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 Amendment
The amendment filed on May 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 8-12 of Applicant’s response, Applicant’s representatives argue the cited references fail to teach the limitations “instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system, and executing a switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal, wherein the detection signal comprises a level signal, a square wave signal, or a sinusoidal signal” of claims 1, 9, and 10. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s representatives argue that Rostron fails to teach “the active system is connected to the standby system by an external warning line” of claim 1 because “[o]ne skilled in the art can understand that the active system is connected to the standby system in a hardware manner, which is different from the network of Rostron” (emphasis in the original). Applicant’s response, p. 9. Examiner disagrees. Nothing has been recited in the claims that in any manner require an active system to be connected to the standby system in a hardware manner. Applicant’s representatives are reminded that “it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification” and “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim” (emphasis added). MPEP 2111.01, section II.
Applicant’s representatives further argue that Shinoara fails to teach the limitations “instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system” of claim 1 because “the first computer of Shinohara stops heartbeat signal communications with the second computer of Shinohara, i.e., there are no communication signal between the first computer of Shinohara and the second computer of Shinohara. However, in the amended claim 1, the detection signal is sent to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system, and there is the detection signal between the active system and the standby system.” (Emphasis in original). Applicant’s response, p. 10. Examiner disagrees.
Shinoara teaches “a failover cluster system which comprises a first computer and second computer that are mutual objects of failover, and in which failover is executed on the basis of the state of heartbeat signal [i.e., detection signal] communications performed [i.e., sent] between the first computer [i.e., active system] and second computer [i.e., standby system]” and “[t]he first computer comprises a first failover program which causes failover to be actuated by the second computer by voluntarily stopping heartbeat signal communications on the basis of a heartbeat communications stop request [i.e., device detection result of the active system] that is issued from an installation program that performs preparations for the installation of an OS construction altering program.” Shinoara, ¶ [0027]. In other words, Shinoara teaches an active system being configured (i.e., instructed) to send detection signal via a warning link/line to the standby system as long as a stop request is not received (i.e., according to the device detection result). Therefore, Shinoara does teach the limitations of “instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system.”
Applicant’s representatives also argue that Shinoara fails to teach the abovementioned limitations because “the heartbeat communications is performed in the software manner, not a hardware manner.” As explained above already, nothing has been recited in the claims that in any manner require an active system to be connected to the standby system in a hardware manner and “it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification” and “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim” (emphasis added). MPEP 2111.01, section II. Accordingly, even if the heartbeat communications of Shinoara is performed in software, it still teaches the limitations of claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites “a square wave signal” in line 2. However, claim 1 already recites “a square wave signal” and it is unclear whether “a square wave signal” in claim 3 is the same as “a square wave signal” in claim 1. Nothing has been provided in the claim that clarifies it. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, claim 3 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For examination purposes, “a square wave signal” in claim 3 has been construed as the square wave signal.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 5, 7-10, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostron et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/085669 A1) in view of Shinohara et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/102562 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (CN113064664A).
Regarding claim 1, Rostron teaches “[a]n active-standby switching processing method, applied to an active system and a standby system, the active system being connected to the standby system by an external warning line, wherein the method comprises: acquiring a device detection result of the active system” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0009], and FIG. 1; standby sparing fault tolerance technique includes a primary/active node (i.e., active system) and a backup/standby node (i.e., standby system); the primary/active node (i.e., active system) connected to backup/standby node (i.e., standby system) by heartbeat thread (i.e., external warning line); if a node detects the absence of a companion's heartbeat (i.e., device detection of a primary node (active system)), the node requests confirmation (i.e., acquiring a device detection result) of the failure from a secondary node called a supervisor node 103; thus, acquiring a device detection result of the active system); and
Rostron further teaches “. . . executing a switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal” (see ¶ [0012]; if the supervisor node concurs that a heartbeat is absent (i.e., according to the detection signal), consent is transmitted and the standby node (standby system) is promoted (switching operation) to an active node (active system); thus, a switching operation is executed between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal).
Rostron does not explicitly disclose “instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system” and “wherein the detection signal comprises a level signal, a square wave signal, or a sinusoidal signal” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Shinohara teaches “instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system” (see ¶ [0027]; the failover cluster system comprises a first computer and second computer that are mutual objects of failover, and in which failover is executed on the basis of the state of heartbeat signal (i.e., according to the device detection result of the active system) communications performed between the first computer and second computer; first computer comprises a first failover program which causes failover to be actuated by the second computer by voluntarily stopping heartbeat signal communications on the basis of a heartbeat communications stop request that is issued from an installation program (i.e., instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line); thus, active system is instructed to send a detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rostron to incorporate the teachings of Shinohara to instruct an active system to send a detection signal to a warning line based on the device detection result of the active system. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce computing burdens avoid drop in responses between the systems (see ¶ [0006] of Shinohara).
The combination of Rostron and Shinohara do not explicitly disclose “wherein the detection signal comprises a level signal, a square wave signal, or a sinusoidal signal” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Wang teaches “wherein the detection signal comprises a level signal, a square wave signal, or a sinusoidal signal” (see ¶ [0041]; heartbeat signal (i.e., detection signal) is a square wave). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rostron in view of Shinohara to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have the detection signal be a square wave. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve reliability of signaling between active and standby systems (see ¶ [0030] of Wang).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches “wherein the detection signal comprises a square wave signal, and the instructing the active system to send the detection signal to the external warning line according to the device detection result of the active system, and executing the switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal further comprises: instructing the active system to send the square wave signal to the external warning line in a case that the device detection result of the active system is device normal; instructing the active system to stop sending the square wave signal to the external warning line in a case that the device detection result of the active system is device alarm; and executing the switching operation according to a statistical result of the square wave signal in a second preset cycle” (see ¶¶ [0005] – [0012] of Rostron, and ¶ [0027] of Shinohara, and ¶ [0041] of Wang; Wang teaches heartbeat signal (i.e., detection signal) is a square wave; Shinohara teaches the failover cluster system comprises a first computer and second computer that are mutual objects of failover, and in which failover is executed on the basis of the state of heartbeat signal (i.e., according to the device detection result of the active system) communications performed between the first computer and second computer; first computer comprises a first failover program which causes failover to be actuated by the second computer by voluntarily stopping heartbeat signal communications on the basis of a heartbeat communications stop request that is issued from an installation program (i.e., instructing the active system to send a detection signal to the external warning line); thus, instructing the active system to send the square wave signal to the external warning line in a case that the device detection result of the active system is device normal; instructing the active system to stop sending the square wave signal to the external warning line in a case that the device detection result of the active system is device alarm; if the supervisor node concurs that a heartbeat is absent (i.e., according to the detection signal), consent is transmitted and the standby node (standby system) is promoted (switching operation) to an active node (active system); since determining whether a signal is absent or present inherently includes determining whether a signal level satisfies a threshold such as determining whether corresponding bits of the signal are high or not, it also inherently includes determining a statistical result of the signal under BRI; additionally, since the signal is determined after a receiving it, executing of the switching it is inherently in a different cycle of operations (i.e., second preset cycle) from a determining/receiving; thus, executing the switching operation according to a statistical result of the signal in a second preset cycle).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the executing the switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal further comprises: switching the active system to the standby system according to the detection signal; and switching the standby system back to the active system when it is detected that the active system returns to normalcy in a case that the active system is switched to the standby system” (see ¶¶ [0031]-[0034] of Rostron; the active node (active system) and the standby node (standby system) can be go through multiple states including active, standby, and restore to previous state; restore to normal operation; thus, switching the active system to the standby system according to the detection signal; and switching the standby system back to the active system when it is detected that the active system returns to normalcy in a case that the active system is switched to the standby system).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the executing the switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal further comprises: storing the detection signal to a state table deployed in the standby system to obtain a signal state and executing the switching operation according to the signal state” (see ¶¶ [0009], [0012] and [0034]; upon receipt of a ready event, the circuit state machine transitions to the STAND-BY state; the circuit state machine stays in the STAND BY state 203 until an enable event is received (i.e., storing the detection signal to a state table deployed in the standby system to obtain a signal state); whereby it transitions to the ACTIVE state (i.e., switching operation according to the signal state); thus, storing the detection signal to a state table deployed in the standby system to obtain a signal state and executing the switching operation according to the signal state).
Regarding claim 8, it is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, it is a storage medium claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 3 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 3. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, they are apparatus claims corresponding to claims 5 and 7 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 5 and 7. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, it is a storage medium claim corresponding to claim 3 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 3. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, it is a storage medium claim corresponding to claim 5 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 5. Claims 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 4, 11, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostron in view of Shinohara and further in view of Wang and further in view of Hongyan (CN112306813A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “acquiring a preset alarm item and a preset alarm level; and acquiring an alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item in the active system according to the alarm level, and acquiring the device detection result of the active system according to detection information for the alarm flag in a first preset cycle” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Hongyan teaches “acquiring a preset alarm item and a preset alarm level; and acquiring an alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item in the active system according to the alarm level, and acquiring the device detection result of the active system according to detection information for the alarm flag in a first preset cycle” (see ¶¶ [0062]-[0068]; a default (i.e., preset) alarm template is generated for each resource; this template contains the default configurations for all alarm items, including the default configurations for alarm thresholds (i.e., alarm level) and on/off states (i.e., alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item); thus, acquiring a preset alarm item and a preset alarm level; and acquiring an alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item in the active system according to the alarm level); data is monitored and compared to alarm thresholds and, based on the comparison of the data and alarm thresholds, corresponding alarms are generated (i.e., alarm flag corresponding to alarm is also set); thus, acquiring the device detection result of the active system according to detection information for the alarm flag in a first preset cycle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rostron in view of Shinohara and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hongyan to acquire preset alarm items, alarm levels, and corresponding alarm flags, an acquire device detection result based on corresponding alarm flag. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve performance when handling/processing various alarm items (see ¶ [0005] of Hongyan).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the active system comprises an access unit and at least two first remote units, all of the at least two first remote units are cascaded with each other, and the standby system comprises at least two second remote units, wherein the at least two first remote units are connected to the at least two second remote units by the external warning line, respectively” (see ¶ [0063] and FIG. 8 of Rostron; active nodes set includes two or more active nodes (i.e., two first remote units), where the nodes can be cascaded; and standby nodes set includes two or more standby nodes (i.e., two second remote units); the two or more active nodes are connected to the two or more standby nodes via heartbeat links (the external warning line); thus, a system comprises an access unit and at least two first remote units, all of the at least two first remote units are cascaded with each other, and the standby system comprises at least two second remote units, wherein the at least two first remote units are connected to the at least two second remote units by the external warning line, respectively); and
the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang further teaches “the executing the switching operation between the active system and the standby system according to the detection signal further comprises: sending a switching flag to the at least two first remote units in cascade in turn according to the detection signal in a case that the device detection result of the active system is matched with the access unit, wherein all of the at least two first remote units are configured to switch with the at least two second remote units based on the switching flag” (see ¶¶ [0012] and [0063] of Rostron; if the supervisor node concurs that a heartbeat is absent (i.e., according to the detection signal), consent (i.e., switching flag) is transmitted (i.e., sending) and the standby node (standby system) is promoted (switching operation) to an active node (active system); within the node set, the switch can be initiated for the at least two other active nodes, thus, sending a switching flag to the at least two first remote units in cascade in turn according to the detection signal in a case that the device detection result of the active system is matched with the access unit, wherein all of the at least two first remote units are configured to switch with the at least two second remote units based on the switching flag); and
the combination of Rostron, Shinohara, Wang and Hongyan teaches “sending the switching flag to at least one alarm remote unit according to the detection signal in a case that the device detection result of the active system is matched with the at least one alarm remote unit of the at least two first remote units, wherein the at least one alarm remote unit is configured to switch with a corresponding second remote unit based on the switching flag” (see ¶¶ [0062]-[0068]; a default alarm template is generated for each resource; this template contains the default configurations for all alarm items, including the default configurations for alarm thresholds (alarm level) and on/off states (alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item); thus, acquiring a preset alarm item and a preset alarm level; and acquiring an alarm flag corresponding to the alarm item in the active system according to the alarm level); data is monitored and compared to alarm thresholds and, based on the comparison of the data and alarm thresholds, corresponding alarms are generated; [the data monitored can include the switching flag and the detection signal as taught by Rostron and Shinohara]; thus, the combination teaches sending the switching flag to at least one alarm remote unit according to the detection signal in a case that the device detection result of the active system is matched with the at least one alarm remote unit of the at least two first remote units, wherein the at least one alarm remote unit is configured to switch with a corresponding second remote unit based on the switching flag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rostron in view of Shinohara and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hongyan to send switching flag and detection signal data to alarm unit. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve performance when handling/processing various alarm items (see ¶ [0005] of Hongyan).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, they are apparatus claims corresponding to claims 2 and 4 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 2 and 4. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, they are storage medium claims corresponding to claims 2 and 4 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 2 and 4. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostron in view of Shinohara further in view of Wang and further in view of Yang et al. (CN112737844A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Rostron, Shinohara, and Wang teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the number of the standby system is at least two, and the active system is connected to all of the at least two standby systems by the external warning line, respectively; the executing the switching operation between the active system and the at least two standby systems according to the detection signal further comprises: acquiring a preset list of priorities for all of the at least two standby systems, and acquiring a target standby system with the highest priority among the at least two standby systems according to the list of priorities; and executing the switching operation between the active system and the target standby system according to the detection signal” of claim 6. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Yang teaches “wherein the number of the standby system is at least two, and the active system is connected to all of the at least two standby systems by the external warning line, respectively; the executing the switching operation between the active system and the at least two standby systems according to the detection signal further comprises: acquiring a preset list of priorities for all of the at least two standby systems, and acquiring a target standby system with the highest priority among the at least two standby systems according to the list of priorities; and executing the switching operation between the active system and the target standby system according to the detection signal” (see ¶¶ [0066] – [0070]; for multiple servers in a redundant system, an initial primary/standby state can be pre-programmed into the storage medium of each server; for example, the initial primary/standby state of server (i.e., wherein the number of the standby system is at least two, and the active system is connected to all of the at least two standby systems by the external warning line, respectively); suppose that server A experiences an irreparable failure at a certain moment, a primary/standby switchover is required; in this case, server A switches its primary/standby status to standby status by executing the process applicable to the primary state of the server provided in this application (i.e., acquiring a preset list of priorities for all of the at least two standby systems, and acquiring a target standby system with the highest priority among the at least two standby systems according to the list of priorities)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rostron in view of Shinohara to incorporate the teachings of Yang to acquire a preset list of priorities. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve data efficiency between two systems of a redundant system (see ¶ [0004] of Yang).
Regarding claim 15, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 6 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 6. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
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 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 SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights