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 .
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 0001: Add the patent number corresponding to Application No. 18/399,922.
¶ 0002: Add the patent number corresponding to Application No. 18/399,917.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: Change to “…wherein the data message indicative of [[the]] that result by each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance includes a backup result output.” (page 2)
Claim 19: Change to “…wherein the data message indicative of [[the]] that result by each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance includes a backup result output.” (page 5)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (e.g. Claim 23) 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.
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 1-22 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “…may alter a current state…” The term “may” is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Is the claimed current state altered, or is it not?
Because Claims 2-11 and 13-22 depend upon Claims 1 and 12, respectively, Claims 2-11 and 13-22 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 1, 12, and 23 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of anticipatory-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,417,155 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned, broadened claims of the instant application are anticipated by respective claims of the parent patent. These double patenting claim mappings are shown in the table below.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of anticipatory-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,487,894 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of the instant application are anticipated by respective claims of the related patent. These double patenting claim mappings are shown in the table below.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 23 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of anticipatory-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 21 of copending Application No. 19/245,156 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of the instant application are anticipated by respective claims of the related patent application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The elements of the aforementioned claims are mapped below in the aforementioned table. Underlined claim elements are anticipated.
19/249,618
12,417,155
12,487,894
19/245,156
(Claim) 1. A system comprising:
a plurality of fault tolerance processors, each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with one of a plurality of transaction processing servers, wherein each of the plurality of transaction processing servers is configured to receive an incoming request for a transaction, process the received incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request, and generate a result indicative thereof which may alter a current state of each of the plurality of transaction processing servers, each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors configured to:
establish which one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance, each of others of the plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance, the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance at least commencing processing of the incoming request prior to each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance; and
determine that a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance and, subsequent thereto, cause one of the those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance to be designated as a new primary instance.
(Claim) 1. A system comprising:
a plurality of transaction processing servers coupled with each other via an electronic communications network, each of the plurality of transaction processing servers comprising a processor which implements a plurality of components coupled with each other, each of the plurality of components characterized by a current state and configured to perform one or more of receiving an electronic message, processing the received electronic message and generating an electronic result message indicative of a result of an operation which may alter the current state thereof, wherein one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance and each other of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a backup instance, wherein each of the plurality of transaction processing servers is operative to receive an incoming request for a transaction, process the received incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request and generate a result indicative thereof, the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance at least commencing processing of the incoming request prior to each of the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers designated as the backup instance, wherein one or more of the plurality of components of the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance are each configured to communicate the electronic result message indicative of the result of the operation thereof to a corresponding component of each of the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers designated as the backup instance; and
a plurality of fault tolerance processors, each of the plurality of transaction processing servers coupled with one of the plurality of fault tolerance processors, each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors configured to determine that a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance and, subsequent thereto, cause one of the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers to be designated as a new primary instance, wherein the one of other of the plurality of transaction processing servers which is designated as the new primary instance is configured to synchronize the current state of each of the plurality of components thereof based on received electronic messages indicative of the result of the operation of the corresponding component of the primary instance, and process any incoming requests not processed by the primary instance before commencing processing of new incoming requests.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fault tolerance processors, establish, upon the plurality of transaction processing servers starting up, which of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as the primary instance.
Also: 20
(Claim) 1. A system comprising:
a plurality of transaction processing servers coupled with each other via an electronic communications network, each of the plurality of transaction processing servers comprising a processor which implements a plurality of components coupled with each other, each of the plurality of components characterized by a current state and configured to perform one or more of receiving an electronic message, processing the received electronic message and generating an electronic result message indicative of a result of an operation which may alter the current state thereof, wherein one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance and each other of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a backup instance, wherein each of the plurality of transaction processing servers is operative to receive an incoming request for a transaction, process the incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request and generate a result indicative thereof, the primary instance at least commencing processing of the incoming request prior to each of the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers designated as the backup instance; and
a plurality of fault tolerance processors, each of the plurality of transaction processing servers coupled with one of the plurality of fault tolerance processors, each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors configured to determine whether a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance and, subsequent thereto, cause one of the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers to be designated as a new primary instance.
Also: 25
(Claim) 1. A system comprising:
a plurality of transaction processing servers coupled with each other via an electronic communications network, each of the plurality of transaction processing servers configured to:
establish, upon initialization, which one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance, each of others of the plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance; and
receive an incoming request for a transaction, process the incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request, and generate a result indicative thereof, the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance at least commencing processing of the incoming request prior to those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance,
wherein the system further comprises a plurality of fault tolerance processors, each coupled with one of the plurality of transaction processing servers and configured to determine whether a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance, and subsequent thereto, cause one of the others of the plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance to be designated as the primary instance.
