DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 12/8/2025.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1-24 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 12/8/2025. Claims 1-24 remain pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/8/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,751,004, U.S. Patent No. 10,945,091 and U.S. Patent No. 10,362,434 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded and the Obvious-type Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,2,4-6,8-10,12-14,16-18,20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavalkovsky et al. (US Pub. 2005/0198190)(Z1 hereafter) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. 2012/0209904)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,9 and 17, Z1 teaches an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors [paragraph 0024]; and memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [paragraph 0024], cause the apparatus to:
send, to a device, a first request (i.e. process request) associated with a first timeout parameter (i.e. time estimated related to sending a response request)[paragraph 0018];
receive, from the device and before the first timeout parameter is exceeded, a notification (i.e. interim message) indicating a timeout prediction (the interim message can convey that only so much processing has been performed of the request, [paragraph 0037], an interim message can comprise of an estimated amount of time before a response to is to be sent in response to the request [paragraph 0046]);
determine, based on the timeout prediction, a second timeout parameter (i.e. time estimation [paragraph 0046], if a new timeout is to be made, the interim message is to provide the new timeout [paragraph 0062]); and
send a second request (a client receiving the interim message can determine whether to update the timeout or to failover to another server and sending another request)[paragraph 0065].
However, Z1 fails to disclose sending a second request comprising the second timeout parameter.
H1 discloses that a client can send a request to a server in which the request can include a timeout control identifier used for starting timeout control [paragraph 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Z1 for dynamically adjusting a time out for a request to server [refer Z1; paragraph 0046] to incorporate the sending of another request with a specified timeout value accordingly as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide more accurate timeout control [refer H1; paragraph 0051].
Regarding claims 2,10 and 18, Z1 teaches the first request comprises at least one of a request to complete at least one task of a computing operation or a request to initiate a transaction of the computing operation (i.e. service at a server)[paragraph 0019].
Regarding claims 4,12 and 20, Z1 teaches sending the second request to a second device (i.e. alternative server)[paragraph 0065].
Regarding claims 5,13, and 21, Z1 teaches receiving the first request [paragraph 0023]; and determine the first timeout parameter associated with the first request [paragraph 0038].
Regarding claims 6,14 and 22, Z1 teaches determine, based on the timeout prediction, that the device will not complete the first request within a time associated with the first timeout parameter [paragraph 0046].
Regarding claims 8,16 and 24, Z1 teaches determining the second timeout parameter further based on a request history (i.e. processing of request)[paragraph 0048][refer Fig. 2; 230].
Claims 7,15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Z1 in view of H1, as applied to claims 1,9 and 17, in further view of Grieve et al. (US Patent No. 8,307,031)(G1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 7,15 and 23, Z1 fails to disclose that the second timeout parameter is less than the first timeout parameter.
G1 discloses updating a request timeout value to a second value based upon an amount of time between receiving first data responsive to a request and the receiving of second additional data responsive to the request [column 4 lines 38-56], the second timeout value can be a shortest period of time or an average of time for iterations between receiving of additional data (i.e. less than first timeout value)[column 17 lines 49-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Z1 to incorporate a smaller timeout value due the calculation of another timeout value to be applied to the reception of additional data as taught by G1. One would be motivated to do so to mitigate issues with regards to network congestion and/or workload and to account for variability for response times [refer G1; column 5 lines 50-64].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,11 and 19 would be allowable if amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest determining a network overhead time, in which the second timeout parameter is determined by subtracting the network overhead time from the first timeout parameter, as indicated in claims 3,11 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/8/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-24 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the filing of the terminal disclaimer. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1,2,4-6,8-10,12-14,16-18,20-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1,9, and 17, applicant argues that the applied references does not teach the claim limitation, namely, “receiving, from the second device and before the first timeout parameter is exceeded, a notification indicating a timeout prediction”. Refer pages 8-10 of the applicant’s arguments.
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, to receive a notification indicating a timeout prediction before a timeout has been exceeded can be interpreted as a time estimation related to sending a response request as disclosed by Z1.
Z1 is related to the field for dynamic timeous and uses an interim message to determine whether to change a timeout value [paragraph 0021], Z1 noting that that a time is estimated related to sending a response request [paragraph 0018], in which an interim message is used to convey that only so much processing has been performed of the request [paragraph 0037], the interim message can comprise of an estimated amount of time before a response to is to be sent in response to the request [paragraph 0046]. Z1 further discloses that this interim message can be conveyed before (i.e. before timeout exceeded) or after a timeout value [refer Fig. 3; 360 - No]. Based upon this broad interpretation of the claim language, Z1 does provide support for providing a timeout estimation (i.e. claimed timeout prediction).
Regarding claims 1,9, and 17, applicant argues that the applied references does not teach the claim limitation, namely, “determining, based on the timeout prediction, a second timeout parameter”. Refer pages 10-11 of the applicant’s arguments.
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. As noted above, Z1 discloses that should processing not be complete with regards to a request, a time estimation is made to an amount of time that will pass before a response to the request will be ready and how long the client will wait before timeout [paragraph 0046], and because Z1 is based upon dynamic timeouts [refer paragraph 0021], if a new timeout is to be made, the interim message is to provide the new timeout [paragraph 0062]. This can be viewed explicitly as a “second timeout parameter” since the term parameter only requires that it relates to another timeout.
Regarding claims 1,9, and 17, applicant argues that the applied references fail to disclose “sending a second request comprising a second timeout parameter” and that there is no motivation to combine. Refer pages 11-14 of the applicant’s arguments.
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, to send a second request comprising a second timeout parameter can be seen as any type of request that would otherwise identify a timeout or information related to a timeout.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Z1 is directed towards techniques for providing a dynamic timeout with the use of an interim message [refer Z1; paragraph 0021], to avoid fixed timeouts [refer Z1; paragraph 0004]. Z1 notes that by using time estimation [refer Z1; paragraph 0046], if a new timeout is to be made, the interim message is to provide the new timeout [refer Z1; paragraph 0062]. H1 was cited for meeting the lack of disclosure within Z1 for sending another request (i.e. the claimed second request) comprising the second timeout parameter, H1 explicitly noting that a client can send a request to a server in which the request can include a timeout control identifier that is used to start a timeout control (i.e. the second timeout or another timeout) for a user [refer H1; paragraph 0043]. This is further evidenced when H1 notes that the request sent to the server with the timeout control identifier for timeout control is so that the server can start the timeout corresponding to the timeout control identifier [refer H1; paragraph 0051]. Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims require that a request is to be sent with a different timeout parameter from the first timeout parameter, the disclosure of H1 can be reasonably combined with the teachings of Z1 to arrive at the claimed invention to broadly meet the claim language.
Accordingly, based upon this disclosure, examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Z1 for dynamically adjusting a time out for a request to server [refer Z1; paragraph 0046], in which a device is able to determine whether to update a timeout or to failover to another server and sending another request [refer Z1; paragraph 0065] to incorporate the sending of request with a specified timeout value to a server for timeout control [refer H1; paragraph 0051] accordingly as taught by H1. The motivation for the combination of references being that the teachings of H1 explicitly notes that this process with regards to a timeout control identifier can provide more accurate timeout control [refer H1; paragraph 0051].
It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 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 RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412