DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 21 May 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 17 were amended.
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-17 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The Double Patenting rejections were addressed and are withdrawn.
The objections to claims 6 and 14 regarding minor informalities were addressed and are withdrawn.
Applicants’ amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-9, and 12-17 filed on 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 (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.
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, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer et al. (U.S. 10,567,333) and further in view of Maslak (U.S. 10,979,387).
Sawyer was cited on the IDS filed 28 September 2024.
With respect to claim 1, Sawyer teaches a method, comprising: causing at least a first server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a first Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a first Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 7, line 18) for a first service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the first server set comprises at least a first server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43); causing at least a second server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a second Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 8, lines 41-42) for a second service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the second server set comprises at least a second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43); determining that a first Anycast region requires additional server capacity; determining a period of time to provide the additional server capacity; in response to determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640; col. 7, lines 33-44), causing the second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in the second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig, 7B, elements 710, 770, and 750; col. 8, lines 40-43); and after the period of time, causing the second server in the second Anycast region to cease advertising the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12).
Sawyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency.
However, Maslak teaches wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold (Maslak, col. 21, lines 21-37), and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency (Maslak, col. 22, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sawyer in view of Maslak in order to wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency. One would be motivated to do so in order to utilizing load balancing and anycast techniques in an effort to reduce the size of results provided by the DNS system (Maslak, col. 2, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Sawyer and Maslak teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the method wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric is predicted to exceed a threshold within a prediction period (Sawyer, col. 5, lines 2-5).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Sawyer and Maslak teaches the invention described in claim 5, including the method wherein the period of time is dynamically determined (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640 and 680; col. 7, lines 33-44 and col. 8, lines 9-12).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Sawyer and Maslak teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the method wherein causing the second server in the second Anycast region to advertise the first Anycast address comprises causing the second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in the second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise the first Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 7, line 18) in addition to the second Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 8, lines 41-42).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Sawyer and Maslak teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the method further comprising causing routers in the first Anycast region to favor the second server during the period of time while the second server advertises the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig, 7B, elements 710, 770, and 750; col. 8, lines 40-43).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 9, Sawyer teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method, the method comprising: causing at least a first server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a first Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a first Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 7, line 18) for a first service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the first server set comprises at least a first server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43); causing at least a second server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a second Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 8, lines 41-42) for a second service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the second server set comprises at least a second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43); determining that a first Anycast region requires additional server capacity; determining a period of time to provide the additional server capacity; in response to determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640; col. 7, lines 33-44), causing the second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in the second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig, 7B, elements 710, 770, and 750; col. 8, lines 40-43); and after the period of time, causing the second server in the second Anycast region to cease advertising the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12).
Sawyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency.
However, Maslak teaches wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold (Maslak, col. 21, lines 21-37), and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency (Maslak, col. 22, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sawyer in view of Maslak in order to wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency. One would be motivated to do so in order to utilizing load balancing and anycast techniques in an effort to reduce the size of results provided by the DNS system (Maslak, col. 2, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 17, Sawyer teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method, the method comprising: causing at least a first server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a first Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a first Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 7, line 18) for a first service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the first server set comprises at least a first server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43); causing at least a second server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a second Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 8, lines 41-42) for a second service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the second server set comprises at least a second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43); determining that a first Anycast region requires additional server capacity; in response to determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640; col. 7, lines 33-44), causing the second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in the second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig, 7B, elements 710, 770, and 750; col. 8, lines 40-43); dynamically determining (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640 and 680; col. 7, lines 33-44 and col. 8, lines 9-12) whether the first Anycast region continues to require additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12); and based on dynamically determining (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640 and 680; col. 7, lines 33-44 and col. 8, lines 9-12) that the first Anycast region no longer requires additional server capacity, causing the second server in the second Anycast region to cease advertising the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12).
Sawyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency.
However, Maslak teaches wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold (Maslak, col. 21, lines 21-37), and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency (Maslak, col. 22, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sawyer in view of Maslak in order to wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency. One would be motivated to do so in order to utilizing load balancing and anycast techniques in an effort to reduce the size of results provided by the DNS system (Maslak, col. 2, lines 1-3).
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 do not teach or define any new limitations above claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer and Maslak and further in view of Rolia et al. (U.S. 8,543,711).
Rolia was cited on the IDS filed 28 September 2024.
With respect to claim 6, Sawyer teaches the invention described in claim 5, including a method, comprising: causing at least a first server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a first Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a first Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 7, line 18) for a first service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the first server set comprises at least a first server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 720; col. 3, lines 41-43); causing at least a second server set (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in a second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise a second Anycast address (Sawyer, col. 8, lines 41-42) for a second service (Sawyer, col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the second server set comprises at least a second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43); determining that a first Anycast region requires additional server capacity; determining a period of time to provide the additional server capacity; in response to determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640; col. 7, lines 33-44), causing the second server (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 3, lines 41-43) in the second Anycast region (Sawyer, Fig. 7B, element 710; col. 8, line 16) to advertise the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig, 7B, elements 710, 770, and 750; col. 8, lines 40-43); and after the period of time, causing the second server in the second Anycast region to cease advertising the first Anycast address (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12); the method wherein the period of time is dynamically determined (Sawyer, Fig. 6, elements 610-640 and 680; col. 7, lines 33-44 and col. 8, lines 9-12); and the first Anycast region will no longer require additional server capacity (Sawyer, Fig. 6, element 680; col. 8, lines 9-12).
Sawyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency.
However, Maslak teaches wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold (Maslak, col. 21, lines 21-37), and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency (Maslak, col. 22, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sawyer in view of Maslak in order to wherein determining that the first Anycast region requires additional server capacity comprises determining that a capacity metric has exceeded a threshold, and wherein the capacity metric comprises at least one of: processor usage and latency. One would be motivated to do so in order to utilizing load balancing and anycast techniques in an effort to reduce the size of results provided by the DNS system (Maslak, col. 2, lines 1-3).
The combination of Sawyer and Maslak does not explicitly teach based on a prediction of when.
However, Rolia teaches based on a prediction of when (Rolia, col. 1, lines 1-54).
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 combination of Sawyer and Maslak in view of Rolia in order to based on a prediction of when. One would be motivated to do so in order to increased flexibility, the ability to quickly repurpose server capacity to better meet the needs of application workload owners, and to reduce overall costs of ownership (Rolia, col. 3, lines 2-4).
Claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 6 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights