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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. However, claims 15-19 are withdrawn from consideration due to non-elected group as subjected to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-14 and 20 are examined in this Office Action as Non-Final Rejection with claims 1 and 20 are independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/30/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/18/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because certain references are missing pages. In addition, there are 2 incomplete references in the record that cannot be identified since they only discloses the last several pages of some documents without any header/title in order to be identified.
NPL#3: “Costless: Optimizing Cost of Serverless Computing through Function Fusion and Placements” has only 6 pages instead of 14 pages as indicated in IDS.
NPL#6: “Elastic Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics” has only 8 pages instead of 19 pages as indicated in IDS.
NPL#11: “Serverless Data Analytics in the IBM Cloud” has only 6 pages instead of 9 pages as indicated in IDS.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Re claim 12, the limitation including formula/expression is unclear exactly what need to be done as it recites solving minimize{formula/expression} as (1) it is unclear what does it mean solving minimize{formula/expression} and (2) the claim fails to state each of the variables in the formula/expression.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea under the mental process without significantly more. These claims 1-14 and 20 recite the methods of optimizing a serverless workflow which fall within four eligible categories under step 1. However, these claims are directing to an abstract idea under the mental process under Prong I step 2A and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate into a practical application under Prong II step 2A and 2B.
Re claim 1, a method of optimizing a serverless workflow, the method comprising:
receiving, at a first device, a directed acyclic graph ("DAG") and a gamma tuning factor, wherein:
the DAG defines a first function within the serverless workflow, a second function within the serverless workflow, and an output-input relation between the first function and the second function; and
the gamma tuning factor defines a relative preference between cost and performance for the serverless workflow's execution;
collecting a first set of metrics regarding hardware on a network comprising a first node and a second node;
calculating cost and performance values for each possible configuration of a first stage comprising the first function based on the first set of metrics;
determining a first optimal serverless workflow stage configuration for the first stage based on the calculated cost and performance values for each possible configuration of the first stage, wherein the calculated cost and performance values are weighted according to the gamma tuning factor;
transmitting the first function to the first node, wherein the first node was designated for execution of the first function by the first optimal serverless workflow stage configuration; and
transmitting instructions detailing how an item of data output by the first function is to be stored among storage media available at the first node.
Re claim 1, the limitations in bold including “calculating cost and performance values…” and “determining a first optimal serverless workflow stage configuration…” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong I step 2A.
Under Prong II step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in underlined “at a first device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The other additional elements in italic including “receiving…wherein: the DAG defines…; and the gramma tuning factor…”; “collecting a first set of metrics…”; “transmitting the first function…”; and “transmitting instructions…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in underlined “at a first device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The other additional elements in italic including “receiving…wherein: the DAG defines…; and the gramma tuning factor…”; “collecting a first set of metrics…”; “transmitting the first function…”; and “transmitting instructions…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 2, “after execution of the first function is completed: collecting a second set of metrics regarding hardware on the network; calculating cost and performance values for each possible configuration of a second stage comprising the second function based on the second set of metrics; determining a second optimal serverless workflow stage configuration for the second stage based on the calculated cost and performance values for each possible configuration of the second stage, wherein the calculated cost and performance values are weighted according to the gamma tuning factor; transmitting the second function to the second node, wherein the second node was designated for execution of the second function by the second optimal serverless workflow stage configuration; and transmitting instructions detailing how an item of data output by the second function is to be stored among the storage media available at the second node.” Similarly, the limitations in bold are analyzed under Prong I step 2A which recites additional mental process. The other limitations in italic are analyzed under Prong II step 2A which considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 3, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is possible at least for each arrangement of functions comprising the stage among each node available on the network, and, for each arrangement of functions, further for each arrangement of outputs among the storage media available at each node executing the outputting function.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 4, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein outputs from a function are stored only at storage media available at the node executing the function.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 5, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein outputs from a function are stored only once among all storage media available.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely transmitting, gathering, and storing data/information data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 6, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein total data output by all functions executing at a node is less than or equal to storage capacity available at the node.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 7, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein processing resources needed by all functions executing at a node is less than or equal to the processing resources available at the node.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 8, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein volatile memory resources needed by all functions executing at a node are less than or equal to the volatile memory resources available at the node.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). And merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 9, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein the number of concurrent write operations carried out by all functions writing to a storage medium is less than or equal to the concurrent write limitations of the storage medium.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). And merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 10, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein the number of concurrent read operations carried out by all functions reading from a storage medium is less than or equal to the concurrent read limitations of the storage medium.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). And merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 11, the limitation “a configuration of a stage is constrained to configurations wherein data transfer resources needed by all functions reading data from a remote node are less than or equal the data transfer resources available on the network.” is analyzed under Prong II and recites additional element. However, the recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). And merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 12, the limitation “determining a first optimal serverless workflow stage configuration comprises solving Minimize {mathematical expression in the claim}.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process and/or mathematical process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 13, the limitation “optimization factor x is calculated at a granularity corresponding to values of 0, 0.1, 0.2,...1.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process and/or mathematical process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 14, the limitation “optimization factor x is calculated at a granularity corresponding to values of 0, 0.01, 0.02,...1.” is analyzed under Prong I and recites additional mental process and/or mathematical process. There is no additional element that would integrate into a practical application.
Re claim 20, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process with similar rationale as rejected in claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior arts:
There is no single reference that can be found to reasonably teach the detail concept of claimed invention as recited in the claim wherein it receives the information including relationship definitions of the DAG and a gramma tuning factor so it can be used in calculate and determine the optimal serverless workflow stage configuration along with collected metrics set and transmitting the functions and instruction detailing how to process and store at specific node
among storage media available at the first node. There are various found references that each of references can teach pieces of claimed limitations such as DAG relationship definition, the collection of network metrics, the calculation of cost and performance values… However, there is no single reference or reasonable and logical combined references that can anticipate the detail of claimed invention, particularly all the limitations as cited in independent claims 1 and 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0178404 discloses a method includes receiving a second set of resource allocation data related to the second set of SRE tools and predicting a second state of the cloud environment based on the second set of resource allocation data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0017110 discloses a technique involves establishing a pool of computing resources on the container orchestration platform.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0321795 discloses circuits perform an API to indicate one or more computing resources to be used by one or more instructions based, at least in part, one or more characteristics of that software workload.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0238285 discloses a data stream processing pipeline includes: monitoring, by an orchestrator, data stream ingestion of a streaming storage system (SSS) to obtain data stream metrics; analyzing, by the orchestrator, the data stream metrics based on a user-defined scaling policy; making, based on the analyzing and by the orchestrator, a first determination that task manager scaling is required.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0103392 discloses methods to generate and manage logical workload domain clusters in a computing environment.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0362075 discloses an automated system for allocation of resources in a cluster configured to run a search engine.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0096468 discloses related to network topologies and engineering, time-aware networks, time-sensitive applications, edge computing frameworks, data processing, network communication, and communication system implementations, and in particular, to techniques for providing in-transit packet detection to reduce real-time packet jitter.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0409335 discloses a related to Multi-Access Management Services (MAMS), which is a programmable framework that provides mechanisms for the flexible selection of network paths in a multi-access (MX) communication environment, based on an application's needs. Generic Multi-Access (GMA) functions are also integrated into the MAMS framework.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170293994 discloses server resources in a data center are disaggregated into shared server resource pools, including a graphics processing unit (GPU) pool.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0152551 discloses a user interface (UI) module executable to display system information and receive user inputs a mapping module executable to request and receive location data from a location data source, to request and receive map data from a map data source, and to integrate the map data and the location data in real time to generate a dynamic map displayable via the UI module.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200313859 discloses a system may provide blockchain-based storage node control for unified proof-of-storage interaction for off-chain data chunk storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights