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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed on July 24, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the parent U.S. Patent No. 12,212,629 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claims 1, 11, 20 recite similar steps such as: identifying the application-layer connections.., identifying a high-load service instance of the service instances…, determining a subset of connections…, and terminating the subset of connections. The instant independent claims recites a variant of parent patent invention by identifying a high-load service instance instead of directions of connection initiation for the purpose of finding a subset of connections for termination. Martinez Morais et al. U.S. Patent Number 11,343,329 B1 (hereinafter Martinez Morais) teaches the steps of finding subset of connections for termination based on high-load instances. Martinez Morais teaches: identifying a high-load service instance of the service instances (see identifying a first type of connections associated with a source above a first threshold, or high-load services instance as claimed, on column 12 line 48-55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify a subset of the connections with high-load service. The motivation for doing so would have been to find appropriate subset connections to terminate (see column 12 line 45-55 in Martinez Morias). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine U.S. Patent No. 12,212,629 B2 with Martinez Morais for the benefit of identifying high-load service subset of connections for termination.
Instant Application
Parent 12,212,629 B2
1. A method for redistributing application-layer connections among service instances, the method comprising:
identifying the application-layer connections established between service instances and peers;
identifying a high-load service instance of the service instances, wherein a number of the application-layer connections established with the high-load service instance satisfies load criteria;
determining a subset of connections from a portion of the application-layer connections connected to the high-load service instance; and
terminating the subset of connections.
1. A method for redistributing application-layer connections among active-active service instances, the method comprising:
determining connection information about connections established with service instances operating in an active-active configuration,
wherein the connection information identifies directions of connection initiation for the connections and identifies peers for the connections;
based on the connection information, determining a subset of the connections for reestablishment on a per-peer basis using direction-dependent criteria; and
terminating the subset of the connections.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez Morais et al. U.S. Patent Number 11,343,329 B1 (hereinafter Martinez Morais).
As per claims 1, 11, 20, Martinez Morais discloses a method for redistributing application-layer connections among service instances (see terminating and reestablishing connection at another server based on server resource load thresholds on column 5 line 20-32), the method comprising:
identifying the application-layer connections established between service instances (see network services, or service instances as claimed, implemented using application-layer network protocols on column 28 line 3-12) and peers (see identifying persistent connections with the sources 304, or peers as claimed, on column 12 line 18-25 and see multiple application servers running plurality of applications in a cloud infrastructure as a service, or peers as claimed, on column 27 line 45-56);
identifying a high-load service instance of the service instances (see identifying a first type of connections associated with a source above a first threshold, or high-load services instance as claimed, on column 12 line 48-55), wherein a number of the application-layer connections established with the high-load service instance exceeds a threshold number of connections (see total resource loads is looking at number of persistent connections, or threshold number of connections as claimed, to determining when to stop establish new connections and migrate persistent connections on column 12 line 35-44 and see different threshold load determined by different numbers of persistent connections on column 12 line 48-55);
determining a subset of connections from a portion of the application-layer connections connected to the high-load service instance (see determining a first type of connection associated with a source above a first threshold, or subset of connections connected to high-load service instance as claimed, to be migrated on column 12 line 50-56); and
terminating the subset of connections (see determining first type of connection to be migrated on column 12 line 50-56 and see migration including terminating the connection at the current server and reestablishing at another server on column 5 line 25-32 and see identified first subset of connections exceeding threshold and to be terminated on column 32 line 63 to column 33 line 4).
As per claims 2, 12, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving an incoming connection request from a peer of the peers to reestablish an application-layer connection in the subset of connections (see terminating and reestablishing a connection to another server on column 5 line 25-32); and selecting a service instance of the service instances to satisfy a load balancing scheme (see selecting a migrating server based on schema on column 6 line 15-20).
As per claims 3, 13, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the subset of connections comprises: determining ages of the portion of the application-layer connections connected to the high-load service instance; and selecting, for inclusion in the subset of connections, a connection with an age of the ages older than another connection in the portion (see determining the subset of connections to be migrated based on longest idle and time server established connection, or age of connection as claimed, on column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 1-12).
As per claims 4, 14, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the subset of connections comprises: ensuring at least one connection between the high-load service instance and a peer of the peers is not included in the subset of connections (see selecting type of connections such as an activate persistent connection from the source or one other server, or connections of a peer or the peers as claimed, on column 6 line 39-60).
As per claims 5, 15, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a number of connections in the at least one connection is not greater than a predefined maximum number of connections (see tracking predefined threshold number of persistent connections on column 12 line 33-48 and see different predefined threshold load tracking the number of persistent connections, or predefined maximum number of connections as claimed, on column 12-48-60).
As per claims 6, 16, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion includes inward connections initiated from the peers to the high-load service instance (see migrating connections between peer servers on column 5 line 25-32 within the cloud service, or inward connections as claimed, on column 27 line 45-50).
As per claims 7, 17, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the subset of connections comprises: determining Quality of Service (QoS) factors of the portion of the application-layer connections (see QoS threshold such as server resources, CPU, and memory usage on column 5 line 33-55); and identifying those of the portion of the application-layer connections having QoS factors satisfying QoS thresholds for inclusion in the subset of connections (see using threshold to identify subset type of connections to migrate on column 5 line 60 to column 6 line 5 and see different QoS thresholds of network resources used by different persistent connections to determining remedial actions for different persistent connection types on column 32 line 13-25).
As per claims 8, 18, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 7, comprising: omitting those of the portion of the application-layer connections established after a most recent redistribution application-layer connections from inclusion in the subset of connections (see migration connection selection priority based on time server established connection on column 5 line 62 to column 6 line 5).
As per claims 9, 19, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 7, comprising: stopping addition of connections to the subset of connections when a threshold number of connections is exceeded (see stop accepting new connections when threshold of connection is exceeded on column 10 line 28-34).
As per claim 10, Martinez Morais discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the subset of connections includes an outbound connection initiated from the high-load service instance to a peer of the peers, and the method comprising: selecting a different service instance than the high-load service instance from the service instances after the subset of connections are terminated (see terminating connection from the current server instance on column 5 line 28-31); and initiating a connection request to the peer from the different service instance (see reestablish the connection at another server on column 5 line 30-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claims 1, 11, 20, the applicant asserts that Martinez Morais do not disclose as amended: “when a number of the application-layer connections established with the high-load service instance exceeds a threshold number of connections” (see Remarks on page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Martinez Morais teaches: wherein a number of the application-layer connections established with the high-load service instance exceeds a threshold number of connections (see total resource loads is looking at number of persistent connections, or threshold number of connections as claimed, to determining when to stop establish new connections and migrate persistent connections on column 12 line 35-44 and see different threshold load determined by different numbers of persistent connections on column 12 line 48-55).
Martinez Morais teaches looking at number of persistent connections, or threshold number of connections as claimed for determining need to terminating subset of connections (see column 12 line 35-44). Martinez Morais discloses two different threshold loads based on number of persistent connections, or threshold number of connections as claimed (see column 12 line 48-55). Martinez Morais teaches use of persistent connections or threshold number of connections as claimed.
As per claims 4, 14, the applicant asserts that Martinez Morais do not disclose: “ensuring at least one connection between the high-load service instance and a peer of the peer is not included in the subset of connections” (see Remarks on page 9). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Martinez Morais teaches: ensuring at least one connection between the high-load service instance and a peer of the peers is not included in the subset of connections (see selecting type of connections such as an activate persistent connection from the source or one other server, or connections of a peer or the peers as claimed, on column 6 line 39-60). Martinez Morais discloses maintaining connections between peer of the peers such as other peer server that is not the source.
As per claims 5, 15, the applicant asserts that Martinez Morais do not disclose: “wherein a number of connections in the at least one connection is not greater than a predefined maximum number of connections” (see Remarks on page 10). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Martinez Morais teaches: wherein a number of connections in the at least one connection is not greater than a predefined maximum number of connections (see tracking predefined threshold number of persistent connections on column 12 line 33-48 and see different predefined threshold load tracking the number of persistent connections, or predefined maximum number of connections as claimed, on column 12-48-60). Martinez Morais teaches different thresholds based on tracking different number of persistent connections, or predefined maximum number of connections as claimed.
As per claims 7, 17, the applicant asserts that Martinez Morais do not disclose: “identifying those of the portion of the application-layer connections having QoS factors satisfying QoS thresholds for inclusion in the subset of connections” (see Remarks on page 11). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Martinez Morais teaches: identifying those of the portion of the application-layer connections having QoS factors satisfying QoS thresholds (see QoS threshold such as server resources, CPU, and memory usage on column 5 line 33-55 and see persistent connection types with amount of CPU usage, memory usage, and network resource usage on column 32 line 13-25) for inclusion in the subset of connections (see using threshold to identify subset type of connections to migrate on column 5 line 60 to column 6 line 5). Martinez Morais teaches use of QoS thresholds such as server resources, CPU, and memory usage on column 5 line 33-55 to determining remedial action to connections. Martinez Morais teaches different QoS thresholds of network resources used by different persistent connections to determining remedial actions for different persistent connection types (see column 32 line 13-25).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALAN S CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Chris L Parry can be reached at (571)272-8328. 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.
/ALAN S CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
