DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to paragraph [0042] are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the objections directed to the specification regarding the use of trade marks.
Amendments to claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) directed to claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 in the previous Office Action.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fabric manager” in claims 3 and 13.
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 the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over On et al. (US 2019/0179684 A1; hereinafter On) in view of Chang et al. (US 2004/0044679 A1; hereinafter Chang) and Deshmukh et al. (US 2021/0203542 A1; hereinafter Deshmukh).
With respect to claim 1, On teaches: A method, comprising:
receiving a user-defined function (see e.g. On, paragraph 120: “receives a function code (i.e. user function code) from the storage 535”);
generating a binary based on …the user-defined function (see e.g. On, paragraph 120: “stores the function code in a container”);
Note that storing the function code in a container inherently discloses generating binaries corresponding to the function code within the container memory.
copying the binary to a target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 103: “an execution node”) where the user-defined function will run (see e.g. On, paragraph 103: “an execution node which takes charge of execution of functions”; and paragraph 120: “When the executable image runs, a short-term function executor 541 receives a function code (i.e. user function code) from the storage 535, stores the function code in a container, and sets the state of the short-term function executor to an execution standby state”);
in response to a lookup request (see e.g. On, paragraph 117: “searches for a function manager 513 for a function”), received from an API gateway (see e.g. On, Fig. 6: “API Gateway 512”; and paragraph 117: “API gateway 512 searches a function manager 513 for a function”) based on a function invocation (see e.g. On, paragraph 117: “a short-term execution request”) by a user (see e.g. On, Fig. 6: “Client 10”; and paragraph 117: “when an API gateway 512 receives a short-term execution request from a client 10, the API gateway 512 searches a function manager 513 for a function corresponding to the short-term execution request”), looking up the target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 103: “an execution node”; paragraph 117: “Further, the API gateway 512 may request an execution node from a global resource scheduler 516”; and paragraph 118: “global resource scheduler 516 may select a function execution node”) and a route (see e.g. On, paragraph 121: “address”); and
returning, to the API gateway, a target host [ID] (see e.g. On, paragraph 118: “global resource scheduler 516 may select a function execution node”; and paragraph 121: “function executor launcher 521, having confirmed readiness from the short-term function executor 541, transmits readiness information to the global resource scheduler 516, and the global resource scheduler 516 transmits… related information for calling a function to the API gateway 512”) and the route (see e.g. On, paragraph 121: “global resource scheduler 516 transmits address… for calling a function to the API gateway 512”), so as to enable the API gateway to request the target host to respond to the function invocation (see e.g. On, paragraph 122: “API gateway 512 calls the short-term function executor 541 using the parameter received from the client 10 and the address transferred from the global resource scheduler 516”).
On does not but Chang teaches:
modifying a code of the user-defined function (see e.g. Chang, paragraph 22: “embedding of special program codes… These codes can be used to access a database, provide query functions, show reports in a variety of modes, and so on”) by merging the user-defined function into a script template (see e.g. Chang, paragraph 22: “server-side scripted templates that generate dynamic and interactive web server applications… scripting engine (e.g. VB Script, Java Script, etc.) to allow embedding of special program codes in web pages”), which comprises an application hosting a web server (see e.g. Chang, paragraph 22: “server-side scripted templates that generate dynamic and interactive web server applications”);
the modified code of (see e.g. Chang, paragraph 22: “generate dynamic and interactive web server applications. The ASP framework incorporates an appropriate scripting engine (e.g. VB Script, Java Script, etc.) to allow embedding of special program codes in web pages”; paragraph 24: “The web server 30 then dynamically compiles the relevant ASP file provided by the report generation module 44 (step S6). The ASP file includes script for calling the stored procedures in the data service module 43 to access the database 51 to collect data requested for generation of the financial report (step S7). The ASP file also includes script for actively generating the financial report in any of a variety of modes. Thus the report generation module 44 uses data supplied by the data service module 43 and the ASP file to generate the HTML page containing the requested financial report (step S8)”)
On and Chang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: deploying functions within a networked environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify On with the teachings of Chang. The motivation/suggestion would be to streamline the function deployment process; thus improving the overall system efficiency.
Furthermore, even though On discloses a global resource scheduler 516 that provides a function execution node (i.e. a target host) information to the API Gateway 512 for function execution (e.g. a short-term function execution), On does not explicitly disclose providing an execution node ID (i.e. a target host ID) to the API Gateway 512.
However, Deshmukh teaches:
ID (see e.g. Deshmukh, paragraph 33: “device identifiers (e.g., UUIDs)”; and paragraph 34: “API gateway 24 is utilized to provide session affinity according to device UUID values specified within HTTP headers or Cookies carried by the RPC calls. For example, RPC calls through API gateway 24 may take the form of HTTP-based REST calls having unique cookies or headers. When the same device UUID value is set within a cookie or header of the RPC, as described herein, API gateway 24 routes the requests to same endpoint”)
On and Deshmukh are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing network communications associated with API gateways. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify On with the teachings of Deshmukh. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve communication reliability; thus increasing the robustness of the overall network.
With respect to claim 2, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the user-defined function is configured to run in a stateful manner at the target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 20: “A function executor including at least one of the long-term function executor and the short-term function executor may be configured to switch a state thereof to a standby state after execution of a function has been completed, and the function executor in the standby state may be allocated to execute a function corresponding to the request received from the client”; and paragraph 102: “configure the node in the state in which execution of a function is possible”).
With respect to claim 3, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the receiving, generating, and copying, are performed by a fabric manager (see e.g. On, Fig. 6: “Function Executor 541”; paragraph 61: “function executor 140 provides an environment in which short-term functions and long-term functions are executed, receives an actual function from the storage unit, and executes the received function”; and paragraph 120) configured to communicate with the API gateway (see e.g. On, paragraph 122: “API gateway 512 calls the short-term function executor 541”; paragraph 123: “short-term function executor 541 may complete execution corresponding to a short-term function execution request, and may return the execution results to the API gateway 512”; and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 4, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein when the user-defined function is created, it is associated with a specific entity type (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “A single function in a serverless architecture is dynamically allocated and executed within a system to the extent of hardware specifications desired by a user”).
With respect to claim 5, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein an entity (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “hardware specifications desired by a user”) associated with the target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “A single function in a serverless architecture is dynamically allocated and executed within a system to the extent of hardware specifications desired by a user”; paragraph 103: “an execution node which takes charge of execution of functions”; and paragraph 120: “When the executable image runs, a short-term function executor 541 receives a function code (i.e. user function code)”)
On does not but Deshmukh teaches:
is directly addressable by a unique identifier (see e.g. Deshmukh, paragraph 35: “direct subsequent RPC calls with the same device ID to the same one of DOMs 52”).
On and Deshmukh are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing network communications associated with API gateways. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify On with the teachings of Deshmukh. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve communication reliability; thus increasing the robustness of the overall network.
With respect to claim 6, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the user-defined function is operable to run directly on the target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 103: “an execution node which takes charge of execution of functions”).
With respect to claim 7, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the user-defined function is deployed to, and executable on, the target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 103: “an execution node which takes charge of execution of functions”).
With respect to claim 8, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a target host response to the function invocation by the user comprises a response body with information specified in the function invocation (see e.g. On, paragraph 123: “short-term function executor 541 may complete execution corresponding to a short-term function execution request, and may return the execution results to the API gateway 512, and the API gateway 512 may return the final results to the client 10”).
With respect to claim 9, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein when the target host is onboarded in a fabric (see e.g. On, paragraph 59: “function executor launcher 130 may generate a function executor corresponding to the selected function execution node”; and Fig. 5-6), in which a fabric manager (see e.g. On, Fig. 6: “Function Executor 541”) operates (see e.g. On, paragraph 61: “function executor 140 provides an environment in which short-term functions and long-term functions are executed, receives an actual function from the storage unit, and executes the received function”; and paragraph 120), the target host is able to receive any existing functions that could be invoked, based on their respective function type, for that target host (see e.g. On, paragraph 56: “selects a function execution node based on the received execution-related information”; paragraph 61: “function executor 140 provides an environment in which short-term functions and long-term functions are executed, receives an actual function from the storage unit, and executes the received function. Here, the function executor 140 may include at least one of a short-term function executor, a long-term function executor, and a dashboard function executor”; and paragraph 102: “configure the node in the state in which execution of a function is possible”).
With respect to claim 10, On as modified teaches: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein an entity (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “hardware specifications desired by a user”) associated with the target host is directly addressable (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “A single function in a serverless architecture is dynamically allocated and executed within a system to the extent of hardware specifications”; and paragraph 121: “The function executor launcher 521, having confirmed readiness from the short-term function executor 541, transmits readiness information to the global resource scheduler 516, and the global resource scheduler 516 transmits address and related information for calling a function to the API gateway 512”), even when a physical location of the entity is unknown (see e.g. On, paragraph 5: “A single function in a serverless architecture is dynamically allocated and executed within a system to the extent of hardware specifications desired by a user regardless of the physical location of the corresponding function”).
With respect to claims 11-20: Claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-10, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1-10 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 11-20. Note that, On also discloses a computer-readable storage medium recording a computer-implemented method corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-10 (see e.g. On, paragraphs 169-170).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the objections directed to the specification regarding the use of hyperlinks have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of specification has been withdrawn and the hyperlinks will be disabled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carey et al. (US 2023/0393912 A1) discloses interaction mechanism handlers providing script templates to modify standard commands into blockchain specific commands (see paragraph 16).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194