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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant appears to have access to documents associated with the PCT application referenced in the IDS. Please continue providing Office actions and amendments filed therein.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, the meaning of “based on the change probability curve” is unclear.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the meaning of “defining . . . as” is unclear.
The claims have been interpreted to read on the prior art as explained in those grounds of rejection, infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100095004 (Zuckerman) in view of A limited bandwidth resource scheduling algorithm for a streaming media system (Fan).
Regarding claim 14, Zuckerman teaches or suggests an apparatus for probability-based load balancing, comprising:
at least one processor and a memory (¶ 92) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor (¶ 6 data processor executing software instructions) to:
obtain a current server list, the current server list including a set of currently used servers in a server cluster (¶ 68 retrieving a first set of servers),
identify, from the current server list, at least one current server to be removed (¶ 68 identifying at least one server from the first set that is loaded beyond a certain threshold),
search, in a candidate server list, at least one candidate server for replacing the at least one current server, the candidate server list including a set of underloaded servers in the server cluster (¶ 68; fig. 65, step 7231 a server selected from the second set of servers able to increase their load),
update the current server list through replacing the at least one current server with the at least one candidate server (¶ 68 replacing the server loaded beyond the certain threshold with a server selected from the second set according to an algorithm), and
allocate data traffic to be sent based on the updated current server list, so as to achieving load balancing in the server cluster (¶3 load-balancing servers to delivering enough traffic).
Zuckerman does not expressly disclose but Fan teaches or suggests determine a change probability curve, the change probability curve indicating correspondence between a server load level and a server change probability basing the replacing thereon (p. 213 and fig. 1 probability curve indicating correspondence between server load level and server change probability). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zuckerman’s system and Fan’s curve in order to outperform other load balancing algorithms.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claim 14 supra, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the change probability curve includes: a first point with a first load level and a first change probability, and a line segment with a load level range and a second change probability. (Fan p. 213 para. bridging cols.). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 14.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests a first point with a first load level and a first change probability, and a line segment with a load level range and a second change probability (Fan fig. 1). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 14.
Regarding claim 7, Zuckerman teaches or suggests iteratively performing the following operations on the current server list: obtaining a current load level of a current server in the current server list; determining whether the current load level is higher than the first load level; and in response to determining that the current load level is higher than the first load level, identifying the current server as a current server to be removed (¶ 68).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests a second point with a second load level and a third change probability (Fan fig. 1). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 14.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100095004 (Zuckerman) in view of Fan further in view of GB 2477643 (Do).
Zuckerman does not expressly disclose but Do teaches or suggests iteratively performing the following operations on the candidate server list: obtaining a candidate load level of a candidate server in the candidate server list; determining whether the candidate load level is lower than the second load level; and in response to determining that the candidate load level is lower than the second load level, determining the candidate server as a candidate server for replacing the current server (18:19-23). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zuckerman’s system, Fan’s curve, and Do’s assessment in order to select the most suitable candidate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100095004 (Zuckerman) in view of Fan further in view of US 6879995 (Chinta).
Zuckerman teaches or suggests a client system connected with the server cluster via a network (¶ 102).
Zuckerman does not expressly disclose but Chinta teaches or suggests a load balancer in an arbitrary client in a client system (12:1-7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zuckerman’s system, Fan’s curve, and Chinta’s load balancer in order to try to place the load balancer in one of a finite number of identified, predictable places.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100095004 (Zuckerman) in view of Fan further in view of US 6879995 (Chinta) and US 9130977 (Zisapel).
Zuckerman does not expressly disclose but Zisapel teaches or suggests allocating the data traffic to be sent which is at the arbitrary client based on the updated current server list (4:14-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zuckerman’s system, Fan’s curve, Chinta’s load balancer, and Zisapel’s client traffic in order to load-balance such traffic.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, WO 2026018081 discloses client-side load balancing.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights