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 Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, Luick (US 20030177326 A1).
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kester et al. (US 20040181788 A1) in view of Warner et al. (US 20220070277 A1), Cao et al. (US 20130286854 A1), and Luick (US 20030177326 A1).
Claim 1 Kester teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
an interface (Kester, FIG. 1, Application server module 102, FIG. 3, “Factory” Upload/Download module 105, i.e. an interface) configured to electronically receive from a remote data center, a cluster of software. (Kester, FIG. 12, step 1202, and FIG. 1, ¶0102, downloading the master application database 300, i.e. a cluster of software, to application server module 102 from application database factory 110)
However, Kester does not explicitly teach wherein the cluster of software comprises an active pod and a standby pod;
a processor coupled to an interface, the processor being configured to:
assign, in association with the interface receiving the cluster of software, active pod virtual IP address to the active pod and a standby pod virtual IP address to the standby pod, and
determine, in response to assigning the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, whether an IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address; and
reload, in response to a determination that the IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, the standby pod.
From a related technology, Warner teaches a processor coupled to an interface, (¶0031, processor with networking functions) the processor being configured to:
wherein a cluster of software comprises an active pod and a standby pod, (FIG. 4, ¶0034 and ¶0045, wherein the software cluster comprises by active and back-up/standby pods) assigning, in association with the interface receiving the cluster of software, (¶0034, in association with the commercial off the shelf (COTS) server platform) an active pod virtual IP address to the active pod and a standby pod virtual IP address to the standby pod. (¶0045, wherein each pod is assigned a unique IP address, ¶0032, the software is virtualized)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kester in to incorporate software clusters such as those taught in Warner in order to effectively utilize standby technology that allows for efficient resolution of issues by switching to standby options when active elements are having issues.
However, Kester in view of Warner does not explicitly teach determine, in response to assigning the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, whether an IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address; and
reload, in response to a determination that the IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, the standby pod.
From a related technology, Cao teaches determine whether an IP address conflict exists. (Cao, ¶0025, reviewing data to determine whether entries have the same IP addresses, wherein having the same IP address determines a conflict)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kester in view of Warner to detect IP addresses for the purpose of identifying IP address conflicts that may hamper performance as described in Cao in order to more effective manage resources management across various elements.
However, Kester in view of Warner and Cao does not explicitly teach reload, in response to a determination that the IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, the standby pod.
From a related technology, Luick teaches reload, in response to a determination that the IP address conflict exists between the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address, the standby pod. (¶0064, reloading where the address conflict has been detected)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kester in view of Warner and Cao to incorporate the reloading techniques utilized in Luick in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 2 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the IP address conflict corresponds to assignment of a same virtual IP address to both the active pod virtual IP address and the standby pod virtual IP address. (Cao, ¶0025, reviewing data to determine whether entries have the same IP addresses, wherein having the same IP address determines a conflict)
Claim 3 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: detect a presence or an absence of a performance issue with the active pod. (Warner, FIG. 17, 1702, ¶0101, detecting whether the operation version of the active pod, wherein the active pod running version X comprises detection of a performance issue and X’ absence of a performance issue)
Claim 4 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 3, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: stop, in response to the processor detecting the presence of the performance issue with the active pod, the active pod then restart the active pod. (Warner, FIG. 17, 1712 and 1722, ¶0101, wherein in response to detecting the performance issue, i.e. using the non-upgraded version, stopping the active pod 1712 and making the standby pod the active pod, and starting the new active pod)
Claim 5 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 3, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
switch, in response to the processor detecting the presence of the performance issue with the active pod, the standby pod to the active pod. (Warner, ¶0041, wherein the back-up pod is exchanged for the active pod, i.e. switching from the active to backup)
Claim 6 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 1, and further teaches the remote data center, wherein the remote data center is configured to broadcast the cluster of software simultaneously to a plurality of data centers. (Examiner notes that while Applicant uses the term “broadcast,” which is generally understood as transmitting to all elements within the system, Applicant’s usage is more in-line with “multicast,” wherein data is only transmitted to a specific group;
See Applicant’s Specification FIG. 4A, [0086] “to control the interface 152 to broadcast the data center cluster group 52 simultaneously to each of the third-party data centers TPDC 16 (1) through TPDC 16 (R) identified in the selection instruction,” and [0084] “the selection instruction may identify TPDC 16 (1), TPDC 16 (2), and TPDC 16 (R).”
Examiner notes that FIG. 4A is referred to as “telecommunication system 10,” [0051] and that TPDC 16 (6) is not part of the selection instruction despite being in telecom system 10.
Therefore, Examiner interprets the usage of “broadcast” as being more in line with “multicast,” i.e. wherein transmission is selective, as the claims suggest a directed transmission and the Specification explicitly selects transmission recipients.
Warner, FIG. 13, ¶0095-¶0096, wherein the deployment service 1120 is configured to vCore instances to a selected plurality of vCore hosts, i.e. plurality of data centers)
Claim 7 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 6, and further teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is one of the data centers. (Warner, FIG. 11, ¶0093, wherein one of the vCore hosts comprises one of the data centers)
Claim 8 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 6, and further teaches wherein the remote data center (Kester, FIG. 1, Application Database Factory 110) is configured to output, to the electronic apparatus, a start instruction that commands the electronic apparatus to execute a master application. (Kester, FIG. 7, ¶0073, outputting a startup sequence for the requested application, wherein a startup sequence comprises a start instruction and the request application comprises the master application)
Claims 9-13 are taught by Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick as described for Claims 1-5 respectively.
Claims 14-18 are taught by Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick as described for Claims 1-5 respectively.
Claim 19 Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick teaches Claim 14, and further teaches wherein the standby pod is a replica of the active pod. (Warner, ¶0100, wherein the standby instance is configured like a primary, i.e. active, instance)
Claim 20 is taught by Kester in view of Warner, Cao and Luick as described for Claim 19.
Conclusion
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 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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights