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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 27-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9948705, claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9699244, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11108852, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11736561 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12267387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim maintaining statistics of file system requests and reassigning the file system requests.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0073717 A1), hereafter referred to as Collin’717.
Referring to claim 27, Collin’717, as claimed, a system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first computing device (client systems (CS) 1-P, see Fig. 1) configured to process file system requests directed to any of a first plurality of virtual IP addresses (a first node N1 is accessible by addresses {1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64}, see para. [0066]); a second computing device configured to process file system requests directed to any of a second plurality of virtual IP addresses, the second plurality of virtual IP addresses being distinct from the first plurality of virtual IP addresses (a second node N2 is accessible by addresses {2, 11, 20, 29, 38, 47, 56, 65}, see para. [0066]), wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are physically separate devices within a cluster (see Fig. 1); a third computing device configured to process file system requests directed to any of a third plurality of virtual IP addresses, the third plurality of virtual IP addresses being distinct from both the first plurality of virtual IP addresses and the second plurality of virtual IP addresses (a third node N3 is accessible by addresses {3, 12, 21, 30, 39, 48, 57, 66}, see para. [0066]); and a device coordinator (administration module, see Fig. 1 and para. [0066]) configured to perform load balancing in response to a network event (balances a storage workload/ production load evenly across all nodes and upon receiving a notice of a node incident or after a fixed short predefined period of time, see paras. [0050]-[0058] and Fig. 6; also note: each node is evenly loaded in servicing files for all client systems, see para. [0047]) by dynamically reassigning each virtual IP address within the first plurality of virtual IP addresses to be processed by one of the second computing device or the third computing device, wherein: the reassignment occurs within the cluster without modifying physical IP addresses, and the reassignment maintains continuous availability of file system request processing (redistributing network address among remaining nodes of the clustered NAS when a node failed, see paras. [0058]-[0063], [0068]-[0070], Figs. 7 and 9).
As to claim 28, Collin’717 also discloses the network event is a failure of the first computing device (a node incident leading to a node failure, see paras. [0050]-[0058], Figs. 6 and 7).
As to claim 29, Collin’717 also discloses the network event is a lapse of a determined time interval (a node incident or after a fixed short predefined period of time, see paras. [0050]-[0058], Figs. 6 and 7).
As to claim 30, Collin’717 also discloses the network event is detection of a load imbalance among the first computing device and the second computing device (efficient load balancing among operating nodes, see paras. [0002] and [0017]).
As to claim 31, Collin’717 also discloses the reassigning is according to a count of how many of file system requests are sent to each particular virtual IP address (loads each node address evenly with L/N amount of load by assigning a set of N consecutive addresses of the list corresponding to all nodes, see paras. [0035], [0041]-[0044], Fig. 3 and 4).
As to claim 32, Collin’717 also discloses the reassigning is according to a count of a number of bits sent to or from each particular virtual IP address (loads each node address evenly with L/N amount of load by assigning a set of N consecutive addresses of the list corresponding to all nodes, see paras. [0035], [0041]-[0044], Fig. 3 and 4).
As to claim 33, Collin’717 also discloses the reassigning is according to an indication of an amount of time required to serve a file system request sent to each particular virtual IP address (performing redistribution of addresses of a failed node with respect to point of time(s), see paras. [0068]-[0072] and Fig. 9).
As to claim 34, Collin’717 also discloses the reassigning is according to a goal of uniform distribution of file system requests (balances a storage workload/ production load evenly across all nodes and upon receiving a notice of a node incident or after a fixed short predefined period of time, see paras. [0050]-[0058] and Fig. 6; also note: each node is evenly loaded in servicing files for all client systems, see para. [0047]).
As to claim 35, Collin’717 also discloses the device coordinator comprises one or more network adaptors (network interface card (NIC), wireless adapter, see para. [0075]).
As to claim 36, Collin’717 also discloses the first computing device is a virtual machine (see Figs. 1, 10 and programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine implementing the functions specified, see paras. [0083]-]0087]).
Note claim 37 recites similar limitations of claim 27. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 38 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 28. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 39 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 29. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 40 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 30. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 41 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 31. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 42 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 32. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 43 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 33. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 44 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 34. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 45 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 35. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 46 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 36. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Moen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0301413 A1) discloses virtual internet protocol migration and load balancing.
Shinkai (U.S. Patent No. 8,578,053 B2) discloses a NAS load balancing system.
Kitamura (U.S. Patent No. 7,209,967 B2) discloses a dynamic load balancing of a storage system.
Abir (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0126252 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for dynamic client-side load balancing system.
Ko (U.S. Patent No. 8,719,445 B2) discloses system and method for load balancing multiple file transfer protocol servers to service FTP connections for a cloud-based service.
Glover et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0103787 A1) discloses highly available network filer with automatic load balancing and performance adjustment.
The examiner 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 number(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 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 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights