't been pinged or polled in the last n milliseconds, then the request is not processed, but rather marked as timed-out. The n milliseconds can be defined as minimum (the value in the polling server setting, [the estimated time/10+20000]), though the value can be calculated using other formulas and/or constants.
If a response has been processed but not “picked up” for n milliseconds (where “n” is defined and adjustable via run-time configuration parameters, or as otherwise defined or configured) then the response is released and marked as expired. For example, this can occur if the user browser fails to poll or ping after the request has been processed. In such instances, resources reserved for such requests may also be released.
At state 410, once the increment determination has been made, a determination is made as to whether the increment was successful. For example, when a configured time increment is found, the application requests that time addition from the reservation holder. The reservation holder may choose to reject that request based on internal logic or rules. An example of this would be a configured maximum increment or a maximum total accumulated time across all increment requests. This is done to prevent someone from gaming the system and incrementing the timer indefinitely.
If the increment was successful, the process proceeds to state 414, and the application proceeds to the next application step. By way of example and not limitation, the step can be a page view, a button press, a link activation, or the reaching of certain data conditions. If the increment was not successful, the process proceeds to state 412, and the error is logged or displayed based on error type and/or severity.
With respect to the reservation holder module, at state 416, a determination is made as to whether the reservation has expired, that is, the browser has not polled or the user has not taken a necessary action within the time increment. If the reservation has expired, the process proceeds to state 418, and a report is provided to the user browser for display to the user regarding the expired reservation. If the reservation has not expired, the process proceeds to state 420 and a determination is made as to whether the increment has exceeded a defined limit before being used. If yes, the process proceeds to state 422, and the internal expiration time is not altered, and at state 434 the current value of the expiration timer is reported in response to the request for the time increment at state 408.
If at state 420, a determination is made that the retrieved or calculated increment has not exceeded the defined limit, the process proceeds to state 424, and a determination is made as to whether the retrieved or calculated expiration time is greater then a configured limit. If the new expiration time is greater then a configured limit, the process proceeds to state 422, and the expiration time is left unaltered.
If the new expiration time is not greater then a configured limit the process proceeds from state 424 to state 426, and a determination is made as to whether the increment request is part of a larger inventory operation, such as for a compound inventory operation involving more than one event. If yes, the anticipated time needed to complete the other tasks or operations involved in the larger inventory operation. At state 430, the increment time is adjusted by adding or subtracting the calculated time, as appropriate. The process proceeds from state 430, or from state 424 if the new expiration time is not greater then the configured limit, to state 432, and the internal increment timer is incremented by a selected or predetermined number of increment seconds. The process then proceeds to state 434, and the current value of the expiration timer is reported in response to the request for the time increment at state 408.
If there are tickets in a reserved state for the user, the process proceeds from state 504 to state 506, and the system retrieves the amount of time left for the user to complete the task before the reservation expires. The process then proceeds to state 508, and a determination is made as to whether the reservation has expired. If the reservation has expired, the process proceeds to state 509, and a reservation expired page, such as that illustrated in
If, at state 508, the reservation has not expired, the process proceeds to state 510, a maximum time display cap for the page to be rendered is searched for in the application configuration data, or in a database. At state 512, a determination is made as to whether there is a display cap. If there is a display cap, the process proceeds to state 514, where a determination is made as to whether the time remaining for the user to complete the task is greater than the cap. If the time remaining is greater than the cap, the process proceeds to state 516, and the time remaining is used as the cap. If the time remaining is less than or equal to the cap, the process proceeds to state 518, and the actual time remaining is used as a cap. The process then proceeds to state 520, and a page, including the cap or time remaining information for completion, is rendered for display, and the process then proceeds to the exit state 524.
In order to reduce the load on other parts of the system, such as on the core or host servers, when a resource request is abandoned, the associated “abandoned” resource can be reused or associated with one or more similar resource requests in the queue. For example, if a first user requests 2 adult tickets at a particular price level to a particular event, a host connection is found, an electronic shopping cart is established, and the 2 tickets matching the request are “placed” in the shopping cart. The shopping cart and/or tickets can be considered a “resource.” By way of further example, if the request is for 1 ticket for a specific event with open (non-assigned) seating, a similar request could be another request for 1 ticket for that specific event. Another resource example can be a request failure notification request. Optionally, a request can be considered similar if the requested resource has at least one common attribute with the resource in the original request.
The resource request can be queued. If the first user abandons the request for the tickets or other resource, optionally, rather than removing the request from the queue, the queue can be scanned by a scanner module or the like in order to locate a similar resource request. In this example, the resource request can be a request from another user for 2 adult tickets at the same price level for the same event as in the first user request. The shopping cart and/or tickets in the shopping cart can now be assigned to the second user request via an appropriate identifier.
When an abandoned resource is assigned to a similar request, the request can optionally be advanced in the queue to the position of the abandoned request or to the head or first position in the queue to better ensure a sale of the tickets is made quickly.
In order to more efficiently assign abandoned resources to other requests, optionally a cache of abandoned resources can be kept in local memory, wherein the abandoned resources are kept in the abandoned resource cache for a predetermined amount of time or other period of time. If no similar requests to which the cache abandoned resource can be allocated to are located within the period of time, then the cached resources can be returned to a resource pool after a certain or predetermined amount of time.
In addition, in order to avoid keeping a resource which has been abandoned many times in a queue, and hence is less likely to be actually used in the near term, if a cached resource has been repeatedly assigned and abandoned more than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined time period, the repeatedly abandoned resource is optionally removed from the resource cache and returned to the resource pool.
Optionally, in order to reduce the load on the application servers and/or other portions of the system, rather than passing through all user requests or polls for queue status information, only a portion of the status or polling requests are passed through to obtain the actual status of a request, and the remainder of the requests can be responded to using an estimated queue status. For example, the requested queue status can relate to how long it will take to service a resource request, or the position of a request in the queue.
By way of illustration, if the queue contains 50,000 resource requests, optionally only the first 500 (or other selected number) status requests within a predetermined period of time will be passed to the queue server, while additional requests within that period of time will be provided with estimated status by the proxy layer.
By way of example, the estimate can based on which session token is currently at the top of the queue and the current rate of requests being fulfilled per second (or other time period). Optionally embedded in each session token associated with a request is an ordinal position in each corresponding queue. One example estimate of the amount of time it will take for a request to be serviced can be calculated by retrieving the ordinal position in the queue embedded in the poller's session token and retrieving the ordinal position in the queue embedded in the session token at the top of the queue, calculating the difference between the two ordinal positions, and multiplying that difference by the average (or other appropriate statistical) rate of consumption for that queue.
Thus, for example, a communications protocol can be established between the proxy layer (such as the front end servers 112 illustrated in
In addition, the queue server optionally informs the proxy server as to which session token is currently at the top of the queue and the average rate of consumption of requests from each queue (which can be expressed in terms of requests fulfilled per second). The queue server can then optionally decide which session token holders may directly poll for their request status based on a configured maximum number of pollers and the number of active queues on the queue server. For example the determination can be based on the configured maximum number of poller divided by the number of active queues on the queue server.
Based on some or all of the information received by the proxy server from the queue server, the proxy server can inform pollers in the queue as to the approximate amount of time it will take to reach the top of the queue and/or for the request to be serviced.
As previously discussed, many requests can be received for a given resource. Optionally the requests can be balanced and/or processed by one or more queues by creating multiple queues based on the type of request. Optionally, priority levels can be set for each request in each queue, using predetermined criteria, attributes, request origin, an algorithm, and/or the like. For example, a request-type can correspond to a ticket request, an auction request, a customer service request, an account information request, a help request, and so on. By way of further example, a higher priority can be associated with ticket requests than account information requests.
The priority levels can be used to determine in which order requests from each queue gain access to the requested resource. For example, based on request attributes, requests can be differentiated and optionally categorized into one or more request groupings. Further, requests can be optionally differentiated and categorized into one or more request groupings based on demand for the activity for which the resource will be used. By way of illustration and not limitation, if the system was attempting to obtain an operator code for the purpose of reserving a ticket for a specific event, the demand on that event can be examined and/or counted to determine how such requests are to be organized in the queue.
As similarly discussed above, the queue request priority levels can be based on attributes of the request or the origin of the requestor, such as which computer system or channel originated the request.
By way of further example, where multiple queues exists, the order in which to fulfill requests from the multiple queues can be based on the amount of resources being allocated to a given type of request, as well as one or more threshold or preset values. For example, one or more of the following rules and preset values, stored in and accessed from computer readable memory, can be used to determine how to allocate resources to requests:
Do not allocate additional resources to the type of requests that are currently consuming more than first preset number (which can be a desired maximum number) of resources from a corresponding resource pool;
If less than a second preset number (which can be a desired minimum number) of resources are used by a type of requests in queue, allocate the next available resource to a request of this type;
If less than a third preset number (which can be a desired minimum number) of resources are used by multiple types of requests in queue, allocate the next available resource to a request type that has the smallest (current number of resources consumed by this request type/preset minimum number of resources for this request type);
If no request type in a given queue is consuming less than a fourth preset number (which can be a desired minimum number) of resources, the next available resource is allocated to a request type that has the smallest (current number of resources consumed by this request type/preset goal number of resources for this request type).
The second, third, fourth, and other preset numbers can optionally have different or the same values. Further, the foregoing preset numbers can optionally be configurable during run time for each request type.
Thus, as described herein, certain embodiments provide efficient and fair queuing processes and apparatus to provides user access to resources, such as those involved in ticket transactions, including tickets. It should be understood that certain variations and modifications of this invention would suggest themselves to one of ordinary skill in the art. The scope of the present invention is not to be limited by the illustrations or the foregoing descriptions thereof.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent Ser. No. 13/970,410, filed Aug. 19, 2013, which is a divisional of U.S. patent Ser. No. 13/323,251, filed Dec. 12, 2011, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 8,533,011, which issued on Sep. 10, 2013, which is a divisional of U.S. patent Ser. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,078,483, which issued on Dec. 13, 2011, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/530,425, filed Dec. 16, 2003. Each of these applications is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3581072 | Nymeyer | May 1971 | A |
| 3622995 | Dilks et al. | Nov 1971 | A |
| 4412287 | Braddock, III | Oct 1983 | A |
| 4603232 | Kurland et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
| 4788643 | Trippe et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
| 4789928 | Fujisaki | Dec 1988 | A |
| 4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4816904 | McKenna et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4845739 | Katz | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4862357 | Ahlstrom et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4889280 | Grald et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
| 4980826 | Wagner | Dec 1990 | A |
| 5077665 | Silverman et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5101353 | Lupien et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5112050 | Koza et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5136501 | Silverman et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5181786 | Hujink | Jan 1993 | A |
| 5237499 | Garback | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5239480 | Huegel | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5253165 | Leiseca et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5265916 | Coe | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5283734 | Von Kohorn | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5311425 | Inada | May 1994 | A |
| 5329589 | Fraser et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5333257 | Merrill et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5347306 | Nitta | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5408417 | Wilder | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5422809 | Griffin et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5426281 | Abecassis | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5428778 | Brookes | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5475585 | Bush | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5489096 | Aron | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5496991 | Delfer, III et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5518239 | Johnston | May 1996 | A |
| 5553145 | Micali | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5557518 | Rosen | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5559707 | DeLorme et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5592375 | Salmon et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5598477 | Berson | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5664115 | Fraser | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5684801 | Amitay et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5724520 | Goheen | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5742763 | Jones | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5754654 | Hiroya et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5757917 | Rose et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5774873 | Berent et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5794210 | Goldhaber et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5794219 | Brown | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5797126 | Helbling et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5812670 | Micali | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5818914 | Fujisaki | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826241 | Stein et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5835896 | Fisher et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5845266 | Lupien et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850442 | Mufric | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5890138 | Godin et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5918209 | Campbell et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5930761 | O'Toole | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6023685 | Brett et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6023686 | Brown | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026383 | Ausubel | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6044363 | Mori et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6047264 | Fisher et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6048271 | Barcelou | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6067532 | Gebb | May 2000 | A |
| 6070146 | Mimata | May 2000 | A |
| 6082620 | Bone, Jr. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6085164 | Smith et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6085169 | Walker et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6085976 | Sehr | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6094640 | Goheen | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6107932 | Walker et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6119096 | Mann et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6119945 | Muller et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6175922 | Wang | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6192349 | Husemann et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6216227 | Goldstein et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6223166 | Kay | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6230146 | Alaia et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6240396 | Walker et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243691 | Fisher et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6246996 | Stein et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6259705 | Takahashi et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6308159 | Strohl | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6341353 | Herman et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6401147 | Sang et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6418415 | Walker et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6434398 | Inselberg | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6442165 | Sitaraman et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6446045 | Stone et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446917 | Dieckmann et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
| 6449346 | Katz | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6466917 | Goyal et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6470451 | Weinstein | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6477503 | Mankes | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6484153 | Walker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6496809 | Nakfoor | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6523037 | Monahan et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6603568 | Sansone | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6604107 | Wang | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6606661 | Agrawal et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6658390 | Walker et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6662230 | Eichstaedt | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6679421 | Shin et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6685093 | Challa et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6690794 | Terao et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6704489 | Kurauchi et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6704713 | Brett | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6736322 | Gobburu et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6782535 | Dal-Santo et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6820201 | Lincoln et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6822955 | Brothers | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6829644 | Aufderheide | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6832255 | Rumsewicz et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6842741 | Fujimura | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6845361 | Dowling | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6850984 | Kalkunte et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6853642 | Sitaraman et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6854651 | Smith et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6859783 | Cogger et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6876974 | Marsh et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6877661 | Webb et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6877665 | Challa et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6898472 | Crampton et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6901429 | Dowling | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6907405 | Brett | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6910019 | Dorr | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6910627 | Simpson-Young et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6920428 | Greene | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6944599 | Vogel et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6963854 | Boyd et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6965914 | Dowling | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6973176 | Chism et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6999936 | Sehr | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7003485 | Young | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7004388 | Kohta | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7010494 | Etzioni