Also: 11 and 21
2
3
4
2 and 12
5
6
7
3 and 13
8
9
6 and 16
10
11
12
20 and 7
25 and 6
11, 1, and 21
13
14
15
12 and 2
16
17
18
13 and 3
19
20
16 and 6
21
22
23
7 and 20
6 and 25
21, 1, and 11
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)(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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morosan et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,725,764 B2), hereinafter “Morosan.”
With regards to Claim 1, Morosan teaches:
a system (Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 33-44; regarding, e.g., system 50.) comprising:
a plurality of fault tolerance processors (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 61-67; col. 7, lines 17-23; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 47-50; regarding, e.g., CPUs in each server 62 capable of processing software elements to service client requests and providing failover functionality.), each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with one of a plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 61-67; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 47-50.), wherein each of the plurality of transaction processing servers is configured to receive an incoming request for a transaction (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 3-22; regarding, e.g., either a sell order or a buy order associated with, e.g., order matching; and TABLE I.), process the received incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 3-22; and col. 9, lines 7-24; regarding, e.g., a sell order corresponding to a matched buy order [a transaction counter].), and generate a result indicative thereof which may alter a current state of each of the plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 3; col. 11, lines 47-67; col. 12, lines 1-33; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; and col. 13, lines 14-28.), each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors configured to:
establish which one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 7, lines 34-45; and col. 8, lines 43-54.), each of others of the plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (col. 14, lines 38-45; regarding, e.g., two [or more] servers [others]; Fig. 1; Fig. 2; and col. 8, lines 43-54.), the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance at least commencing processing of the incoming request prior to each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; col. 9, lines 52-67; TABLE I; and col. 13, lines 14-28.); and
determine that a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 15; col. 15, lines 56-67; and col. 16, lines 1-12.) and, subsequent thereto, cause one of the those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance to be designated as a new primary instance (Fig. 15; col. 15, lines 56-67; and col. 16, lines 1-12.).
With regards to Claim 2, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the transaction processing server designated as the new primary instance is configured to process any incoming requests not processed by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance before commencing processing of new incoming requests (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.).
With regards to Claim 3, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance is configured to communicate the generated result to those plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 12, lines 56-67; and col. 13, lines 1 and 2.).
With regards to Claim 4, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance are configured to receive the incoming request from the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; and col. 13, lines 14-28.).
With regards to Claim 5, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance include a queue configured to store previously received incoming request messages from the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.), and
wherein the transaction processing server designated as the new primary instance is configured to process all of the previously received incoming request messages stored in the queue before becoming the new primary instance (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.).
With regards to Claim 6, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein each of the transaction processing servers is configured to generate a data message indicative of the generated result of the attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43; regarding, e.g., a confirmation.).
With regards to Claim 7, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 6 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein only the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance is configured to transmit the data message indicative of the generated result of the attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request to an external recipient (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43; regarding, e.g., service 94-1 sending the confirmation to client 54-1.).
With regards to Claim 8, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 6 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the data message indicative of the generated result by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance includes a primary result output (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43.), and
wherein the data message indicative of the result by each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance includes a backup result output (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43.).
With regards to Claim 9, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of fault tolerant processors is configured to periodically receive a communication from others of the plurality of fault tolerant processors, wherein a failure to receive the communication from one of the plurality of fault tolerant processors is deemed to indicate a failure of the transaction processing server coupled therewith (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 51-64; regarding, e.g., a keep-alive signal [a communication].).
With regards to Claim 10, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the current state of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance corresponds to a state of the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance subsequent to the processing of an electronic transaction message preceding the electronic transaction message currently being processed by the one of the plurality of transaction processing servers designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 11, lines 47-67; col. 12, lines 1-33; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; Fig. 19; and col. 16, lines 47-65.).
With regards to Claim 11, Morosan teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein when the one of the plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with the primary instance determines that the failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance, each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors is configured to cause the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance to at least de-couple from the others of the plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 2; Fig. 19; and col. 17, lines 20-40; regarding, e.g., setting failover agent 114-2 to a primary-only state.).
With regards to Claim 12, Morosan teaches:
a computer implemented method comprising:
establishing, upon initializing, by each of a plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with each other via an electronic communications network (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 33-44; Fig. 2; col. 7, lines 34-45; col. 7, lines 51-64; regarding, e.g., periodically testing the integrity of link 78 and each other [regarding server 62-1 to server 62-2]; and col. 8, lines 43-54. This reads similarly to the instant specification: ¶ 0058: “Each component is configured to start up, initialize communications, and communicate with the corresponding FT via status messages. …”), each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with one transaction processing server of a plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 61-67; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 47-50.), which one of the plurality of transaction processing servers is designated as a primary instance (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 7, lines 34-45; and col. 8, lines 43-54.), each of others of the plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (col. 14, lines 38-45; regarding, e.g., two [or more] servers [others]; Fig. 1; Fig. 2; and col. 8, lines 43-54.), wherein each of the plurality of transaction processing servers is operative to receive an incoming request for a transaction (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 3-22; regarding, e.g., either a sell order or a buy order associated with, e.g., order matching; and TABLE I.), process the received incoming request to identify a previously received request for a transaction counter thereto in an attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 3-22; and col. 9, lines 7-24; regarding, e.g., a sell order corresponding to a matched buy order [a transaction counter].), and generate a result indicative thereof which may alter a current state of each of the plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 3; col. 11, lines 47-67; col. 12, lines 1-33; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; and col. 13, lines 14-28.), the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance at least commencing processing the incoming request prior to those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; col. 9, lines 52-67; TABLE I; and col. 13, lines 14-28.);
determining, by the plurality of fault tolerance processors that a failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 15; col. 15, lines 56-67; and col. 16, lines 1-12.); and
causing, by the plurality of fault tolerance processors, one of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance to be designated as a new primary instance (Fig. 15; col. 15, lines 56-67; and col. 16, lines 1-12.).
With regards to Claim 13, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
processing, by the transaction processing server, any incoming requests not processed by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance before commencing processing of new incoming requests (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.).
With regards to Claim 14, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
communicating, by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance, the generated result to those plurality of transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 12, lines 56-67; and col. 13, lines 1 and 2.).
With regards to Claim 15, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
receiving, by those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance, the incoming request from the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; and col. 13, lines 14-28.).
With regards to Claim 16, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance include a queue configured to store previously received incoming request messages from the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.), and
wherein the transaction processing server designated as the new primary instance is configured to process all of the previously received incoming request messages stored in the queue before becoming the new primary instance (Fig. 19; col. 16, lines 47-65; and col. 17, lines 9-28.).
With regards to Claim 17, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
generating, by each of the transaction processing servers, a data message indicative of the generated result of the attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43; regarding, e.g., a confirmation.).
With regards to Claim 18, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 17 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
transmitting, by only the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance, the data message indicative of the generated result of the attempt to satisfy one or both of the incoming request and the previously received request to an external recipient (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43; regarding, e.g., service 94-1 sending the confirmation to client 54-1.).
With regards to Claim 19, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 17 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the data message indicative of the generated result by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance includes a primary result output (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43.), and
wherein the data message indicative of the result by each of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance includes a backup result output (Fig. 3 and col. 13, lines 14-43.).
With regards to Claim 20, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
receiving periodically, by each of the plurality of fault tolerant processors, a communication from others of the plurality of fault tolerant processors, wherein a failure to receive the communication from one of the plurality of fault tolerant processors is deemed to indicate a failure of the transaction processing server coupled therewith (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 51-64; regarding, e.g., a keep-alive signal [a communication].).
With regards to Claim 21, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
wherein the current state of those transaction processing servers not designated as the primary instance corresponds to a state of the transaction processing server not designated as the primary instance subsequent to the processing of an electronic transaction message preceding the electronic transaction message currently being processed by the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance (Fig. 3; col. 11, lines 47-67; col. 12, lines 1-33; col. 12, lines 56-67; col. 13, lines 1 and 2; Fig. 19; and col. 16, lines 47-65.).
With regards to Claim 22, Morosan teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Morosan further teaches:
when the one of the plurality of fault tolerance processors coupled with the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance determines that the failure has occurred in the transaction processing server designated as primary instance, causing, by each of the plurality of fault tolerance processors, the transaction processing server designated as the primary instance to at least de-couple from the other of the plurality of transaction processing servers (Fig. 2; Fig. 19; and col. 17, lines 20-40; regarding, e.g., setting failover agent 114-2 to a primary-only state.).
With regards to Claim 23, the method of Claim 12 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 23, and Claim 23 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 12 by the teachings of Morosan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Studnitzer et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,691,102 B2); teaching per, e.g., col. 8, lines 58-64, the claimed “a transaction counter thereto” found in at least the independent claims of the instant application.
Thurimella et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,855,749 B2); teaching per, e.g., col. 10, lines 40-55, the claimed “determine” (per Claim 1), “determining” (per Claims 12 and 23), and “causing” (per Claims 12 and 23) limitations found in at least the independent claims of the instant application.
Fugitt et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,904,155 B2); teaching per, e.g., col. 2, lines 29-55, the claimed “determine” (per Claim 1), “determining” (per Claims 12 and 23), and “causing” (per Claims 12 and 23) limitations found in at least the independent claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights