DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is responsive to the RCE filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 and 21-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, 15 and dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9-12, 16-19 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. New claims 21-23 have been added, and claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Specification
The abstract filed on 02/09/2026 of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The corrected abstract of the disclosure must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following terms lack proper antecedent basis:
-- the same -- in claim 1 line 6, claim 8 line 6, claim 15 line 5.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 line 13 recites “obtaining a name of a work server currently executing the job submission code”. It is unclear “the work server currently executing the job submission code” is same or different from the work server receiving the job submission code (examiner has interpreted that the two work servers are different) and if the determination of the work server that currently executing job is determined dynamically or in advance (examiner has interpreted that the determination is dynamic and not known in advance). It is also unclear if the job submission code has been transferred to the currently executing server or resides on the receiving work server and being executed by the currently executing work server (examiner has interpreted that the job submission code has been transferred to currently executing work server).
Claim 1 recites “target work server using a job processing function with the logical server name being with the logical server name”. It is unclear how the target work server is being determined and logical server name is the name of the target work server or work server executing the job submission code.
Claim 2 recites “executing, at the work server, a second function, transmitting, from the work server, the name of the work server to the client”. It is unclear second function is executed at which work server i.e. currently executing server, server that received the job submission code or the target server (examiner has interpreted that second function is available at each server and is executed when job is being executed on that server).
Claims 8 and 15 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejections set forth in this office action.
Examiner called the Applicant and left a voice message to discuss allowable subject matter. No response was received.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, and arguments presented in the Remarks filed on 02/09/2016 examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in amended independent claims.
Anderson et al. (US 2020/0050485 A1) teaches a computer implemented method for performing deterministic execution of jobs in a load-balanced system, comprising: receiving, at a work server in the load-balanced system, job submission code from a client that was connected to the work server in the load-balanced system, wherein the job submission code performs a job for the client; and executing, at the work server, the job submission code, wherein the execution of the job submission code: obtains the work server executing the job submission code, wherein the work server is visible to clients of the load-balanced system; maps the work server to a logical server of the work server using a function of the work server; and submits the job for processing using a job processing function that executes the job on a logical server.
Brener-Shalem et al. (US 2023/0342221 A1) teaches submit background job for background processing using a job processing function that executes the background job on a logical server.
Tameshige et al. (us 2016/0188373 A1) teaches receiving via a message server, wherein the name of work server is communicated to clients of the load-balanced system; maps the name of the work server to the name of logical server; wherein the logical server name is not visible to clients of the load balanced system; the server corresponding to the logical server name.
Zhuk et al. (US 2020/0007553 A1) teaches security group for a private cloud and logical server name is not visible to clients.
The combination of prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations of “receiving at a work server in load balanced system with which the client established the initial connection, job submission code from the client, disconnecting the connection, submitting the background job on a target work server using a job processing function with the logical server name being passed as a parameter, wherein logical server name is not visible to the client; receiving, at the target work server over a subsequent connection between the target work server and the client, a request from the client to check a status of the background job; determining, at the target work server and in response to the request, the status of the background job; and transmitting, by the target work server, the status of the background job to the client”, when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, as recited in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 were not disclosed in the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0157539 A1) teaches tail latency-based job offloading in load-balanced groups
Guzman et al. (US 2016/0323197 A1) teaches background processes in update load balancers of an auto scaling group.
Stowe et al. (US 2015/0286508 A1) teaches transparently routing job submissions between disparate environments
Strait (US 2005/0015437 A1) teaches peer to peer job monitoring and control in grid computing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at 571-272-4169. 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.
ABU ZAR GHAFFARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2195
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights