DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Prosecution Status
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 9/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s response filed 9/29/2025 has been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 21-40 are pending.
In light of additional scrutiny of the claim language, a prior art rejection has been applied below (see note on claim interpretation) and this action is being made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
1. Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntwork et al. (US 9727882 B1, hereinafter Huntwork) in view of Young et al. (US 10409649 B1, hereinafter Young).
EXAMINER NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The Examiner notes that each of independent claims 21, 33, and 40 recite the limitation (emphasis added):
“directing to the first server and commencing to service by the first server any requests associated with the particular online store that would otherwise have been directed to and serviced by a second server.”
This limitation depends on the bolded condition being present in order to execute. As noted in MPEP 2111.04, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. Put another way, in a scenario where no requests have been directed to and serviced by a second server, this step is not performed. Therefore, it is considered to be an optional step, and does not limit the claim. For purposes of prosecution, the claims will be treated as if the limitation were omitted.
Regarding Claim 21
Huntwork discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting a demand-level condition for a particular online store (at least col. 2: 36-54: substantial increase in traffic detected)
Huntwork does not explicitly disclose:
responsive to the detecting of the demand-level condition for the particular online store: configuring a first server to service requests associated with the particular online store;
Young teaches that it is known to configuring a server to service requests associated with an online store in response to a demand-level condition (at least col. 6: 39 – col. 7: 24: requests diverted to backup server in response to demand) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Huntwork with the load balancing features of Young, since such a modification would have provided a load balancer that may predict fluctuations in traffic and increase or decrease capacity in response to the predicted fluctuation in requests. (at least col. 2: 1-25 of Young)
Regarding Claims 33, 40
Claims 11 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Clams 22-32, 34-39
Huntwork in view of Young further discloses:
wherein detecting the demand-level condition for the particular online store is based on monitored third-party access corresponding to the particular online store (Huntwork: abstract, col. 8: 42-58)
wherein detecting the demand-level condition includes detecting that monitored third-party access corresponding to the particular online store is suggestive of a current flash sale event. (Huntwork: col. 8: 42-58)
wherein detecting the demand-level condition includes detecting a projected flash sale event. (Huntwork: col. 8: 42-58)
wherein detecting the demand-level condition includes detecting a scheduled flash sale event (Huntwork: col. 8: 42-58)
wherein the demand-level condition includes a high demand-level condition (Huntwork: col. 8: 42-58)
wherein the demand-level condition includes a low demand-level condition (Huntwork: col. 8: 42-58)
determining the demand-level condition no longer exists and, in response, moving at least one of one or more of a plurality of online stores away from the first server (Young: col. 3: 1-16)
wherein configuring the first server includes transferring an asset to the first server (Young: col. 6: 39 – col. 7: 24)
wherein the first server has increased computing resources in comparison to the second server (Young: col. 6: 39 – col. 7: 24)
wherein moving the one or more of the plurality of online stores does not include moving the particular online store (Young: col. 7: 25-47)
responsive to the detecting of the demand-level condition for the particular online store, updating routing data to direct requests associated with the particular online store to the first server (Young: col. 4: 33-43)
mapping requests associated with the particular online store to a single server in a plurality of servers including the first and second server-and, responsive to the detecting of the demand-level condition for the particular online store, map requests associated with the particular online store to the first server instead of the second server. (Young: col. 4: 33-43; col. 6: 39 – col. 7: 24)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688