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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 19-20 are canceled and claims 21-22 are newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 07/28/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant did not file the requested Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form. Also, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they fail to specifically point out how the language of the dependent claims makes the dependent claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. Applicant’s Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
determining a processing unit resource capacity for each of a plurality of computing systems in a peer group within a computing cluster (abstract idea mental process);
determining a swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process); and
designating one of the plurality of computing systems as a control system for a swap operation within the peer group based on the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability of the designated one of the plurality of computing systems relative to the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability of each of the other computing systems of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
determining a processing unit resource capacity for each of a plurality of computing systems (generic computing components) in a peer group within a computing cluster (generic computing components);
causing the plurality of computing systems to swap from usage of a set of source storage devices to usage of a set of target storage devices (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information to cause/trigger the plurality of computing systems).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
causing the plurality of computing systems to swap from usage of a set of source storage devices to usage of a set of target storage devices (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information to cause/trigger the plurality of computing systems).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the processing unit resource capacity for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a processing unit capacity score for each of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein designating the one of the of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation further comprises determining the one of the plurality of computing systems having a highest processing unit capacity score from among the plurality of computing system having a swap capability indicative of an availability of the computing system to participate in the swap operation (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the processing unit resource capacity score for a particular computing system of the plurality of computing systems is based on one or more of a number of online processing units of the particular computing system, a computational capability of each of the online processing units of the particular computing system, and a polarization of each of the online processing unit of the particular computing system (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a swap capability measure for each of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the swap capability measure for a particular computing system of the plurality of computing systems is based on an availability of the particular computing system to participate in the swap operation (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a triggering event associated with a change in at least one of the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability for at least one of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process);
recalculating the processing unit resource capacity for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process);
recalculating the swap capability for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process); and
redesignating one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation based on the recalculated processing unit resource capacity and the recalculated swap capability (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing unit resource capacity comprises a central processing unit (CPU) resource capacity (generic computing components).
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 21. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by each computing system of the plurality of computing systems, a processing unit capacity score representative of the processing unit resource capacity of the computing system in cross-system coupling facility (XCF) user state data for the computing system (extra-solution activity of saving/storing data/information), wherein the XCF user state data for each computing system of the plurality of computing systems is available to each other computing system of the plurality of computing systems (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information), and wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises comparing the XCF user state data of the plurality of computing systems (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 22. The method of claim 1, wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises:
determining, by a first computing system of the plurality of computing systems, that the first computing system is more qualified to be the control system for the swap operation than a current control system (abstract idea mental process);
attempting, by the first computing system, to take over as the control system for the swap operation, wherein the attempting is successful only if no other computing system of the plurality of computing systems takes over as the control system while the attempting is being processed (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
in response to determining that the attempting was not successful, reevaluating the first computing system relative to a new control system (abstract idea mental process).
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (US 2013/0290249) (hereinafter Merriman as previously cited) in view of LeCrone et al. (US 2022/0236881) (hereinafter LeCrone).
As per claim 1, Merriman primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method comprising:
determining a processing unit resource capacity for each of a plurality of computing systems in a peer group within a computing cluster ([0109] nodes within a particular cluster of nodes can be identified as peers and new nodes can be added to the cluster and identified as peers; [0308] determine sufficient/baseline processing capacity is available for servers; and [0315]-[0316] detect minimum processing capacity and whether processing capacity has exceeded a threshold);
determining a swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems ([0018] election criteria for nodes is based on node processing capability and hardware capability; [0209] determine each node capable of assuming the primary node); and
designating one of the plurality of computing systems as a control system for a swap operation within the peer group based on the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability of the designated one of the plurality of computing systems relative to the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability of each of the other computing systems of the plurality of computing systems ([0065] an election component configured to automatically establish a new node with the primary role in response to detecting a replication failure based on evaluation of election criteria including at least one of a state of a node's data, a geographic location, a rack position, a processing capability, and a hardware capability; [0109] nodes within a cluster automatically elect a primary node based on consensus and in response to failure; and fig. 6 and [0201]-[0203] detect failure condition, trigger election process, based on election criteria confirm votes for system with best election information, establish a quorum, and assign the node winning the election as the primary role).
Merriman does not explicitly teach causing the plurality of computing systems to swap from usage of a set of source storage devices to usage of a set of target storage devices.
However, LeCrone teaches causing the plurality of computing systems to swap from usage of a set of source storage devices to usage of a set of target storage devices ([0040] the system switches from using the source storage system to using the target storage system i.e., switches from the configuration shown in fig. 4 to fig. 5. Following the switch, the host and possibly other hosts access data at the target storage system).
LeCrone and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone because it would provide a way to copy data from a source storage system to a target storage system without suspending a host for extended periods of time and without impacting any disaster recovery system that protects the data at the source storage system. This would provide optimizations that minimize disruption to the host to a very short period of time that is a small fraction of the time required to migrate data.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra et al. (US 9,594,653) (hereinafter Misra as previously cited).
As per claim 2, Merriman in view of LeCrone does not explicitly teach wherein determining the processing unit resource capacity for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a processing unit capacity score for each of the plurality of computing systems.
However, Misra teaches wherein determining the processing unit resource capacity for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a processing unit capacity score for each of the plurality of computing systems (col. 8, ll. 45 to col. 9, ll. 1 determine a node with a most available capacity e.g., highest weight score to receive requests).
Misra and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra because it would provide a way for a client application to establish a local connection e.g., via shared memory to a database to access a set of data, as opposed to establishing a distributed or remote connection e.g., a TCP/IP connection via network to one of the databases that has the most available workload capacity. The local connection between the client application and the database may be conducive to a relatively high-speed data retrieval process e.g., the local connection may be a high-speed bus because the compute node avoids network latency by avoiding connecting e.g., via a network using a TCP/IP protocol to any of the databases to retrieve the data. This may have the benefit of speeding up transaction times as network latency is eliminated.
As per claim 3, Misra teaches wherein designating the one of the of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation further comprises determining the one of the plurality of computing systems having a highest processing unit capacity score from among the plurality of computing system having a swap capability indicative of an availability of the computing system to participate in the swap operation (col. 8, ll. 45 to col. 9, ll. 1 determine a node with a most available capacity e.g., highest weight score to receive requests).
As per claim 8 Misra teaches wherein the processing unit resource capacity comprises a central processing unit (CPU) resource capacity (col. 2, ll. 52-53 node has available workload capacity e.g., CPU availability and col. 4, ll. 51-54 available workload capacity is a capability of a particular node to service different requests in terms of CPU, memory, and/or other resources available on the particular node).
Misra and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra because it would provide for database normalization which is the process of efficiently organizing data in a database. For example, database normalization eliminates redundant data e.g., normalization eliminates the storing of the same data in more than one table and stores related data in a single table. Fast response times and robust concurrency control may be needed but fast response times may be inhibited by the continuous rerouting of data requests. When network latency outweighs the benefit of routing a database transaction request from a compute node having a heavy workload to another compute node having a light workload, the routing protocol may be modified.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Grubb et al. (US 2022/0334992) (hereinafter Grubb).
As per claim 4, Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra do not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit resource capacity score for a particular computing system of the plurality of computing systems is based on one or more of a number of online processing units of the particular computing system, a computational capability of each of the online processing units of the particular computing system, and a polarization of each of the online processing unit of the particular computing system.
However, Grubb teaches wherein the processing unit resource capacity score for a particular computing system of the plurality of computing systems is based on one or more of a number of online processing units of the particular computing system, a computational capability of each of the online processing units of the particular computing system, and a polarization of each of the online processing unit of the particular computing system ([0024] hub devices can receive a base score that corresponds to their general computing power/computational capabilities).
Grubb and Merriman are both concerned with computer networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Grubb because it would provide the ability for a user device or leader device to assign accessories to the best hub device which can prevent user requests from being missed. If an accessory device is dropped by its hub device, or if a hub device loses network connectivity, the accessory devices may not be able to process user requests unless they are quickly reassigned to the best available hub device.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Andre et al. (US 2015/0347252) (hereinafter Andre).
As per claim 5, Merriman in view of LeCrone does not explicitly teach wherein determining the swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a swap capability measure for each of the plurality of computing systems.
However, Andre teaches wherein determining the swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems further comprises determining a swap capability measure for each of the plurality of computing systems (abstract an availability score is calculated as a function of a number of available resources of the resource types. Information on the availability score is transmitted to a failure manager that uses the transmitted availability information to determine whether to initiate a storage system failure mode for the storage system; [0002] availability score based on available resources of different resource types in a storage system to determine whether to perform a failure operation for the storage system; and [0004] HyperSwap capability).
