Detailed Action
This Office action is in response to communications filed 03/26/2026.
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
18044083 filed 03/06/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2021/032198, International Filing Date: 09/01/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement filed on 05/18/2026 have been considered.
Amendments to the Specification
The title of the application has been amended as follows:
JOB CONTROL SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF FOR COMPENSATING FOR FAILURE OF DISTRIBUTED JOB EXECUTION
Examiner thanks attorney Joshua for submitting new title that is indicative of the invention.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (in view of new rationale).
In the response filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Independent claim 1 recites “…executing an identifying operation of identifying, by any of the each of the plurality of job execution systems for itself, an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems in which the least one job delay is included based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems”…
Martin
The Office cited Martin to cure the conceded deficiencies of Fletcher discussed above. (Office Action at pages 14 and 15).
Martin discloses that a Domain Name System (DNS) server is connected to a multi- computer server, comprising multiple individual server computers, via the Internet or an intranet. Martin further discloses that the DNS server executes a DNS that provides a server name (such as URL) or an Internetwork Protocol (IP) address of an individual server computer in response to a Domain Name look-up request. Martin further discloses providing the server name or IP address of the individual server computer based on mapping a service name (such as the same URL as the server name) and the server name or IP address of the multiple individual server computer via a round-robin approach. (Martin at col. 1, lines 24-67, and col. 2, lines 1-25).
Martin discloses a traditional centralized DNS server for multiple individual server computers based on a rotational scheme. In other words, the DNS server is separate and distinct from each of the multiple individual server computers, and the basis for identifying any of the multiple individual server computers is a scheme for sequentially and rotationally traversing a set of identifiers of the multiple individual server computers. Therefore, in contrast to the independent claims, the Office does not apply Martin in a manner that teaches or suggests executing identification of an identifier of an individual server computer by the individual server computer itself, and based, at least in part, on inclusion of a task on the individual server computer. Assuming arguendo that the combination of Fletcher and Martin is proper, the Office does not apply Martin in a manner that teaches or suggests "executing an identifying operation of identifying, by any of the each of the plurality of job execution systems for itself an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems in which the at least one job relay is included based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems," as recited, or analogously recited, in the independent claims. (Emphasis added).
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that the combination of Fletcher and Martin fails to teach or suggest all of the elements recited in the independent claims. Claim Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 5, as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Martin, are respectfully requested (Remarks, pg. 7-9).
In response to argument [a], Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this case, applicant acknowledged that Martin teaches a DNS server which provides a server name such as URL or IP address in response to a domain name look-up request and distributing tasks based on mapping a service name (such as the same URL as the server name) and resolves the service name into unique IP addresses of multiple servers via round robin approach, Martin: col. 1 L64-67, col. 2 L1-21 and applicant remarks, pg. 8.
In other words, Martin teaches a domain name system in a same way as described by applicant in the application specification, i.e. a DNS server 24 responds to DNS requests by providing server name, e.g. www.sun.com. The round robin approach is one in which the server to receive the client request for processing is determined in cyclically sequential or round-robin manner. This is achieved in well-known manner by changing the mapping between the service name (e.g. www.sun.com) and the IP address (e.g. ten hosts with IP addresses ranging from 192.10.20.30 and 192.10.20.40) AND considering the individual server loads as well, col. 2 L39-67.
Martin teaches common server name or service name where all the requests are initially sent [i.e. the address of the DNS server, whether its using IP address or service name]. The DNS server then resolves the service name into unique IP addresses to identify and/or determine the server that is capable of handling the request. That is, the DNS performs the identifying operation of identifying, by the DNS system, an address unique to the each of the plurality of systems based on a common service name …and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems.
The common server name or service name, e.g. www.sun.com, is said to not depend on the servers (i.e. does not depend on the servers) handling the requests because the service or server name does not impact the functioning of the cluster servers.
For example: When one of the server is down in a cluster or multi-computer server, the clients will continue sending the requests for the service to the DNS server using the common server name or service name such as www.sun.com. The failure of one of the servers does not impact the DNS server because DNS server’s role is totally different than the cluster server role, e.g. see fig. 1.
Additionally, Martin teaches:
(30) Although the particular embodiments of the invention described herein have four server computers, it will be appreciated that this is merely one possible example, and the number of server computers at a multi-computer server can have any number greater than one. Also, although in the embodiments shown, there is only one or possibly two dispatchers, it will be appreciated that in other examples, more than two dispatchers may be linked together for a multi-computer server.
(31) In the present document reference is been made to server network links. It should however, be noted that the use of this term is not intended to imply that they are necessarily local links of a discrete network. The server network links do not need to be physically local, but could be physically distributed, possibly including links which do not extend directly between the dispatcher or switch and the individual server computers, but pass via one or more public lines and/or further switches.
(32) Moreover, although in the described embodiments the switch is shown as a separate unique entity, this need not be the case. It could comprise a plurality of switches. Alternatively, the function of the switch could be incorporated into the dispatcher by providing the dispatcher with a plurality of separate output links directly to the server computers.
(33) Accordingly, it will be appreciated that although particular embodiments of the invention have been described, many modifications/additions and/or substitutions may be made within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined in the appended claims. With reference to those claims, it is to be noted that combinations of features of the dependent claims other than those explicitly enumerated in the claims may be made with features of other dependent claims and/or independent claims, as appropriate, within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
In other words, DNS 26 although shown as a separate entity, could be incorporated into other systems such as dispatcher or switch or one of the server on which the job is executed. Based on these alternative embodiments, the DNS functionality which identifies the address to which the request should be sent can be incorporated in one of the other devices in the network. When the DNS server is incorporated into one of the server of the server system, the server with the incorporated DNS functionality can execute an identifying operation of identifying by one of the server system for itself and for each of the other servers in the server system, a unique address to the each of the plurality of servers based on a common service name.
Note: Fletcher teaches plurality of job executing systems, each configured with a respective job relay, e.g. fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fletcher in view of Martin in order incorporate the functionality of DNS server into at least one of the each of the servers or job execution system with relay or within each worker process which includes queue communicator, which will then perform the identifying operation of identifying by any of the each of the plurality of systems for itself an address unique to the each of the plurality of systems that is independent of each of the plurality of job systems and for the each of the plurality of systems.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it is well known in the art to modify a known system to incorporate additional well-known functionality or to combine additional functionality into a known system in order to achieve predictable results.
Rationale for combining – MPEP 2143
The rationale supporting the combination can be found in KSR Ruling. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___,___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit, and MPEP 2143. [ EXEMPLARY RATIONALES:
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness ].
For example: In this case, rationale A, C and D specifically applies.
Therefore, the combination of Fletcher in view of Martin as detailed above teaches “…executing an identifying operation of identifying, by any of the each of the plurality of job execution systems for itself, an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems in which the least one job delay is included based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems”…
For the at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained [with different rationale].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/044,080 in view of Martin (US 6,263,368 B1).
As per claim 1, 5, Copending application ‘080 discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, 5.
However, copending application ‘080 does not teach identifying an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems for itself based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems, wherein job relay is configured to output a job execution request to the address identified by name resolution based on the common service name of the plurality of job execution systems in which the job relay is included and receiving a job execution request output to the unique address.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems (fig. 1, col. 1 L24 to col. 2 L25: a unique/different IP address is given to each server to handle the task execution by implementing a service with service name, e.g. www.sun.com. The service address or name does not depend on individual server),
wherein job relay is configured to output a job execution request to the address identified by name resolution based on the common service name of the plurality of job execution systems in which the job relay is included (col. 1 L24 to col. 2 L25: the server name is resolved by DNS into server’s IP address who is able to handle the request in round robin or load balancing manner) and
receiving a job execution request output to the unique address (col. 2 L1-21: task is distributed based on DNS resolution which employs round robin and the server load to select the server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending application ‘080 in view of Martin in order to incorporate and employ a Domain Name System (DNS) arrangement with task distribution which responds to domain name look-up requests by providing appropriate server name resolution in at least one of the job execution system and providing the server IP address that can handle the task.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because the DNS arrangement with task distribution would have distributed the tasks in a conventional round-robin or load-balancing manner to the multi-server cluster architecture in order to handle the jobs.
Claim 2-3 of present application is similar to claim 1 of co-pending application.
Claim 4 of present application is similar to claim 3 of co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/044,079 in view of Martin (US 6,263,368 B1).
Claim 1, 5 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above [See double patenting rejection above].
Claim 2-3 of present application is similar to claim 1 of co-pending application.
Claim 4 of present application is similar to claim 2 of co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. (hereinafter Fletcher, US 10,089,143 B2) in view of Martin (US 6,263,368 B1).
As per claim 1, Fletcher discloses A job control system (fig. 1), comprising:
job data storage storing job data configured to indicate a job to be executed (fig. 3 item #325: Queue, col. 8 L4-12: store information pertaining to jobs in a queue 325); and
a plurality of job execution systems each configured to execute at least a part of the job data stored in the job data storage (fig. 1: Forwarders 110-2-110-n, fig. 7 item #705, col. 3 L58-65: various forwarders, col. 4 L47 to col. 5 L14),
each of the plurality of job execution systems (fig. 3) including:
at least one processor (col. 14 L20-67); and
at least one memory device storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor (fig. 3, col. 14 L20-67) to perform operations comprising:
executing at least one job relay each associated with a condition (fig. 3 item #335: Queue communicator, col. 7 L44 to col. 8 L20: queue communicator claims the job from the queue based on a condition of regular intervals or upon completing a task, col. 12 L19-22); and
receiving a job execution request output to the handler and executing the job (fig. 3 item #340, col. 8 L13-23, col. 12 L59-67, fig. 7 step #735, 740: select handler and execute job),
wherein the at least one job relay is configured to acquire the job data which is stored in the job data storage (fig. 3: Queue communicator accesses the queue and claims jobs from the queue, fig. 7 step#710), and satisfies the condition associated with the least one job relay (fig. 7 step #710-715, col. 7 L44 to col. 8 L20: queue communicator claims the job from the queue based on a condition of regular intervals or upon completing a task), and
wherein the at least one job relay is configured to output a job execution request in accordance with the job data to the handler (Fig. 3, fig. 7 step #735, 740).
However, Fletcher does not disclose executing an identifying operation of identifying, by any of the each of the plurality of job execution systems for itself, an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems in which at least one job relay is included based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems, wherein job relay is configured to output the job execution request in accordance with the job data to the address identified by the identifying operation based on the common service name by one of the plurality of job execution systems for itself in which the job relay is included and receiving a job execution request output to the unique address.
Note: The specification does not define the term “independent” nor provides any guidance whatsoever in how the term should be interpreted. As such, broadest reasonable interpretation applies. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “independent” simply means “does not depend”. In this case the common service name DOES NOT DEPEND on the each of the plurality of job execution systems.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor, executing an identifying operation of identifying, by any of the each of the plurality of job execution systems, an address unique to the each of the plurality of job execution systems and for the each of the plurality of job execution systems in which at least one job relay is included based on a common service name that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems (fig. 1, col. 1 L24 to col. 2 L25: a unique/different IP address is given to each server to handle the task execution by implementing a service with service name, e.g. www.sun.com. The service address or name does not depend on individual server nor it depends on server’s IP addresses),
wherein job relay is configured to output a job execution request to the address identified by the identifying operation based on the common service name of the plurality of job execution systems in which the job relay is included (col. 1 L24 to col. 2 L25: the server name is resolved/identified by DNS into server’s IP address who is able to handle the request in round robin or load balancing manner) and
receiving a job execution request output to the unique address (col. 2 L1-21: task is distributed based on DNS resolution which employs round robin and the server load to select the server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fletcher in view of Martin in order to
incorporate the DNS functionality into each of the server or job execution system with relay or within each worker process which includes queue communicator, which then performs the identifying operation of identifying by any of the each of the plurality of systems for itself, an address unique to the each of the plurality of systems that is independent of each of the plurality of job systems and for the each of the plurality of systems, output the job execution request to the address identified by the identifying operation and receive the job execution request at the unique address.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because the DNS arrangement with task distribution would have distributed the tasks in a conventional round-robin or load-balancing manner to the multi-server cluster architecture in order to handle the jobs. Additionally, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it is also well known in the art to modify a known system in order to incorporate additional functionality or to combine additional functionality into a known system to achieve predictable results.
Rationale for combining – MPEP 2143
The rationale supporting the combination can be found in KSR Ruling. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___,___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit, and MPEP 2143. [ EXEMPLARY RATIONALES:
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness ].
As per claim 5, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. (hereinafter Fletcher, US 10,089,143 B2) in view of Martin (US 6,263,368 B1) and further in view of Davis (US 2005/0022199 A1).
As per claim 2, Fletcher in view of Martin discloses the job control system according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Fletcher-Martin does not disclose wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the operations further comprising executing control so that, in response to occurrence of a predetermined event in any one of the plurality of job execution systems, the at least one job relay executed in the one of the plurality of job execution systems is executed in another job execution system of the plurality of job execution systems.
Davis, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a failover mechanism, wherein in response to occurrence of a predetermined event (failure) in the primary active system/server running the event processor, the event processor is executed in the shadow/another server/backup system ([0015], [0028]: If the shadow determines that the state of the primary event processor/server is not up, turns the primary inactive, and takes over the primary server functions including event processor functions, [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fletcher-Martin in view of Davis in order to provide failover mechanism for executing the job relay functions in another job execution system in response to a predetermined event or failure in one of the job executing system that is executing the job relay.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have provided a robust system and/or it would have enabled highly available systems.
As per claim 3, Fletcher in view of Martin discloses the job control system according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Fletcher-Martin does not disclose wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the operations further comprising stopping, in response to occurrence of a predetermined event in any one of the plurality of job execution systems, at least one job relay executed in the one of the plurality of job execution systems and executing control so that the at least one job relay is executed in another job execution system of the plurality of job execution systems.
Davis, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a failover mechanism, wherein in response to occurrence of a predetermined event (failure) in the primary active system/server running the event processor, stopping the event processor in the primary system and the event processor is executed in the shadow/another server/backup system ([0015], [0028]: If the shadow determines that the state of the primary event processor/server is not up, turns the primary inactive, and takes over the primary server functions including event processor functions, [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fletcher-Martin in view of Davis in order to provide failover mechanism for executing the job relay functions in another job execution system in response to a predetermined event or failure in one of the job executing system that is executing the job relay by stopping the job relay function in the failed system and enabling the same functions at the backup or shadow system.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have provided a robust system by providing fault-tolerant system and/or it would have enabled highly available systems.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. (hereinafter Fletcher, US 10,089,143 B2) in view of Martin (US 6,263,368 B1) and further in view of Lindsley (US 2006/0150189 A1).
As per claim 4, Fletcher in view of Martin discloses the job control system according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Fletcher-Martin does not disclose the process wherein the job data is linked to location data configured to indicate a location, wherein the at least one job relay is associated with the location and wherein the at least one job relay is configured to acquire the job data which is stored in the job storage and is linked to the location data configured to indicate the location associated with the job relay.
Lindsley teaches the process wherein the job data is linked to location data indicating a location (fig. 5 step #506: location information associated with each task), wherein the processor (i.e. task processor or job relay) is associated with the location (fig. 5 step #508: determining which processor is closest to memory storing the task), wherein the processor (job relay) is configured to acquire the job data which is stored in the job storage and is linked to the location data indicating the location associated with the job relay/processor (fig. 5 step #508, 514, 516: determine which processor is closest to the task stored in memory and assign the task to the closest processor, [0050-0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fletcher-Martin in view of Lindsley in order to select the job relay that is closest to the location associated with the task.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved performance by selecting the job relay that is closest to location associated with the job.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin, EP 0892531: Network Load balancing for multi-computer server.
Brendel et al., US 5,774,660: Resource based load balancing
Harchol-Balter et al. US 6,223,205 B1: Assigning tasks in a distributed server system
Koning, US 2003/0005350 A1: Failover Management
Bacher et al., US 2005/0081097 A1: System and Method for execution of a job in a distributed computing
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 6am-2pm EST.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights