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 .
Comments Regarding Examination
As to claims 1 and 7, use of the word “system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the system is a physical part of a device can the system as claimed constitute part of a device or a combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the instant case, the claimed system comprises a gateway server (and a plurality of service processing servers in claim 7). The specification provides a specific definition of a server as a hardware device including a memory and a processor configured to execute one or more steps to perform one or more processes of a method (par. [0058], as published). Therefore, the claimed elements are limited to statutory embodiments under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 8, the last limitation “cause the service processing server to provide connected car services to the vehicle” is ambiguous because it is unclear what “cause” entails such as to affect provisioning of connected car services by the service processing server that sent a service failure notification. In particular, it is unclear what “cause” implies that would restore functionality of the service processing server rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims fail to resolve the deficiency by explaining what “cause” entails and, thus, are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 7, the last limitation “cause the first service processing server to provide connected car services to the vehicle” is ambiguous for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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 1-3, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu (US Patent 9,189,355 B1) in view of Guim Bernat et al. (US 2021/0144517 A1).
As to claim 1, Moturu teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a gateway server [cloud server cluster 108] configured to:
based on receiving a first service request from a client terminal (col. 2 lines 33-46), forward the first service request to a service processing server responsible for processing a service corresponding to the received first service request [selecting a cloud server 110N to handle the service request] (col. 5 lines 44-56; col. 13 lines 53-60);
detecting a failure in the service processing server by receiving, from the service processing server, a service failure notification [steps 310 and 314] (col. 12 lines 17-33 and 43-49);
transmit a service error response to the client terminal [transmitting error message to the client in step 316] (col. 12 lines 50-67); and
based on at least one of the first service request or the second service request, cause the service processing server to provide connected car services to the client [processing the service request when there is not error in step 312] (col. 12 lines 34-43).
Moturu fails to teach that the client terminal is a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle. Moturu also fails to expressly teach that the failure notification is sent based on receiving a second service request after detecting the failure in the service processing server.
Guim Bernat is directed to service management in edge computing deployments (abstract). In particular, Guim Bernat teaches a gateway server [edge gateway node 312] (Fig. 3) configured to receive multiple service requests [requests for service 520] (par. [0142]). Guim Bernat also teaches that the client terminal can be a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle [client endpoint is a vehicle 510] (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Moturu by having the client terminal is a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle in order to give the client of Moturu an ability to work while on the road. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Moturu by having the failure notification sent based on receiving a second service request after detecting the failure in the service processing server in order to account for the fact that the system will be sending multiple requests from the same or different vehicle terminals, thus, not having enough time to send failure notification prior to receiving a subsequent request for service (par. [0143] in Guim Bernat).
As to claim 2, Moturu in view of Guim Bernat teaches that the gateway server is further configured to, based on receiving the second service request after detecting the failure in the service processing server, stop forwarding the second service request to the service processing server [if service failure occurs, taking the server offline and replacing with a backup server] (par. [0412], [0672] in Guim Bernat).
As to claim 3, Moturu teaches that the gateway server is further configured to, based on receiving the second service request after detecting the failure in the service processing server, store information associated with the second service request [storing transaction information associated with the trace ID] (col. 13 line 53 to col. 14 line 48).
As to claim 6, Moturu teaches that the gateway server is further configured to transmit the service error response to prevent the vehicle terminal from retransmitting an additional service request [it is noted that “to prevent” suggests intended use. The error notification from the gateway server has no ability to prevent the vehicle terminal from retransmitting the service request unless the service error response contains specific instructions that would prevent retransmission, which the claim does not state] (step 316 in Moturu).
As to claim 7, Moturu teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of service processing servers [cloud servers 110A, 110B, 110N] (Fig. 1); and
a gateway server [cloud server cluster 108] configured to:
based on receiving, from a client terminal, a first service request for a first service (col. 2 lines 33-46), forward the first service request to a first service processing server of the plurality of service processing servers [selecting one of a cloud servers 110A, 110B, 110N to handle the service request] (col. 5 lines 44-56; col. 13 lines 53-60);
based on receiving a second service request for a second service [multiple connections may be established to handle multiple requests simultaneously, where for each request most appropriate cloud server is selected] (col. 10 line 11 to col. 11 line 5);
based on receiving a third service request for a specific service handled by one of the plurality of service processing servers after detecting a failure in a corresponding service processing server [steps 310 and 314] (col. 12 lines 17-33 and 43-49), transmit a service error response to a corresponding client terminal that transmitted the third service request for the specific service [transmitting error message to the client in step 316] (col. 12 lines 50-67); and
based on at least one of the first service request, cause the first service processing server to provide connected car services to the client [processing the service request when there is not error in step 312] (col. 12 lines 34-43).
Moturu fails to teach that the client terminal is a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle.
Guim Bernat is directed to service management in edge computing deployments (abstract). In particular, Guim Bernat teaches a gateway server [edge gateway node 312] (Fig. 3) configured to receive multiple service requests [requests for service 520] (par. [0142]). Guim Bernat also teaches that the client terminal can be a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle [client endpoint is a vehicle 510] (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Moturu by having the client terminal is a vehicle terminal associated with a vehicle in order to give the client of Moturu an ability to work while on the road.
As to claim 8, Moturu in view of Guim Bernat teaches all the elements, as discussed per corresponding system claim 1.
As to claims 9-10 and 13, Moturu in view of Guim Bernat teaches all the elements, as discussed per corresponding claims 2-3 and 6 above.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu in view of Guim Bernat et al. and in further view of Bauer et al. (US 2012/0124413 A1).
As to claims 4 and 11, Moturu in view of Guim Bernat teaches all the elements except that the gateway server is further configured to, after detecting recovery of the service processing server from the failure, transmit a service availability notification to the vehicle terminal based on the stored information.
Bauer is directed to network element service recovery (abstract). In particular, Bauer teaches after detecting recovery of the service processing server from the failure, transmit a service availability notification to the client terminal based on the stored information (par. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Moturu in view of Guim Bernat by having the gateway server further configured to, after detecting recovery of the service processing server from the failure, transmit a service availability notification to the vehicle terminal based on the stored information, in order to trigger the client to redirect service or to recover on an alternative server (par. [0021] in Bauer).
As to claims 5 and 12, Moturu in view of Guim Bernat and Bauer teaches that the gateway server is further configured to: detect the recovery of the service processing server based on receiving a service recovery notification from the service processing server [receipt of an explicit message or an implicit indicator] (par. [0045], [0049] in Bauer).
Related Prior Art
San Andres et al. (US Patent 5,956,489) is directed to transaction replication service (abstract). In particular, San Andres teaches a gateway server [host data center 104 including gateway 126] configured to: based on receiving a first service request from a client terminal (col. 8 lines 22-35), forward the first service request to a service processing server [selected server 120] responsible for processing a service corresponding to the received first service request (col. 8 lines 36-43); detecting a failure in the service processing server by receiving, from the service processing server, a service failure notification [transaction that was unsuccessful as indicated in the transaction status code returned by the server] (col. 19 lines 43-58 and col. 32 lines 12-24); based on receiving a second service request after detecting the failure in the service processing server, transmit the second service request [additional service requests are routed according to the session map] (col. 13 lines 13-32); and based on at least one of the first service request or the second service request, cause the service processing server to provide connected car services to the client [synchronizing the application server with the other application servers of the service group so that the application server can be restarted and brought back online] (col. 3 lines 1-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457