Andre and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Andre because it would provide for a secondary volume that is an identical copy of a primary volume prior to the failure, so that I/O requests will succeed with no impact to the program issuing the I/O requests, which could be an application program or part of the operating system. This therefore masks the disk failure from the program and avoids an application and/or system outage.
As per claim 6, Andre teaches wherein the swap capability measure for a particular computing system of the plurality of computing systems is based on an availability of the particular computing system to participate in the swap operation (abstract an availability score is calculated as a function of a number of available resources of the resource types. Information on the availability score is transmitted to a failure manager that uses the transmitted availability information to determine whether to initiate a storage system failure mode for the storage system; [0002] availability score based on available resources of different resource types in a storage system to determine whether to perform a failure operation for the storage system; and [0004] HyperSwap capability).
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Frederiksen et al. (US 2011/0237284) (hereinafter Frederiksen).
As per claim 7, Merriman in view of LeCrone does not explicitly teach detecting a triggering event associated with a change in at least one of the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability for at least one of the plurality of computing systems; recalculating the processing unit resource capacity for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems; recalculating the swap capability for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems; and redesignating one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation based on the recalculated processing unit resource capacity and the recalculated swap capability.
However, Frederiksen teaches detecting a triggering event associated with a change in at least one of the processing unit resource capacity and the swap capability for at least one of the plurality of computing systems; recalculating the processing unit resource capacity for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems; recalculating the swap capability for the at least one of the plurality of computing systems; and redesignating one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation based on the recalculated processing unit resource capacity and the recalculated swap capability ([0036] once a new LTE-Advanced home eNode-B is switched on, it starts by selecting one of the component carriers as its primary. Information available for selection of the primary component carrier is mainly local eNode-B measurements as well as potential information from surrounding active eNode-B on which component carriers they have selected. Once the eNode-B has selected its primary component carrier, it can start to carry traffic. The quality of the primary component carrier is here-after monitored by the eNode-B, and in case quality problems are detected, it may trigger a reselection, where another component carrier is selected as the primary).
Frederiksen and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Frederiksen because as offered traffic increases for cell, the eNode-B starts to allocate additional secondary component carriers, if this can be allowed without seriously degrading the performance of surrounding cells. Information available for secondary carrier selection or release in case of lower offered traffic could include both local eNode-B measurements, measurements from active terminals attached to the cell, as well as limited side-information from the surrounding eNode-Bs. The latter may include information of which component carrier's different neighboring eNode-Bs have selected for primary and secondary, as well as signaling to allow one eNode-B to indicate if it is experiencing severe quality problems on certain component carriers.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Allen et al. (US 5,634,072) (hereinafter Allen).
As per claim 21, Merriman in view of LeCrone do not explicitly teach
storing, by each computing system of the plurality of computing systems, a processing unit capacity score representative of the processing unit resource capacity of the computing system in cross-system coupling facility (XCF) user state data for the computing system,
wherein the XCF user state data for each computing system of the plurality of computing systems is available to each other computing system of the plurality of computing systems, and
wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises comparing the XCF user state data of the plurality of computing systems.
However, Misra teaches
storing, by each computing system of the plurality of computing systems, a processing unit capacity score (col. 4, ll. 65 to col. 5, ll. 4 store a server list, which is a list of IP addresses of each of the compute nodes and a weight score associated with each IP address. Each of the compute nodes may store and/or utilize the server list and associated weights to decide which node to reroute a session connection to in case of a failure of a node or database) representative of the processing unit resource capacity of the computing system in user state data for the computing system (col. 8, ll. 45 to col. 9, ll. 1 determine a node with a most available capacity e.g., highest weight score to receive requests),
wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises comparing the user state data of the plurality of computing systems (col. 8, ll. 3-25 the server list may indicate that a compute node has the highest weight score whereas other compute nodes have lower weight scores. Accordingly, upon a failure detected with a compute node, the client application may establish a TCP/IP connection with the database that is located on the compute node having the most available workload capacity via the weight score).
Misra and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra because it would provide a way for a client application to establish a local connection e.g., via shared memory to a database to access a set of data, as opposed to establishing a distributed or remote connection e.g., a TCP/IP connection via network to one of the databases that has the most available workload capacity. The local connection between the client application and the database may be conducive to a relatively high-speed data retrieval process e.g., the local connection may be a high-speed bus because the compute node avoids network latency by avoiding connecting e.g., via a network using a TCP/IP protocol to any of the databases to retrieve the data. This may have the benefit of speeding up transaction times as network latency is eliminated.
Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra do not explicitly teach:
cross-system coupling facility (XCF),
wherein the XCF user state data for each computing system of the plurality of computing systems is available to each other computing system of the plurality of computing systems.
However, Allen teaches:
cross-system coupling facility (XCF) (col. 20, ll. 22-23 Cross-System Coupling Facility (XCF)),
wherein the XCF user state data for each computing system of the plurality of computing systems is available to each other computing system of the plurality of computing systems (col. 87, ll. 64 to col. 88, ll. 9 coupling systems together through a coupling facility, such as a Structured External Storage (SES) facility. This facility provides processing logic and storage for shared data objects termed structures. Multiple structures may exist at a coupling facility and multiple users may exist for each structure. Status regarding structures and users of structures is maintained at the coupling facility. The combination of customer specified policy, state information recorded on a shared coupling data set and status regarding structures and users of structures maintained at the coupling facility, determines the content of the active policy, which is utilized to control the allocation of coupling facility resources).
Allen and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Allen because it would provide for automation of operation of functions via administrative specification rather than requiring operator actions or program intervention. This enables the changing of an active policy wherein incompatible changes are stored and executed when possible. In addition, if the active policy becomes out of synchronization with the Coupling facilities, capabilities are provided for reconciling the active policy with the coupling facilities. Further, this enables the recordation of intended modifications to resources within the coupling facilities prior to making the modifications. This aids in recovery processing of the coupling facilities if the operating systems should fail or lose connectivity with the coupling facility.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Moss et al. (US 2015/0012919) (hereinafter Moss) in view of Dain et al. (US 2014/0047088) (hereinafter Dain).
As per claim 22, Merriman in view of LeCrone do not explicitly teach wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises:
determining, by a first computing system of the plurality of computing systems, that the first computing system is more qualified to be the control system for the swap operation than a current control system;
attempting, by the first computing system, to take over as the control system for the swap operation, wherein the attempting is successful only if no other computing system of the plurality of computing systems takes over as the control system while the attempting is being processed; and
in response to determining that the attempting was not successful, reevaluating the first computing system relative to a new control system.
However, Misra teaches wherein designating the one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system for the swap operation comprises:
determining, by a first computing system of the plurality of computing systems, that the first computing system is more qualified to be the control system for the swap operation than a current control system (col. 8, ll. 3-25 the server list may indicate that a compute node has the highest weight score whereas other compute nodes have lower weight scores. Accordingly, upon a failure detected with a compute node, the client application may establish a TCP/IP connection with the database that is located on the compute node having the most available workload capacity via the weight score and col. 8, ll. 45 to col. 9, ll. 1 determine a node with a most available capacity e.g., highest weight score to receive requests).
Misra and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra because it would provide a way for a client application to establish a local connection e.g., via shared memory to a database to access a set of data, as opposed to establishing a distributed or remote connection e.g., a TCP/IP connection via network to one of the databases that has the most available workload capacity. The local connection between the client application and the database may be conducive to a relatively high-speed data retrieval process e.g., the local connection may be a high-speed bus because the compute node avoids network latency by avoiding connecting e.g., via a network using a TCP/IP protocol to any of the databases to retrieve the data. This may have the benefit of speeding up transaction times as network latency is eliminated.
Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra do not explicitly teach:
attempting, by the first computing system, to take over as the control system for the swap operation, wherein the attempting is successful only if no other computing system of the plurality of computing systems takes over as the control system while the attempting is being processed; and
in response to determining that the attempting was not successful, reevaluating the first computing system relative to a new control system.
However, Moss teaches attempting, by the first computing system, to take over as the control system for the swap operation, wherein the attempting is successful only if no other computing system of the plurality of computing systems takes over as the control system while the attempting is being processed ([0084] two virtual users/virtual machines cannot update the database record simultaneously, therefore two virtual users/virtual machines cannot simultaneously attempt to take over as controller of the resource pool).
