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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication module configured to” in claim 1. “a service server configured to” and “a traffic control server configured to” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for “traffic control server” described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 2 and [0049]-[0050] of the Specification “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of the traffic control server of FIG. 1 . Referring to FIG. 2, the traffic control server 100 may include a processor 110, a memory 120, and a communication module 130.”.
However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structures for “a communication module”. Applicant discloses in [0051] of the Specification “the communication module 130 may include at least one of a wired communication module or a wireless communication module.” which does not disclose a definite/particular structure for the “communication module”. In addition, [0039] of the Specification disclose “The service server 300 may include a WEB server 310, a WAS server 320, and a DB server 330.” which does not disclose a definite/particular structure for the “service server”.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites limitation “a communication module configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The use of the term “communication module” does not describe a particular structure for performing the claimed functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the recited functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. Same rationales apply to “a service server configured to” recited in independent claim 8. The dependent claims of claim 1 and claim 8 fail to cure the deficiency. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 112(a) because the specification is devoid of clear and adequate structure for the “a communication module” and “a service server” performing the claimed functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the 112(b) rejection, set forth above, for more details.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (US 20010049717 A1) in view of Cooke (US 20130212603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches a server for controlling an entry allowed number based on influence calculation utilizing metric information, comprising:
a communication module configured to perform communication with user terminals attempting to enter a service server; ([0350]: The load management subsystem (LMS) provides a load management capability that selects which server 180 in the server farm 110 will service a client request, i.e., which server 180 will execute an application for a client 120.)
a memory configured to store at least one process related to a control of an entry allowed number based on an impact calculation using metric information; and ([0359]: the maximum number of client sessions allowed by the rule. [0350]-[0352]: the LMS manages overall server and network load to minimize response time to client requests. the LMS is rule-based. Rules use the output from one or more operational meters. Operational meters may measure any aspect of server performance and the result is used by rules to help determine which server is most appropriate to service a client request.)
a processor configured to perform an operation according to the process, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate the influence on the metric information based on a number of connection requests by user terminals received from the service server through the communication module and the metric information, ([0359]: using operational meters the LMS can obtain information about the processor load on a particular server 180, the memory load on that server 180, and the network load of that server 180. The LMS combines these results to obtain an overall load number that indicates the total aggregate load on that server 180. the rule may disqualify a server 180 from servicing a client request. if a server 180 is currently servicing the maximum number of client sessions allowed by the rule, it will not be chosen by the LMS to service a new client request, even if the outputs of its operational meters indicate that it is the most favorable server 180 to which to route the client request.)
output change information of the metric information based on the number of connection requests by the user terminals and the influence, ([0361]-[0362]: the LMS receives an event message requesting a server ID to which a client request should be directed. The LMS queries load evaluator information associated with the requested application. some rules force a calculation of the load evaluator at the time of the request. The LMS sends an event to the administration tool subsystem each time a client connection is requested and another message indicating to which server 180 the client connection was directed.)
extract a preset target entry allowed number by the user terminals in connection with the change information of the metric information, and ([0359]: if a server 180 is currently servicing the maximum number of client sessions allowed by the rule, it will not be chosen by the LMS to service a new client request, even if the outputs of its operational meters indicate that it is the most favorable server 180 to which to route the client request.)
control the service server to perform a control of the user terminals based on the target entry allowed number by the user terminals. ([0359]: if a server 180 is currently servicing the maximum number of client sessions allowed by the rule, it will not be chosen by the LMS to service a new client request, even if the outputs of its operational meters indicate that it is the most favorable server 180 to which to route the client request.)
Freeman does not explicitly disclose the connection requests are by API group.
However, Cooke teaches the connection requests are by API group. ([0030]: the API usage is preferably accounted for based on API resource type (e,g., API group). In the variation where the method is applied to concurrency rate monitoring and regulating, the initiation and conclusion of API requests are accounted for such that a request limiter has access to information specifying the number of current/active API requests.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Freeman. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable to measure, track, and record the API usage so that the API values are maintained. As mentioned above, the API usage is preferably accounted for based on API resource type. As taught by Cooke, [0030].
Regarding claim 2, Freeman and Cooke teach the server according to claim 1.
Freeman teaches calculate the influence based on the number of connection requests, and CPU information, memory information, disk information, and network information included in the metric information. ([0359]: using operational meters the LMS can obtain information about the processor load on a particular server 180, the memory load on that server 180, and the network load of that server 180. The LMS combines these results to obtain an overall load number that indicates the total aggregate load on that server 180. If a server 180 is currently servicing the maximum number of client sessions allowed by the rule, it will not be chosen by the LMS to service a new client request, even if the outputs of its operational meters indicate that it is the most favorable server 180 to which to route the client request.)
Cooke teaches calculate the influence based on the number of connection requests of a first API group and the number of connection requests of a second API group among the number of connection requests by API group. ([0030]: the API usage is preferably accounted for based on API resource type (e,g., including different API groups). In the variation where the method is applied to concurrency rate monitoring and regulating, the initiation and conclusion of API requests are accounted for such that a request limiter has access to information specifying the number of current/active API requests.)
Similar rationales apply to rejection of claim 8 (system) because it is substantially similar to claim 1 (server).
Similar rationales apply to rejection of claim 9 (system) because it is substantially similar to claim 2 (server).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if applicant overcomes the 112(b) & 112(a) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in claims 3-7 and 10-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
