Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO APPEAL BRIEF
Claims 44-48 and 51-63 are pending and remain for further examination.
REOPEN PROSECUTION
In view of the appeal brief filed on March 18, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellants must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
THE NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Applicant’s arguments, see appeal brief, filed on March 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 44-48 and 51-63 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the final rejections of claims 44-48 and 51-63 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new references uncovered by Patent and Trademark Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 44-46, 48, 51-53, and 55-57 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Bower, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,468,383 B2) in view of Babbitt et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,618,757 B1).
As to claim 44, Bower, III et al teach a method of providing N+1 redundancy for a cluster of network nodes (figure 1, column 3 lines 37-43, column 3 line 61 to column 4 line 13, reference discloses a cluster of network servers and teaches that N+1 redundancy is used for the cluster), the method comprising: determining, by a standby node, that a primary node in a cluster has failed; configuring the standby node to use an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the failed primary node (figures 2-3, column 7 line 52 to column 8 line 6, figure 4, column 8lines 46-58, reference teaches that detecting that a primary server fails and a redundant server use failed primary server IP address); retrieving, from a low latency database for the cluster, session data for user sessions associated with the failed primary node (figure 3, column 7 lines 40-57, reference teaches that retrieving session data associated with the failed primary server); restoring user sessions of the failed primary node at the standby node; and switching from a standby mode to an active mode (figures 2-3, column 8 lines 7-21, figure 4, column 9 lines 6-14, reference teaches that the redundant server restored the failed over operations and the primary server and the redundant server considered to have switched roles and status); and
However, Bower, III et al do not explicitly teach that releasing, after a last one of the user sessions ends at the standby node or upon expiration of a standby timer, the IP address of the failed primary node and switching from the active mode to the standby mode.
Babbitt et al teach that dynamically assigning an external IP address and a corresponding address hold time to a private IP network subscriber equipment (figure 2, column 3 lines 1-20, figure 3, column 5 lines 35-42, assigning an IP address with address hold time); and releasing, after a last one of the user sessions ends at the standby node or upon expiration of a standby timer, the IP address of the failed primary node and switching from the active mode to the standby mode (figure 2, column 3 lines 21-62, figure 3, column 5 lines 43-58, column 11 line 55 to column 12 line 4, reference teaches that releasing the assigned IP address from the private IP network subscriber equipment, when the IP address is not actively being used and/or the address hold time has expired, for reallocation; and also teaches that switching active subscriber to not active subscriber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Babbitt et al et al stated above with the method of Bower, III et al for releasing the assigned IP address from the network node/server for reallocation because it would have made the IP address available for assignment to a different/new subscriber/node and also made the different/new subscriber/node more readily serviced with the IP address.
As to claim 45, Bower, III et al teach that determining that a primary node in a cluster has failed comprises: sending a periodic keepalive message to one or more primary nodes in the cluster, and determining a node failure when the failed primary node fails to respond to a keepalive message (column 6 line 56 to column 7 line 8, figure 4, column 8 lines 32-55, reference teaches that determining a primary server in a cluster is failed by periodically receiving backups or heartbeat from the primary server).
As to claim 46, Bower, III et al teach that configuring the standby node to use an IP address of the failed primary node comprises configuring a network interface to use the IP address of the failed primary node (figures 2-3, column 7 line 52 to column 8 line 6, figure 4, column 8lines 46-58, reference teaches that detecting that a primary server fails and a redundant server use failed primary server IP address).
As to claim 48, Bower, III et al teach that setting a standby identity key in the database to an identity of the failed primary node (figures 2-3, column 8 lines 7-21, reference teaches that former primary server becomes the redundant server and the primary server, and the redundant server considered to have switch roles (identity changed for both servers)).
As to claims 51-53 and 55-57, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 44-46 and 48-50 above, since claims 51-53 and 55-57 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 44-46 and 48-50, and claims 51-53 and 55-57 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 44-46 and 48-50.
Claims 47 and 54 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Bower, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,468,383 B2) in view of Babbitt et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,618,757 B1), as applied to claims 44 and 51 above, and further in view of Miklos (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0059192 A1).
As to claim 47, neither Bower nor Babbitt explicitly teaches that announcing a binding between the IP address and a Medium Access Control (MAC) address of the standby node.
Miklos teaches that configuring the standby node to use an IP address of the failed primary node comprises announcing a binding between the IP address and a Medium Access Control (MAC) address of the standby node (pars. 0021-0022 & 0026-0027, figure 5, figure 5, pars. 0116 & 0118-0119, new LGW using an IP address of the terminal used by an old LGW and binding the IP address to the MAC address of the new LGW).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Miklos stated above with the method of Bower, III et al for binding between the IP address and a Medium Access Control (MAC) address because it would have improved the system utilization and the system efficiency by using MAC address of the host standby node.
As to claim 54, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 47 above, since claim 54 is merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in claim 47, and claim 54 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 47.
Claims 58-59 and 61-62 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Bower, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,468,383 B2) in view of Tanaka et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,538 B1).
As to claim 58, Bower, III et al teach a method of failure recovery by a primary node in a cluster (figure 4, column 9 lines 14-16, reference teaches about failure recovery of a primary server in a cluster), the method comprising: following a restart by the primary node, determining that the primary node (restored primary server) is configure as a new active node or a new standby node in the cluster (figure 4, column 9 lines 10-28, reference teaches that after restoring the failed primary server using as a primary (active) server or a redundant (standby) server).
However, Bower, III et al do not teach that after restarting the primary node, determining that an IP address of the primary node being used by a standby node, obtaining a new IP address or waiting for the IP address of the primary node to be released by the standby node.
Tanaka et al teach that restarting the primary node (figure 3, column 12 lines 27-51, reference teaches that restoring the failed node by checking and updating the IP addresses), determining whether an IP address of the primary node is being used by a standby node in the cluster (figure 5, column 8 line 64 to column 9 line 11, column 9 lines 49-59, reference teaches that determining an IP address of the failed master node is being used by the other nodes in the cluster by transmitting a confirmation packet using the IP address), and obtaining a new IP address or waiting for the IP address of the primary node to be released by the standby node (figures 5-6, column 9 lines 16-29, column 9 line 60 to column 10 line 3, column 12 lines 27-41, column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 19, reference teach that restored node using its own IP address after confirming that there is no response to a confirmation packet for its own IP address, which is functionally equivalent to determining an IP address of the failed node is being used by the other nodes in the cluster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka et al as stated above with the method of Bower, III et al for using its own IP address after conformation or obtaining a new IP address because it would have improved the system maintainability by controlling the IP address of the nodes without classifying the nodes and providing distributed services at low cost; and also improved system reliability.
As to claim 59, Bower, III et al do not explicitly teach that getting a standby identity from a database serving the cluster of network nodes; and comparing the standby identity to an identity of the primary node.
Tanaka et al teach that getting a standby identity from a database serving the cluster of network nodes (figure 5, column 9 lines 44-48, reference teach that obtaining a real (own) IP address and a master IP address from an address management table); and comparing the standby identity to an identity of the primary node (figure 5, column 9 line 49 to column 10 line 10, reference teach that transmitting confirmation packet with the IP addresses and checking (comparing) that the IP address is effective or already used by other nodes, which is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka et al as stated above with the method of Bower, III et al for determining that an IP address of the primary node being used by a standby node because it would have improved the system maintainability by controlling the IP address of the nodes without classifying the nodes and providing distributed services at low cost; and also improved system reliability.
As to claims 61-62, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 58-59 above, since claims 61-62 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 58-59, and claims 61-62 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 58-59.
Claims 60 and 63 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Bower, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,468,383 B2) in view of Tanaka et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,538 B1), as applied to claims 58 and 61 above, and further in view of Matthews et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,601,779 B1).
As to claim 60, neither Bower nor Tanaka explicitly teaches reconfiguring a network interface of the primary node with the new IP address and returning to an active mode.
Matthews et al teach that reconfiguring a network interface of the primary node with the new IP address and returning to an active mode (figures 3s, column 7 lines 27-43, column 8 lines 28-45, column 11 lines 50-58, reference teaches that the failed node restored and returned to the active session by requesting the IP address, which is not actively reassigned (using old IP address) or obtaining an IP address from a local list of available IP addresses (using a new IP address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Matthews et al stated above with the method of Bower, III et al for using a new IP address and restoring the active session because it would have improved the system utilization by reducing wait time (delay) and the system efficiency by making more active session.
As to claim 63, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 60 above, since claim 63 is merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in claim 60, and claim 63 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 60.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 44-48 and 51-63 filed on March February 28, 2024, have been fully considered and are persuasive, but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references uncovered by Patent and Trademark Office.
The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see modified rejections of claims 44-48 and 51-63).
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
Ramanathan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,378,005 B2.
O’Neill et al, U.S. Patent No. 7,242,678 B2.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453July 24, 2026
