DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the original filing of June 4, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by An et al. (US 10,476,945 B2, hereinafter An).
As to Claim 1, An discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
initializing users, by a processor, within a network to respective servers to perform one or more tasks or functions within the respective servers ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 8, lines 55-61]), where An discloses initializing one or more task/functions (i.e. flows) for a server.);
identifying, by the processor, if at least one of the users needs to be reassigned to a different server from the original server in which the at least one user was assigned ((An; Fig. 1A; [col. 3, lines 27-41]), where An discloses the one or more task/functions (i.e. flows) assigned to a original server.), wherein a determination is made if a new server is being added, or one of the original servers is being removed ((An; Fig. 1B & 4; [col. 4, lines 17-32; col. 11, lines 40 – col. 12, lines 5]), where An discloses a determination is made whether a server is added or removed (i.e. failed). Based on the determination, the user can be reassigned to a different server.);
assigning, by the processor, the at least one user to a different server from among the initialized respective server based on the determination to add the new server or remove one of the original servers ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 12, lines 10-40]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added and removed.).
As to Claim 2, An discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: adding, by the processor, the new server at an endpoint within the network ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 11, lines 57-64]), where An discloses receiving indication of a server being added to the network.).
As to Claim 3, An discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by the processor, additional iterations of removing at least one of the initialized servers ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 11, lines 65 – col. 12, lines 5]), where An discloses receiving indication of a server being removed from the multiple server devices.).
As to Claim 4, An discloses the computer-implemented process of claim 1, further comprising: adding, by the processor, additional new servers to enable the other users to be transferred to the additional new servers ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 12, lines 10-40; col. 12, line 64 – col. 13, line 15]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added and removed.).
As to Claim 5, An discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: removing, by the processor, at least one of the respective servers from the endpoint within a system to transfer one or more of the users to an adjacent server among the initialized servers ((An; Fig. 1B & 4; [col. 4, lines 17-32; col. 12, lines 5-60]), where An discloses a determination is made whether a server is removed (i.e. failed). Based on the determination, the user can be reassigned to a different server.).
As to Claim 6, An discloses the computer-implemented process of claim 1, further comprising: rearranging, by the processor, a position of multiple users based on the determination to remove one of the initialized servers ((An; Fig. 1B & 4; [col. 3, lines 53-67; col. 12, lines 19-40; col. 14, lines 25-29]), where An discloses the user flows can be reassigned by a weight factor or particular order.).
As to Claim 7, An discloses the computer-implemented process of claim 1, further comprising: uniformly distributing, by the processor, the users into the remaining servers after removing several of the initialized servers ((An; [col. 12, lines 64-67; col. 15, lines 51-60]), where An discloses distributing the flows evenly among the servers.).
As to Claim 8, An discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (An; Fig. 3; [col. 7, lines 59-65]); and
a memory comprising a set of instructions (An; Fig. 3; [col. 8, lines 3-8]), wherein the set of instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
configure servers to a set position to receive users to perform various functions ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 8, lines 55-61]), where An discloses initializing one or more task/functions (i.e. flows) for a server.);
perform iterations of moving the users to different servers from their original servers based on a determination to add one or more new servers at an endpoint of the system ((An; Fig. 1B & 4; [col. 4, lines 17-32; col. 11, lines 40-64), where An discloses a determination is made whether a server is added. Based on the determination, the user can be reassigned to a different server.), wherein the users are added to the one or more new servers to maintain uniformity ((An; [col. 12, lines 64-67; col. 15, lines 51-60]), where An discloses distributing the flows evenly among the servers.); and
remove at least one server among the configured servers at another endpoint of the system at a different time interval ((An; [col. 11, lines 40 – col. 12, lines 5]), where An discloses servers can be removed based on the received states of the server.).
As to Claim 9, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to remap at least one of the users to a different server after the least one server is removed ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 14, lines 30-44]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added and removed.).
As to Claim 10, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to remap one or more of the users to the endpoint based on the one or more new servers being added ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 12, lines 10-40]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added.).
As to Claim 11, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to remap one or more of the users to one of the configured servers adjacent to at least one of the servers removed from the endpoint of the system ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 13, lines 42-47; col. 14, lines 30-44]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added and removed.).
As to Claim 12, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to remap one or more users to the one or more new servers added at the other endpoint of the system. ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 12, lines 10-40]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added.).
As to Claim 13, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the set of instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to remove another server at one of the endpoints in the system at another time interval ((An; [col. 11, lines 40 – col. 12, lines 5]), where An discloses servers can be removed based on the received states of the server.).
As to Claim 14, An discloses the system of claim 8, wherein each server comprises a different amount of users ((An; [col. 12, lines 64-67; col. 15, lines 51-60]), where An discloses distributing the flows evenly among the servers.).
As to Claim 15, An discloses a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program configured to cause a processor to:
configure a plurality of servers within a network to receive a plurality of users, wherein the servers are configured to receive linear data ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 8, lines 55-61]), where An discloses initializing one or more task/functions (i.e. flows) for a server.);
assign the plurality of users to the servers, wherein each of the servers throughout the network are configured to receive one or more of the plurality of users ((An; Fig; 1A; [col. 3, lines 30-41]), where An discloses assign a user to a server.);
determine at an endpoint of the network whether to add an additional server or remove one of the servers, wherein an algorithm identifies one or more of the users to reassign to either the additional server, or to one of the original servers ((An; Fig. 1B & 4; [col. 4, lines 17-32; col. 11, lines 40 – col. 12, lines 5]), where An discloses a determination is made whether a server is added or removed (i.e. failed). Based on the determination, the user can be reassigned to a different server.); and
reassign one or more of the plurality of users based on the determination of adding the additional server or removing one of the original servers ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 12, lines 10-40]), where An discloses reassigning the user to different servers based on when server are added and removed.).
As to Claim 16, An discloses the computer program of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to reassign the users to the additional server at the endpoint within a system ((An; [col. 12, lines 64-67; col. 15, lines 51-60]), where An discloses distributing the flows evenly among the servers.).
As to Claim 17, An discloses the computer program of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to map a range of the reassigned users uniformly to the remaining servers based on the determination to remove one of the original servers at the endpoint of the network ((An; [col. 9, lines 35-53]), where An discloses mapping (i.e. creating a link list) users to the servers.).
As to Claim 18, An discloses the computer program of claim 15, wherein a set number of the servers are configured to remain in an original position within the network ((An; Fig. 1B; [ col. 4, lines 17-32]), where An discloses a set of servers remaining within the network.).
As to Claim 19, An discloses the computer program of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to identify a number of the users from the plurality of servers to place in the additional server added at the endpoint of the network ((An; [col. 12, lines 64-67; col. 15, lines 51-60]), where An discloses distributing the flows evenly among the servers.).
As to Claim 20, An discloses the computer program of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to perform additional iterations of adding/removing additional servers from the endpoint of the network ((An; Fig. 4; [col. 11, lines 65 – col. 12, lines 5; col. 12, lines 10-40]), where An discloses steps of adding/removing servers to/from the network.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Wing Chan can be reached at 571-272-7493. 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.
/BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 12.5.2025
Prosecution Insights