DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on December 23, 2025 for the application of Reeves et al., for a “Event-driven user-based primary device failover selection” filed on December 20, 2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the applicant’s amendments to claim 2, the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shankar et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20110145631) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7159234) and in further view of Nasir et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20150109903) and Kumar et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20220405170).
As per claims 1, 10, and 16, Shankar discloses a method/non-transitory computer storage media ([0011]) of event-driven primary device selection in a network ([0009]), the method comprising:
receiving an indication that failure of a primary user equipment (UE) ([0082], “Computing system environment 1000 may include, but is not limited to, servers, desktop computers, laptops, tablet PCs, mobile devices, and smartphones”) is imminent ([0055], “thermal problem is impending”),
wherein the primary UE is a UE designated to receive network communications ([0082], “mobile devices, and smartphones” and [0084], “wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media”) on behalf of a primary device selection cluster ([0040]-[0042] and [0073], “At block 808, operations from a portion of a storage cluster are transferred to the failover target based on the selection of block 806. As described herein, the transfer of operations is performed to a portion of the storage cluster to have minimal impact and minimal change in performance (e.g., latency). In one embodiment, the storage cluster spans two geographical locations (e.g., a campus cluster)”), and wherein the at least one UE of the primary device selection cluster comprises the primary UE or another UE in of the primary device selection cluster ([0026], “As another example, cluster managers 112a-b may make failover decisions based on the current environmental conditions of a data center and rack to trigger a failover for instance upon a temperature rising above a prescribed threshold. In addition, cluster managers 112a-b may make decisions about group failover (e.g. for groups of servers), server arbitration, and master server selection upon encountering error conditions.” and [0063]);
identifying, by a primary device selection manager, a selection of potential replacement primary devices to replace the primary UE, wherein each device in the selection of potential replacement primary devices is a member of the primary device selection cluster ([0063], “Membership module 612 determines failover targets, as described herein, based on the temperature and location information from RFID Tags and RFID sensors.”) and (Fig. 8);
Shankar discloses receiving an indication that failure of a primary user equipment (UE) ([0082]) is imminent ([0055], “thermal problem is impending”). However, Shankar fails to explicitly disclose receiving, from at least one user equipment (UE) of a primary device selection cluster, an indication that failure of a primary user equipment (UE) is imminent.
Murphy of analogous art teaches:
disclose receiving, from at least one user equipment (UE) of a primary device selection cluster, an indication that failure of a primary user equipment (UE) is imminent (col. 5, lines 50-53, “a failover may be triggered by primary server 102 detecting a malfunction in its own operation and transmitting a failure message to secondary server 104 or component monitor 106”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Shankar and Murphy and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their failover methods. One would be motivated to make this combination, since Murphy’s failure notification is a mere example of Shankar’s error condition detection and reporting.
Shankar discloses preconfigured failover policies ([0079]). However, Shankar in view of Murphy fails to explicitly disclose transmitting/receiving to/from a UE a selection of at least one replacement primary device.
Nasir of analogous art teaches:
transmitting, to the at least one UE of the primary device selection cluster, a notification prompting a user-initiated selection of a replacement primary device ([0038], “the user of the particular user device 230 may designate one or more of the other user devices 230 as failover devices for the particular user device 230.”) from the selection of potential replacement primary devices (Fig. 4, elements 420,430, and 440); and
receiving, from the at least one UE of the primary device selection cluster, a user-selected replacement primary device (Fig. 4, element 430, “receiving a user designation of the other user devices as failover devices”),
wherein the user-selected replacement primary device is a device designated to receive future network communications ([0025], “Wireless network 260 may include a communications network that connects subscribers (e.g., user devices 230) to a service provider.”) and (Figs. 6A-6B) on behalf of the primary device selection cluster (Fig. 2, User devices 230) and (Figs. 5D-E).
All of the claimed elements were known in Shankar and Nasir and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their failover methods. One would be motivated to make this combination, since Nasir’s user selection of a replacement device is a mere example of Shankar’s preconfigured failover selection policy.
Shankar in view of Murphy/Nasir fails to explicitly disclose wherein the notification prompting the user-initiated selection of a replacement primary device is transmitted after the indication that failure of a primary UE is imminent.
Kumar of analogous art teaches:
wherein the notification prompting the user-initiated selection of a replacement primary device ([0064], “At step 620, primary director system 210 may receive a selection from the user instructing primary director system 210 to trigger the failover process”) is transmitted after the indication that failure of a primary UE is imminent ([0064], “At step 616, primary director system 210 may transmit an alert to the user. The alert may take the form of an email, notification, update to column 406g of FIG. 4, or any other means of informing the user that application 114 is unavailable.”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Shankar and Kumar and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their failover methods. One would be motivated to make this combination, since Kumar’s failover method is a modification of Shankar’s failover selection policy (Shankar, [0094], “Many modifications and variations are possible”).
As per claim 2, Shankar failure of the primary UE is imminent due to a critical temperature event ([0048], “a detected temperature of server 406a above a threshold will result in server 406a being shutdown”).
As per claim 4, Shankar discloses the indication that failure of the primary UE is imminent includes identification of at least one neighboring UE ([0042] and [0045]). Murphy further discloses the indication that failure of the primary UE is imminent (col. 5, lines 50-53, “primary server 102 detecting a malfunction in its own operation and transmitting a failure message to secondary server 104 or component monitor 106”).
As per claims 5 and 14, Shankar discloses the indication that failure of the primary UE is imminent includes identification of at least one neighboring primary device selection cluster ([0047]-[0049]). Murphy further discloses the indication that failure of the primary UE is imminent (col. 5, lines 50-53, “primary server 102 detecting a malfunction in its own operation and transmitting a failure message to secondary server 104 or component monitor 106”).
As per claim 6, Shankar discloses g notifying, by the primary device selection manager, at least one neighboring UE that failure of the primary UE is imminent ([0047]-[0049]) and (Figs. 8-9).
As per claim 7, Shankar discloses notifying, by the primary device selection manager, at least one neighboring primary device selection cluster that failure of the primary UE is imminent ([0052]-[0055]) and ([0026], “In addition, cluster managers 112a-b may make decisions about group failover (e.g. for groups of servers), server arbitration, and master server selection upon encountering error conditions.”).
As per claims 8 and 19, Shankar discloses identifying the selection of potential replacement primary devices is based on at least one of: location, accessibility, radio frequency (RF) health, and microservice profile of each device in the selection of potential replacement primary devices ([0026], “cluster managers 112a-b which intelligently handle failover decisions between servers (e.g., servers 106a-b) based on location and temperature information”).
As per claims 9, 15, and 20, Shankar discloses the selection of potential replacement primary devices includes at least one of: other devices associated with a user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster, previously identified devices approved by the user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster, or nearby devices approved by the user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster and users of the nearby devices ([0039]). Nasir further discloses the selection of potential replacement primary devices includes at least one of: other devices associated with a user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster, previously identified devices approved by the user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster, or nearby devices approved by the user of the at least one UE of a primary device selection cluster and users of the nearby devices (Figs. 4-5).
As per claims 11, Shankar discloses failure of the primary UE is imminent due to a critical temperature event ([0048], “detected temperature of server 406a above a threshold”).
As per claim 12, Shankar discloses failure of the primary UE is imminent due to a performance degradation event ([0043], “error conditions”).
As per claim 13, Shankar discloses the primary device selection manager dynamically adjusts the selection of potential replacement primary devices based on an analysis of the primary UE ([0063], “Thus, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, cluster manger engine 608, membership module 612, and fencing module 614 leverage the dynamically updated information from RFID technology to select failover targets.”), the analysis comprising:
identifying, by the network, an association between the primary UE and at least one potential replacement primary device based on interaction data ([0072], “At block 806, responsive to the error condition, a failover target based on the temperature and location information is automatically selected. As described herein, a failover target may be a variety of devices including a server local to a primary storage, another server of the storage cluster, a portion of a storage cluster, or another storage cluster. The selection of a failover target may be selected by a membership module, a fencing module, or a cluster manager engine. The selection of a failover target may also include selection of a master node. For example, the selection of the failover target may be based on an ambient temperature of a failover target being lower than a currently processing portion of the storage cluster.”);
identifying, by the network, a location of the at least one potential replacement primary device in relation to the primary UE ([0026], “cluster managers 112a-b which intelligently handle failover decisions between servers (e.g., servers 106a-b) based on location and temperature information”); and
based on the association and the location, adding the at least one potential replacement primary device to the selection of potential replacement primary devices ([0039], “For example, cluster managers 412a-c may consider a plurality of factors in a failover selection including the location and ambient temperature of each server, the location and ambient temperature of each storage array, storage/server dependency of each server, and the proximity of the storage to the array in a campus cluster environment.”).
As per claim 17, please refer to claims 4-5.
As per claim 18, please refer to claims 6-7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shankar et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20110145631) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7159234), Nasir et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20150109903) and Kumar et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20220405170) and in further view of Hosokawa (U.S. PGPUB 20090303952).
As per claim 3, Shankar discloses failure of the primary UE is imminent due to a performance degradation event ([0043], “error conditions”).
Shankar in view of Nasir fails to explicitly disclose channel quality information.
Hosokawa of analogous art teaches:
and wherein the performance degradation event is determined by channel quality information sent by the primary UE to the network ([0068] and [0081]).
All of the claimed elements were known in Shankar and Liu and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination, since Hosokawa’s channel quality information is a mere example of Shankar’s network link failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on December 23, 2025 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See included PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights