CTFR 17/991,807 CTFR 100643 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment This Office action is in response to Applicant' s communication filed 4/9/2026 in response to the Office action dated 1/9/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 have been amended. New claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-23 are pending in this application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-11, 14-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt et al. (US 20210149563 A1), hereinafter Devriendt, in view of Kushwah et al. (US 20190129621 A1), hereinafter Kushwah, and further in view of Emelyanov et al. (US 11216343 B1), hereinafter Emelyanov . Regarding claim 1, Devriendt teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon ( Paragraph 111, computer-readable medium including computer-readable program code ), that if executed by one or more processors ( Paragraph 112, computer-readable medium includes a processor ), cause the one or more processors to: select a compute node to execute a function based on latency of retrievals of function data blocks ( Paragraphs 67, 97, 102-103; Fig. 8, steps 810-812, selecting a storage element [compute node] to execute a storage request [function] based on the collected latency of processed storage requests [retrievals] of [function] data blocks ), the function data blocks are stored among two or more tiers of storage ( Paragraph 52; Fig. 5, block spreader 532 distributes the data blocks among layers of a hierarchal storage structure ). Devriendt does not explicitly teach wherein the function data blocks comprise at least a portion of an image of the function accessed to launch the function, and cause the selected compute node to retrieve the function data blocks associated with the function and launch and execute the function. However, Kushwah teaches wherein the function data blocks comprise at least a portion of an image ( Paragraph 23; Fig. 1, snapshot 103 [image] of a dataset is comprised of data blocks A, B, F ). Devriendt and Kushwah are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being tiered storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt to further include the portions of an image according to the teachings of Kushwah. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bandwidth by distributing only portions for storage ( Kushwah, Paragraph 18 ). Devriendt in view of Kushwah does not explicitly teach an image of the function accessed to launch the function, and cause the selected compute node to retrieve the function data blocks associated with the function and launch and execute the function. However, Emelyanov teaches an image of the function accessed to launch the function ( Col. 5, lines 16-29, using checkpoint [function] images/state snapshots to restore/relaunch running applications ), and cause the selected compute node to retrieve the function data blocks associated with the function and launch and execute the function ( Col. 5, lines 1-29; Col. 9, lines 27-32; Figs. 1A, 2B, and 5, step t1, computing platform 102 restores an instruction snapshot saved on disk 230 [retrieves function data associated with the function], starts [launches] the instructions (“Start Lambda code” in Fig. 5), and executes the instructions in the restored execution environment ). The Examiner notes that Emelyanov teaches the function data comprising an image of the function accessed to launch the function, while Devriendt teaches storing the data in data blocks and Kushwah teaches storing portions of images within data blocks. Devriendt, Kushwah, and Emelyanov are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt in view of Kushwah to further include the retrieval of function images used to launch the function and the launching and execution of the function. The motivation for doing so would have been to significantly reduce execution latency ( Emelyanov, Col. 11, line 62 – Col. 12, line 5 ). Regarding claim 2, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine latency of retrievals of function data blocks is based on storage of the function data blocks ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 67, 97, 102-103; Fig. 8, steps 810-812, selecting a storage element [compute node] to execute a storage request [function] based on the collected latency of processed storage requests [retrievals] of [function] data blocks ) in devices of one or more storage tiers ( Devriendt, Paragraph 52, the data blocks are stored among multiple storage nodes of a hierarchal storage architecture ) and retrieval latency to a memory utilized by the selected compute node to launch the function ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 103, 105-106, 107; Fig. 8, steps 812, 816-820, selecting a storage node to execute [launch] a storage request based on the determined read [retrieval] latency of the node ). Regarding claim 3, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 2, comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine one or more candidate nodes to execute the function based on hardware and/or software resource parameters of the function ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 61-62, 64, determining a storage element to execute a process’ storage request [function] based on the processes’ latency requirement [hardware resource parameter] ). Regarding claim 4, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the select a compute node to execute the function based on the determined latency of accesses to function data blocks is also based on the determined one or more candidate nodes ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 103, 105, 107; Fig. 8, steps 812, 816, 820, selecting a storage node based on the determined read [access] latency of the node ). Regarding claim 7, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the one or more tiers of storage comprise memory and/or storage devices in a hierarchical storage system ( Devriendt, Paragraph 57; Fig. 5, system hierarchal model [system] 542 is comprised of storage nodes/elements ). Regarding claims 8-11, this is an apparatus version of the claimed computer-readable medium discussed above (claim 1-4, respectively), wherein Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov also teaches an apparatus ( Devriendt, Paragraph 112, computer-readable medium may be an apparatus ) comprising at least one processor ( Devriendt, Paragraph 112, computer-readable medium includes a processor ), and at least one memory comprising instructions stored thereon ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 111-112, computer-readable medium includes memory and computer-readable program code ). The remaining claim limitations have also been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious over Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov. Regarding claim 14, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the apparatus of claim 8, comprising a server ( Devriendt, Paragraph 57, storage racks of server rooms ), wherein the server comprises at least one memory and/or storage device corresponding to the one or more tiers of storage ( Devriendt, Paragraph 57; Fig. 5, system hierarchy model 542 is composed of hierarchal levels [storage tiers] of storage elements [storage devices] of object store 580, such as racks in server rooms ) and the at least one memory and/or storage device is to store the function data blocks ( Devriendt, Paragraph 52, data blocks are stored on a number of storage elements ). Regarding claim 15, Devriendt teaches a method comprising: in a cloud computing cluster with hierarchical storage ( Paragraphs 28, 38, 57; Figs. 1 and 2, storage cloud network 50 including a hierarchal storage system 80 ), selecting a node to execute a function instance based on a distribution pattern of function data in the hierarchical storage to reduce a time to access function data during start-up and execution of the function instance ( Paragraphs 60-62, 64, 97-98; Figs. 5 and 8, step 802, selecting a storage element in a hierarchal storage to execute a storage request [function] based on path selection rules 548 [distribution pattern] to reduce [access] latency for the storage request (execution including start-up and runtime) ). Devriendt does not explicitly teach function image data segments, and causing the selected node to retrieve the function image data segments associated with the function instance and launch and execute the function instance. However, Kushwah teaches image data segments ( Paragraph 23; Fig. 1, snapshot 103 [image] of a dataset is comprised of data blocks [segments] A, B, F ). Devriendt and Kushwah are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being tiered storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt to further include the image data segments according to the teachings of Kushwah. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bandwidth by distributing only portions for storage ( Kushwah, Paragraph 18 ). Devriendt in view of Kushwah does not explicitly teach function image data, and causing the selected node to retrieve the function image data segments associated with the function instance and launch and execute the function instance. However, Emelyanov teaches function image data ( Col. 5, lines 16-29, checkpoint [function] images/state snapshots ), and causing the selected node to retrieve the function image data segments associated with the function instance and launch and execute the function instance Col. 5, lines 1-29; Col. 9, lines 27-32; Figs. 1A, 2B, and 5, step t1, computing platform 102 restores an instruction snapshot saved on disk 230 [retrieves function image data associated with the function instance], starts [launches] the instructions (“Start Lambda code” in Fig. 5), and executes the instructions in the restored execution environment ). The Examiner notes that Emelyanov teaches the function image data associated with the function instance while Kushwah teaches storing images in segments. Devriendt, Kushwah, and Emelyanov are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt in view of Kushwah to further include the retrieval of function images associated with the function instance and the launching and execution of the function instance. The motivation for doing so would have been to significantly reduce execution latency ( Emelyanov, Col. 11, line 62 – Col. 12, line 5 ). Regarding claim 16, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the function image data segments comprise at least a portion of an image of the function instance ( Kushwah, Paragraph 23; Fig. 1, snapshot 103 of a dataset [function instance image] is comprised of data blocks A, B, F [segments/portions] ). Regarding claim 17, Devriendt in view of Emelyanov teaches the method of claim 15, comprising: determining latency of retrievals of function data to a memory utilized to launch the function instance ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 106-107; Fig. 8, steps 818-820, determining the data read [retrieval] latency of a storage node [memory] used to execute the storage request [launch the function instance] ). Devriendt does not explicitly teach function image data segments. However, Kushwah teaches function image data segments ( Paragraph 23; Fig. 1, snapshot 103 [image] of a dataset is comprised of data blocks [segments] A, B, F ). Devriendt and Kushwah are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being tiered storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt to further include the image data segments according to the teachings of Kushwah. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide data protection by storing image/snapshots of a function/dataset and reduce bandwidth by distributing only portions for storage ( Kushwah, Paragraphs 4 and 18 ). Regarding claim 18, this is a method version of the claimed computer-readable medium discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov. Regarding claim 19, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the selecting the node to execute the function instance based on the distribution pattern of function image data segments in the hierarchical storage to reduce the time to access function image data segments during start-up and execution of the function instance is based on the determined one or more candidate nodes ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 103, 105, 107; Fig. 8, steps 812, 816, 820, selecting a storage node based on the determined latency [access time] of the node ). Regarding claim 22, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the retrieve the function data blocks associated with the function comprises two or more of: loading and initializing a language runtime ( Emelyanov, Col. 9, lines 42-67; Fig. 2A, restoring a prepared lambda image/snapshot includes a loaded [language] runtime environment ), loading function dependencies ( Emelyanov, Col. 9, lines 42-67; Fig. 2A, restoring a prepared lambda image/snapshot includes loaded binary [function] dependencies ), initializing function variables, setting up a connection to other functions, opening files, reading environment variables, and initiating a function handler for the function. Regarding claim 23, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the function data blocks comprise two or more of: an image segment ( Kushwah, Paragraph 23; Fig. 1, snapshot 103 [image] of a dataset is comprised of data blocks [segments] A, B, F ), a code package or file ( Devriendt, Paragraphs 29, 41, object data block requests include the communication of computer programs, software, or code [files] ), an executable binary to be executed by a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or a configuration profile of an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-6, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov as applied to claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Rabii et al. (US 20100281230 A1), hereinafter Rabii . Regarding claim 5, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, comprising instructions stored thereon ( Devriendt, Paragraph 111, computer-readable medium including computer-readable program code ), executed by one or more processors ( Devriendt, Paragraph 112, computer-readable medium includes a processor ), and function data to launch one or more functions ( Emelyanov, Col. 5, lines 16-29, using checkpoint [function] images/state snapshots to restore/relaunch running applications ). Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov does not explicitly teach to store at least one function data block into a tier of storage based on one or more of: access frequency of the function data block to launch one or more functions, sequence of access of the function data block to launch one or more functions, and number of functions executing on the selected compute node that are to access the function data block. However, Rabii teaches to store at least one function data block into a tier of storage based on one or more of: access frequency of the function data block to launch one or more functions, sequence of access of the function data block to launch one or more functions, and number of functions executing on the selected compute node that are to access the function data block ( Paragraph 36; Fig. 4, write allocator 440 stores data blocks in a storage tier based on its access frequency and/or whether it is randomly/sequentially accessed ). Devriendt, Kushwah, Emelyanov, and Rabii are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov to further include storing of data into storage tiers based on access frequency according to the teachings of Rabii. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the storage performance of frequently accessed data and reduce the storage cost of infrequently accessed data ( Rabii, Paragraph 36 ). Regarding claim 6, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov and Rabii teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the access frequency of the function data block and sequence of access of the function data block are based on at least one prior execution of the function ( Rabii, Paragraphs 36-37, access frequency and random/sequential access is based on previous data accesses [prior function executions] ). Regarding claims 12-13, this is an apparatus version of the claimed computer-readable medium discussed above (claims 5-6, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov and Rabii. Regarding claim 20, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the method of claim 15 and storing the function image data segments into one or more storage devices ( Kushwah, Paragraphs 23-24; Fig. 1, storing data blocks A, B, F [data segments] of snapshot 103 [function image] in storage appliance 101 or cloud storage 117 ). Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov does not explicitly teach storing based on one or more of: access frequency of the function image data segments, sequence of access of the function image data segments, and number of functions executing on the selected node that are to access the function image data segments. However, Rabii teaches teach storing based on one or more of: access frequency of the function image data segments, sequence of access of the function image data segments, and number of functions executing on the selected node that are to access the function image data segments ( Paragraph 36; Fig. 4, write allocator 440 stores data blocks/segments in a storage tier based on its access frequency and/or whether it is randomly/sequentially accessed ). Devriendt, Kushwah, Emelyanov, and Rabii are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov to further include storing based on access frequency according to the teachings of Rabii. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the storage performance of frequently accessed data and reduce the storage cost of infrequently accessed data ( Rabii, Paragraph 36 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sirota et al. (US 8719415 B1), hereinafter Sirota . Regarding claim 21, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1, comprising instructions stored thereon ( Devriendt, Paragraph 111, computer-readable medium including computer-readable program code ), which are executed by one or more processors ( Devriendt, Paragraph 112, computer-readable medium includes a processor ), and the multiple function data blocks ( Devriendt, Paragraph 67, data blocks associated with storage requests [functions] ). However, Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov does not explicitly teach to select the compute node to execute a second function based on the function and the second function accessing same multiple function data blocks and cause the selected compute node to retrieve function data blocks associated with the second function and execute the second function. However, Sirota teaches to select the compute node to execute a second function based on the function and the second function accessing same multiple function data blocks ( Col. 17, lines 25-35; Col. 17, line 59 – Col. 18, line 15; Fig. 1A, selecting a computing node 120 to process an execution request based on various execution jobs [function and second function] accessing a common set of input data [function data] ) and cause the selected compute node to retrieve function data blocks associated with the second function and execute the second function ( Col. 17, line 59 – Col. 18, line 15; Fig. 1A, computing node 120 executes a job [second function] using already-stored input data [retrieved function data] ). Devriendt, Kushwah, Emelyanov, and Sirota are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-readable medium of Devriendt in view of Kushwah, further in view of Emelyanov to further include the selection of a compute node based on a second function and the function accessing the same function data blocks according to the teachings of Sirota. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by selecting a node that already stores input data for a job instead of having to retrieve the required input data from another node ( Sirota, Col. 3, line 51 – Col. 4, line 9 ). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments (see pages 8-10 of the remarks) filed 4/9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments (see pages 10-12 of the remarks) filed 4/9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, under further consideration, a new ground of rejection(s) is made in view of Devriendt, Kushwah, and Emelyanov. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jason Pinga whose telephone number is (571) 272-2620. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-6pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arpan Savla, can be reached on (571) 272-1077. 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. /J.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2137 /Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 2 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 3 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 4 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 5 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 6 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 7 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 8 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 9 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 10 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 11 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 12 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 13 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 14 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/991,807 Page 15 Art Unit: 2137
Prosecution Insights