Detailed Action
This Office action is in response to communications filed 10/27/2025.
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 09/08/2025 have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant did not respond to the objection to title. Applicant is requested to submit new title that is clearly indicative of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response filed, applicant vaguely argues in substance that:
Independent claim 1 recites “…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”…Applicant submits that office does not apply Fletcher in a manner that teaches or suggests “identifying…that is independent of the each of the plurality of job execution systems….Martin discloses that a DNS provides server name (such as URL) or an IP address in response to a domain name look up request. Martin further discloses distributing tasks based on mapping a service (such as the same url as the server name) and the IP addresses of multiple servers via round-robin approach. Martin discloses that a server name can be a same name as service name. Martin also discloses IP addresses are interchangeable with the server name, disclosing that the IP addresses and the server name that are related rather than independent. Thus, the relationship between the IP addresses and the server name that is the same as the service name also exists between the IP addresses and the service name. Therefore, in contrast, the office does not apply Martin in a manner …(Remarks, pg. 6-7).
In response to argument [a], Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it should be noted that the original specification of the application is SILENT on what the term “independent” means and/or how the term should be construed nor it provides any form of guidance on how the term is used and interpreted.
For example: Specification pg. 15 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
718
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification, pg. 32 recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
100
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In other words, the common service name or common url is used in order to determine the final server address where the job or task will be executed by using a well-known DNS server. Other than the term “independent”, there is no description on how the term is used.
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. 6-7.
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.
Based on broadest reasonable interpretation as is known in the art, the term “independent” means “does not depend”. As such, the common service name in the claim does not depend on each of the plurality of job execution systems.
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 determine the server that is capable of handling the request.
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.
Applicant also argues that DNS server name is interchangeable with IP address. However, applicant fails to note that this IP address is separate than the cluster server IP addresses. It is fairly known in the art that a network device such as a DNS server can either have a host/service name and/or IP address to uniquely identify it on the network. The cluster server also is configured with its own IP address so that the requests can be routed to the server using the IP address. Martin does not suggest that the IP address of DNS server and IP address of cluster server being interchangeable.
Therefore, Martin teaches the common server or service name that is independent, i.e. does not depend, on each of the plurality of job execution systems or servers.
For the at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 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 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 indicating 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 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 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 job relay is configured to output a job execution request in accordance with the acquired job data to the handler (Fig. 3, fig. 7 step #735, 740).
However, Fletcher does not disclose 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, 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.
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, 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 nor it depends on server’s IP addresses),
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 Fletcher 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 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.
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 operations further comprise executing control so that, in response to occurrence of a predetermined event in any one of the plurality of job execution systems, the job relay executed in the one of the plurality of job execution systems is executed in another job execution system.
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 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.
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 indicating a location, wherein the job relay is associated with the location and wherein the 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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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