et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7031945 | Donner | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7044362 | Yu | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7058602 | Mura et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7069243 | Dinwoodie | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7076460 | Dinwoodie | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7080026 | Singh et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7080030 | Eglen et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7080328 | Sawyer | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7080882 | Stitt | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7085818 | Brown et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7092892 | Sobalvarro et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7093130 | Kobayashi et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7099841 | Hall et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7110960 | Phillips et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7114179 | Ritter et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7124062 | Gebhart | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7127404 | Poon | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7127408 | Rosen | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7130806 | Bera | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7133848 | Phillips et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7139916 | Billingsley et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7149549 | Ortiz et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7152043 | Alaia et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7162454 | Donner et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7191147 | Heene et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7225442 | Dutta et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7333943 | Charuk et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 8078483 | Hirose et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
| RE43157 | Bishop et al. | Feb 2012 | E |
| 8463627 | Hirose et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8463630 | Hirose et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8533011 | Hirose et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 9183517 | Hirose et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 20010029592 | Walker | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010034687 | Bushonville et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010049652 | Nakajima | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020004762 | Izumoto | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020023955 | Frank et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020040308 | Hasegawa et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020040346 | Kwan | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020042729 | Yajima et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020052758 | Arthur et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020052965 | Dowling | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020062265 | Poon | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065763 | Taylor et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065783 | Na et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020082879 | Miller et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020082969 | O'Keeffe et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087366 | Collier et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087456 | Abeshouse et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091555 | Leppink | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020094090 | Lino | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095357 | Hunter et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095636 | Tatsumi | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020099831 | Tsunogai | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103849 | Smith | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107779 | Maltzman | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116343 | Nakamura et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020128922 | Joao | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138325 | Mashimo et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138751 | Dutta | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138770 | Dutta | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143860 | Catan | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020156715 | Wall et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169623 | Call et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178093 | Dean et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178226 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188523 | Hyyppa et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188551 | Grove et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030007627 | Elsey et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030023500 | Boies et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030024988 | Stanard | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030040943 | Bates et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061303 | Brown et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030067464 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069762 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069763 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069764 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069789 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069810 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069827 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069829 | Gathman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030099197 | Yokota et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105641 | Lewis | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154142 | Ginsburg et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154169 | Yanai | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030163373 | Cornateanu | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030164400 | Boyd | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030171960 | Skinner | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030177022 | Francis | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187802 | Booth | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030208392 | Shekar et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229790 | Russell | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030236736 | Harmon et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040006497 | Nestor et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040019571 | Hurwitz et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040039635 | Linde et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040039696 | Harmon et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049412 | Johnson | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073439 | Shuster | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040083156 | Schulze | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040086257 | Werberig et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093175 | Tan | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111303 | Francis | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040128257 | Okamoto et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040128516 | Okamoto et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040138962 | Kopelman et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040172270 | Sugimoto et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181438 | Hoene et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040204990 | Lee et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040204991 | Monahan et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205074 | Berkery et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215527 | Grove et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220821 | Ericsson et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050001711 | Doughty et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050015303 | Dubin et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050015308 | Grove et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021364 | Nakfoor | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021365 | Nakfoor | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027608 | Wiesmuller et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027641 | Grove et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065866 | Grove et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071245 | Norins, Jr. et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131809 | Watt, II et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050139661 | Eglen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050139662 | Eglen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050140675 | Billingsley et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144115 | Brett | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149458 | Eglen et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160020 | Asher et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165758 | Kasten et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209954 | Asher et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050213742 | Fukuzawa | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228722 | Embree | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240453 | Lyons | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050273405 | Chen | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050286532 | Mengerink | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060017541 | Nguyen | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060069780 | Batni et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085396 | Evans et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095344 | Nakfoor | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060100985 | Mark et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060105783 | Giraldin et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060108418 | Rice | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060111967 | Forbes | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060116916 | Bowman et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060124734 | Wallerstorfer et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060126201 | Jain et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060140374 | Light et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143094 | Kohout et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143109 | Goel | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143698 | Ohara | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060144946 | Kuriyama et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060147005 | Taub | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060148566 | Lakshminarasimha | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060155659 | DiCesare | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167756 | VonBergen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060178930 | Kim | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190387 | Molloy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190388 | Molloy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190389 | Molloy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190390 | Molloy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060195356 | Nerenhausen et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060232110 | Ovadia | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060244564 | Madsen | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060249572 | Chen et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271462 | Harmon | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277130 | Harmon | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293929 | Wu et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293994 | Stuart | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070012765 | Trinquet et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070017979 | Wu et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055554 | Sussman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20080033770 | Barth et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080243838 | Scott et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080300956 | Nishikawa et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20110246248 | Fitzgerald | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20120191867 | Tsunogai | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0828223 | Mar 1998 | EP |
| 1069539 | Jan 2001 | EP |
| 11031204 | Feb 1999 | JP |
| 5266049 | May 2013 | JP |
| 8803295 | May 1988 | WO |
| 9810361 | Mar 1998 | WO |
| 9906928 | Feb 1999 | WO |
| 9918533 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| 9938129 | Jul 1999 | WO |
| 9960489 | Nov 1999 | WO |
| 0062260 | Oct 2000 | WO |
| 0074300 | Dec 2000 | WO |
| 0075838 | Dec 2000 | WO |
| 0108065 | Feb 2001 | WO |
| 0141021 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| 0141085 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| 0144892 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| 0152139 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| 0159649 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| 0159658 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| 0171669 | Sep 2001 | WO |
| 0203174 | Jan 2002 | WO |
| 0235322 | May 2002 | WO |
| 03027808 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Shoup, Victor, and Rosario Gennaro. “Securing Threshold Cryptosystems Against Chosen Ciphertext Attack.” Journal of Cryptology 15.2 (2002): 75-96. Web. (Year: 2002). |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/312,611, filed Dec. 6, 2011, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 11, 2012, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/312,611, filed Dec. 6, 2011, Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 19, 2013, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,251, filed Dec. 12, 2011, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 12, 2012, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,251, filed Dec. 12, 2011, Notice of Allowance dated May 17, 2013, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2008, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Non-Final Office Action dated May 26, 2010, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 10, 2011, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 9, 2011, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/970,410, filed Aug. 19, 2013, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2014, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/970,410, filed Aug. 19, 2013, Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 15, 2015, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,269, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 28, 2008, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,269, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Final Office Action dated Nov. 13, 2009, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,269, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Non-Final Office Action dated May 4, 2012, all pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,269, filed Dec. 16, 2004, Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 12, 2013, all pages. |
| Acteva and Enspot.com Sign Agreement to Provide On-Line Ticketing, Broader Distribution, Business Wire, Dec. 3, 1999, 2 pages. |
| Asokan et al., SEMPER Consortium: Advanced Services, Architecture and Design, Deliverable D10 of ACTS Project AC026, Mar. 15, 1999, 309 pages. |
| AuctionNet Still One-of-a-Kind, Automotive News, S12, Sep. 20, 1993, 1 page. |
| Banâtre, Distributed Auction Bidding System, International Computing Symposium, vol. 4, No. 4, Aug. 1981, pp. 179-186. |
| Banks, PSL Put Owners on the Hot Seat, LexisNexis Academic, St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 31, 1993, 3 pages. |
| Beam et al., Electronic Negotiation through Internet-Based Auctions, CITM Working Paper 96-WP-1019, Available online at http://haas.berkeley.edu/citm/publications/papers/wp-1019.pdf, Dec. 1996, 39 pages. |
| Blau, Dormitories See Departure from Previous Years' Trends, The Tech, vol. 116, No. 38, Aug. 30, 1996, 2 pages. |
| Boyes et al., Auctions as an Allocation Mechanism in Academia: The Case of Faculty Offices, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 3, No. 3, 1989, pp. 37-40. |
| Cathay Pacific Airways Auctions a Boeing 747-400 Worth of Seats in Third Cybertraveler Auction, Business Wire, Apr. 29, 1996, 4 pages. |
| Cathay Pacific Airways-USA Receives More than 1,300 Bids During First Five Days of CyberAuction, Business Wire, Oct. 18, 1995, 2 pages. |
| Cathay Pacific Airways-USA to Hold First-Ever Internet CyberAuction, Business Wire, Available Online at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cathay+Pacific+Airways-USA+to+hold+first-ever+lnternet+CyberAuction%3B . . . -a017505423, Sep. 26, 1995, 2 pages. |
| Chui et al., Auction on the Internet-A Preliminary Study, Department of Marketing, HK University of Science and Technology, 1999, 31 pages. |
| Collier, Columbia, S.C.-Based Internet Firm Helps Buy, Sell Sports Tickets, The State, Oct. 23, 2000, 3 pages. |
| Dickey, Raider PSLs Without Permanent Place, San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 26, 1997, 2 pages. |
| Dickey, Raiders' PSLs May Be For Life, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 26, 1997, 2 pages. |
| E-TicketBoard Launches PSL Xchange for Eight NFL Teams, PR Newswire, Jul. 18, 2000, 2 pages. |
| E-TicketBoard Launches Revolutionary New Site—SeatsandSultes, PR Newswire, Oct. 17, 2000, 2 pages. |
| Fujimura et al., Digital-Ticket-Controlled Digital Ticket Circulation, NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories, Avalibale Online at: https://www.usenix.org/conference/8th-usenix-securitysymposium/presentation/digital-ticket-controlled-digital-ticket-circulation, Aug. 23-26, 1999, 11 pages. |
| Fujimura et al., General-Purpose Digital Ticket Framework, USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce vol. 3, NTT Information and Communication Systems Labs, Aug. 31-Sep. 3, 1998, 11 pages. |
| Fujimura, XML Ticket: Generalized Digital Ticket Definition Language, The W3C Signed XML Workshop-Copyright ©, 1999, 33 pages. |
| Garza, Space Cruise, Reason Magazine, May 2000, 2 pages. |
| Happel et al., Creating a Futures Market for Major Event Tickets: Problems and Prospects, Cato Journal, vol. 21, No. 3, 2002, pp. 443-461. |
| Harlan, At Least It Isn't the Team's Ball That's in Somebody Else's Court, Wall Street Journal, Jun. 4, 1991, 2 pages. |
| Hes et al., At Face Value, On Biometrical Identification and Privacy, Registratiekamer, Sep. 1999, 77 pages. |
| Holbrook, Professional Football Team Sees Gain in Seat License Sales, LexisNexis Academic, Contra Costa Times, Feb. 26, 2001, 2 pages. |
| Hylton, Dorm Lottery Starts Strong, The Tech, vol. 114, No. 34, Aug. 29, 1994, 2 pages. |
| Jackson, Media Futures: This Bazaar Could Put Retailers Under the Hammer, Financial Times, May 25, 1995, 2 pages. |
| Jenkins, Giants Draw Fans Into Web Team Helps Season-Ticket Holders Get Mileage Out of Plans, USA Today, Sports, Jun. 27, 2000, 5 pages. |
| Kasper, Purchase Griz Playoff Tickets Now, Missoulian Online, May 3, 2001, 2 pages. |
| Keyware Unveils Multi-Application Smart Card Suite, Card News, vol. 16, No. 10, May 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
| Koenig, Texas Firm Links Sports Teams, Fans, Amarillo Globe-News, Feb. 20, 2000, 2 pages. |
| Kravets, Going, Going, Gone! Real Estate Auctions in the 90s, Probate & Property, May-Jun. 1993, 5 pages. |
| Kroll et al., The Commodity Futures Market Guide, Harper and Row, Feb. 22, 1973, pp. 9-10. |
| Kumar, With Stars in their Eyes, Travelers Look to Space, St. Petersburg Times, National, Jun. 11, 2000, 3 pages. |
| Labuszewski et al., Inside the Commodity Option Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Apr. 4, 1985, pp. 19-21. |
| Liao, Sloan's Class Priority System Set to Go, The Tech, vol. 116, No. 25, May 10, 1996, 11 pages. |
| Major Players Form Proton World International, Article from Smart Card News, vol. 7, No. 8, Available Online at: http://www.smartcard.co.uk/members/newsletters/1998/aug98.pdf, Aug. 1998, pp. 141-160. |
| Martin, LiquidSeats Helps Fill the House, Sans Scalping, CNN.com, C51, Dec. 14, 2000, 1 page. |
| Matsumoto et al., Feasibility of Space Tourism Cost Study for Space Tour, Proceedings of 40th IAF Congress, Paper No. IAF-89-700, Oct. 1989, 14 pages. |
| Matsuyama et al., Distributed Digital-Ticket Management for Rights Trading System, E/Commerce, Available online at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfmid=337020, Nov. 1999, pp. 110-118. |
| Menezes et al., Simultaneous Pooled Auctions, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 17, No. 3, Nov. 19, 1996, pp. 219-232. |
| Moldovanu et al., The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests, Available Online at: http://www.sfb504.unimannheim.de/publications/dp99/75.pdf, Jul. 14, 1999, 20 pages. |
| Nestor et al., The Entertainment Venue Yield Management Specialist, Transforming Tickets from a Commodity into a Valuable Strategic Asset, Global eTicket Exchange Ltd., White Paper, Oct. 13, 2000, 11 pages. |
| O'neil, Q and A, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 19, 1995, p. 4D. |
| Online Movie Ticket Site Launched in China, China Online, Dec. 23, 1999, 1 page. |
| OnSale Brings Thrill of the Auction to the Web, Link-up, Jul.-Aug. 1995, 34 pages. |
| Riley et al., Optimal Auctions, The American Economic Review, vol. 71, No. 3, Jun. 1981, pp. 381-392. |
| Rosen et al., Ticket Pricing, Working Paper Series No. 120, University of Chicago Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, Sep. 18, 1995, 38 pages. |
| Rubel, ETM to Ticketmaster: Let's Rock, Marketing News, vol. 29, No. 13, Jun. 19, 1995, 4 pages. |
| Season Ticket Solutions Announces Availability of Ticket Exchange for Sporting Teams and Entertainment Venues, Article: Business Wire, Jul. 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
| Season Tickets, wwwSeasonticket.com Web Pages, Available online at: archive.org, 2001, 3 pages. |
| Stevenson, Frosh Get at Least Fifth Choice Dorm: Women Find Shortage of Single-Sex Rooms, The Tech, vol. 115, No. 37, Aug. 31, 1995, 2 pages. |
| Thomas, Deadline Looms for Playoff Tickets; PSL Owners Have Until Dec. 8 to Make Purchase, LexisNexis Academic, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 3, 1999, p. D8. |
| Vanderporten, Strategic Behavior in Pooled Condominium Auctions, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 31, Jan. 8, 1992, pp. 123-137. |
| Waddell, Advantix, Tickets.com Hope Merger Brings Best of Both Ticketing Worlds, Amusement Business, vol. 111, No. 6, Feb. 8, 1999, 2 pages. |
| Wagner, How Retailers are Using Web Auctions to Let Customers Help Them Set Prices, Internet Retailer, Available online at: http://www.internetretailer.com/printArticle.aspid=3164, Mar. 2001, 3 pages. |
| WBGH to Hold Online Computer Auction, Link-Up, Sep.-Oct. 1988, 10 pages. |
| Welcome to TicketOptions.com, www.TicketOptions.com Web Pages, Available online at: archive.org, 2001, 48 pages. |
| Weng, A Proposed Electronic Ticket Management for Trading Service in Internet, Collins Concise Dictionary, Feb. 9, 2001, 7 pages. |
| Zoltak, Advantix Acquisitions Continue with Prolix Deal, Amusement Business, Nov. 2, 1998, 2 pages. |
| Zoltak, Advantix Acquisitions Continue with Protix Deal, Amusement Business, Nov. 2, 1998, 2 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 09/702,794, filed Nov. 1, 2000, 254 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/453,286, Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 2, 2007, 6 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/475,733, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 27, 2007, 8 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/104,436 received a Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 9, 2011, 5 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/104,436 received a Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 9, 2011, 3 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/104,436 received a Non Final Office Action dated Feb. 10, 2011, 10 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/104,436 received a Non Final Office Action dated May 26, 2010, 11 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/104,436 received a Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2008, 14 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,251 received a Notice of Allowance dated May 17, 2013, 10 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,251 received a Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 12, 2012, 10 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/970,410 received a Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 15, 2015, 8 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/970,410 received a Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 17, 20174, 6 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/312,611, filed Dec. 6, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,251, filed Dec. 12, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,436, filed Dec. 16, 2004. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/970,410, filed Aug. 19, 2013. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/014,269, filed Dec. 16, 2004. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20160127211 A1 | May 2016 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60530425 | Dec 2003 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13323251 | Dec 2011 | US |
| Child | 13970410 | US | |
| Parent | 11014436 | Dec 2004 | US |
| Child | 13323251 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13970410 | Aug 2013 | US |
| Child | 14871128 | US |