Moss and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Moss because it would provide for an arrangement of virtual users/virtual machines into resource pools which has the advantage of providing both redundancy in the case of failure and scalability for coping with increased demand. By allocating sessions within tasks to resource pools, rather than the individual virtual users/virtual machines, if one of the virtual machines or virtual users were to fail, another virtual user could execute the session in its place without user intervention. Allocation of sessions to resource pools also enables the system to cope with increased demand, by spreading out the required work to more of the virtual users on virtual machines when it is required. It is also possible to add more virtual machines and virtual users to a resource pool, increasing the capacity of the resource pool if it is required.
Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Moss do not explicitly teach in response to determining that the attempting was not successful, reevaluating the first computing system relative to a new control system.
However, Dain teaches in response to determining that the attempting was not successful, reevaluating the first computing system relative to a new control system ([0118] the attempt by the master active node over the alternate connection may be made for example, before the distributed node service management causes a standby node to assume the role of the service proxy and to take over attempting to send the service notification to a support center. Thus, the master active node of the cluster upon failing in its attempt may try again. If successful, a failover of the service proxy from the master active node to a standby node may be avoided. However, the master active node may issue an alert indicating a failure. If unsuccessful, the master active node of the cluster sends a failure message to the peer member node of the cluster via the network, which initiates a failover of the service proxy from the master active node to a standby node).
Dain and Merriman are both concerned with node management in computing systems and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merriman in view of LeCrone in view of Misra in view of Moss in view of Dain because it would provide for a network arrangement including a centralized and consolidated point of service proxy as long as a master active node is functioning properly. However, should the master active node fail, the active-distributed standby mode provides additional flexibility in the failover characteristics of the distributed node service management in order to address differing user needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 prior art rejections on pg. 13-21 of the Remarks have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments 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.
Applicant's arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections on pg. 9-13 of the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 10-11, Applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The examiner respectfully traverses. A human can indeed perform the claimed determining steps of the independent claims. More specifically, a human can make a determination including an observation, evaluation, judgment of the processing unit resource capacity for the plurality of computing systems in the peer group within a computing cluster (i.e., determine some arbitrary number representing the processing unit resource capacity). Likewise, a human can also determine a swap capability for each of the plurality of computing systems (i.e., does the computing system have or not have a swap capability which is a yes/no determination). Whether the determinations are or are not accurate of the actual processing unit resource capacity and swap capability is irrelevant to the fact that a human can actually make the determinations. Finally, a human can also perform the designating step by merely mentally assigning one of the plurality of computing systems as the control system. This can also be accomplished for example via pen and paper. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims provide an improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The final step of the independent claims merely cause the plurality of computing systems to swap from usage of a set of source storage devices to usage of a set of target storage devices which does not provide any improvement. Merely causing the swap to occur does not provide the improvement. Furthermore, it is not clear as to how swapping from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the set of target storage devices provides any improvement whatsoever. In fact, it is entirely possible that swapping usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the target storage devices actually worsens the functioning of the computing system if the target storage devices are performing at a level worse than the source storage devices. In summary, merely causing a swap from one set of storage devices to another potentially worse performing set of storage devices does not provide any improvement. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 12, Applicant argues that the claimed steps of determining and designating improve the resiliency and performance of storage swap operations in a computing cluster. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the supposed improvement is in the steps of determining and designating. Hence, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to an abstract idea of determining and designating. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. Finally, in contrast to the Applicant’s erroneous assertion, the claims are absent any limitations pertaining to improving the resiliency and performance of storage swap operations in a computing cluster. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the rejection fails to properly address additional elements at Step 2B. The examiner respectfully traverses because Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of Applicant’s most recent amendments. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Finally, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they fail to specifically point out how the language of the dependent claims makes the dependent claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. Applicant’s Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Rooney et al. (US 2014/0019802) disclose multiple HyperSwap replication sessions.
Mehr et al. (US 2010/0274982) disclose hybrid distributed cloud backup architecture.
Levy (US 10,417,094) disclose a hyper storage cluster.
Kalos (US 2010/0100764) disclose redundancy information for adjusting thresholds for component failure in a multi-layer system.
Compton et al. (US 2019/0163576) disclose device reservation management for overcoming communication path disruptions.
Blea et al. (US 2016/0048435) disclose system availability in Peer-to-Peer-Remote-Copy failover environments.
Bashir et al. (US 2011/0099360) disclose addressing node failure during a HyperSwap operation.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights