DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed March 10, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated December 11, 2025. The applicant’s remarks and amendment to the specification and/or claims were considered with the results that follow.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150).
Regarding claim 1, Shimamura et al. teaches a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: determine a host to execute a serverless function, the host included in a set of hosts of a serverless function platform configured to execute serverless functions, the serverless function defined to use a dataset of a storage system that is external to the serverless function platform; configure the storage system to provide access from the host to the dataset; and direct the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset and to execute the serverless function [0078, lines 1-13; 0120, lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 2, Shimamura et al. teaches an access key is required to access the dataset; and the access key is provided to the serverless function to use to access the dataset [claim does not define what comprises an access key, with which a broad and reasonable interpretation may include an access upon which is required to load data from the serverless operation; 0120, lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 11, Shimamura et al. teaches the dataset is stored in a managed directory of a file system; and configuring the storage system to provide access from the host to the dataset comprises configuring the storage system to provide the host with access to the managed directory [0121; each type of memory includes its own addressing structure for file access].
Claim 13 recites similar claim language to that of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Shimamura et al. teaches: a secure access token (rule incorporated task as part or serverless function) is required to access the dataset; and the secure access token is provided to the serverless function to use to access the dataset [0028 with 0121, lines 1-12].
Claim 15 recites similar claim language to that of claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 20 recites similar claim language to that of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 3, Shimamura et al. teaches serverless function and operations as noted above and containers [0086, but fails to clearly teach the serverless function is defined as a container; and directing the host to execute the serverless function comprises directing the host to instantiate and run the container of the serverless function on the host. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that serverless functions can be packaged as containers for the benefit of running applications in a serverless environment without the need for managing the hardware infrastructure to support them. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the serverless system of Shimamura et al. to include the container system for the benefit disclose supra.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 4, Shimamura fails to teach a NVMe system incorporating NVMe qualified names (NQN) for dataset storage according to claim language wherein: the storage system comprises a non-volatile memory express (NVMe)-based storage system; the dataset is a block volume provided by the NVMe-based storage system; access to the block volume requires configuring access by an NVMe qualified name (NQN); configuring the storage system to provide access from the host to the dataset comprises determining the NQN of an NVMe initiator of the host and configuring the block volume to allow access by the NQN; directing the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset comprises directing the host to connect to and mount the block volume and to provide access from the serverless function to the block volume. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporation of persistent storage (NVM) for data storage ensures data life after loss of power and quicker data access using the NVMe interface, while the NQN is used to correctly identify the remote storage target on the NVM. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimamura et al. to incorporate the NVM, NVMe interface, and NQN data location system because of the benefits disclosed supra.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Shimamura fails to teach a iSCSI-based storage incorporating the CHAP key protocol according to claim language (5) wherein: the storage system comprises an iSCSI-based storage system; the dataset is a block volume provided by the iSCSI-based storage system; access to the block volume requires configuring access by an iQN; configuring the storage system to provide access from the host to the dataset comprises determining an iSCSI qualified name (iQN) of the host and configuring the block volume to allow access by the iQN; and directing the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset comprises directing the host to connect to and mount the block volume and to provide access from the serverless function to the block volume; (6) wherein: access to the dataset further requires a challenge handshake authentication protocol (CHAP) key; the CHAP key is configured in the storage system and associated with the iQN of the host; and directing the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset further comprises providing the CHAP key to the host to use to connect to the block volume of the iSCSI-based storage system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporation of iSCSI-based storage allows for flexible scalability as well as simplified management over ethernet ability to add additional targets without additional drive costs. Incorporating CHAP over iSCSI allows for a secure method for password exchange by way of a hashed secret for authentication without sending actual passwords. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimamura et al. to incorporate the iSCSI and CHAP authentication system as claimed because of the benefits disclosed supra.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 7-10, Shimamura fails to teach a file server storage system whereby the system is access via file protocol (IP)over according to claim language (7) wherein: the dataset is a directory of a file server accessed through a file protocol; configuring the storage system to provide access from the host to the dataset comprises determining an internet protocol (IP) address of the host and configuring the file server to allow access to the directory from the IP address of the host; and directing the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset comprises directing the host to mount the directory from the file server and to provide access from the serverless function to the mounted directory; (8) wherein the IP address of the host is a virtual address configured for temporary use by the host while the host runs the serverless function; (9), wherein: access keys are configured for the file server for accessing the directory of the file server; and directing the host to provide access from the serverless function to the dataset further comprises providing the access keys to the host; (10) configuring a virtual network for use by the serverless function to access the dataset of the storage system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an IP file server incorporates a logical (virtual) address point of access for the host such that clients retain continual access even in the event of server changes or load balancing. The virtual network collects the IP file servers into a unit for easy access, such that server/host fails can be quickly replaced by another server for access without interruption. IP virtual addressing in a virtual network allows for scalability of storage without client reconfiguring, which when coupled with a serverless system would incorporate lower latencies due to local processing and decisions. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimamura et al. to incorporate the IP file system over virtual network and addressing as claimed because of the benefits disclosed supra.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US# 2019/0026150) in view of Wang (WO 2022225578A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shimamura et al. teaches serverless functions and operations but fails to teach where the determining, the configuring, and the directing are performed by a storage-aware serverless function management system that is communicatively coupled to the serverless function platform and the storage system; and the storage-aware serverless function management system is separate and distinct from the storage system. Wang teaches a storage-aware serverless function architecture that is separate and distinct from a storage protocol such that the architecture can reduce network I/O reduce operational cost and improve security [0147]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the serverless function system of Shimamura et al. to include the storage-aware serverless function architecture because of the benefits disclosed supra.
Claim 16 recites similar claim language to that of claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 17 recites similar claim language to that of claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 18 recites similar claim language to that of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 19 recites similar claim language to that of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s Arguments directed towards the 35 USC 102 rejection, found on pages 10-15 of the March 20, 2026 response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has attempted to explain the teachings and context of Shimamura on page 11 and how this interpretation is different than the context of Applicant’s invention.
Applicant has argued that “…Shimamura is limited to its serverless computing tasks or functions using data accessed from sources within the serverless computing system”, as well as “All these remote hosts are still within the serverless computing system and are not external to the serverless computing system”, even though hosts are not claimed to be external to any system or platform. Furthermore, the argument of internal vs. external has been made in light of claim phrases not positively defined as indicated below.
According to section A, page 12, Applicant indicates that Shimamura does not teach the “serverless function platform” according to claim 1. Applicant has further argued the memory elements (904) “…are part of the serverless computing system and not external to it”. Applicant’s claim language has not defined what comprises a “serverless function platform”, and has equated this phrase to the entirety of Shimamura’s computing system. Applicant’s claim 1 has not defined the phrase “serverless function platform” in the context of hardware, but rather how the platform interacts with external storage systems and the like. Therefore, a broad and reasonable interpretation of the phrase “serverless function platform”, in light of Applicant’s claim language not positively reciting or identifying it's composition, may comprise the task scheduler (106), a host (110), or most any combination of hardware at least shown in Figure 1 or 9 not including the memory elements (904). As such, the memory elements (904), corresponding to the “storage system that is external to the serverless function platform” as recited in claim 1, is taught by Shimamura to be separate and external to at least the processor (902), FPGA processor (902), hosts (110_x), and task scheduler (106), which are responsible for teaching the subject matter as claimed and disclosed supra.
Sections B and C of Applicant’s Arguments, found on pages 13-15, further argue that the storage system of Shimamura is not external to the serverless computing system as it is defined and interpreted by Applicant. As recited above, Applicant has equated the serverless computing system of Shimamura with Applicant’s “serverless function platform”, where the “serverless function platform” phrase has not been defined. As argued above, a broad and reasonable interpretation of the claim language of “serverless function platform” may include elements of Shimamura not including the memory elements (904) and fully teach the claim language as recited.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed towards the 35 USC 103 rejections, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has indicated that “Absent documentary evidence, reliance on Official Notice to replace these missing disclosures is improper.”, that “Accordingly, the takings of Official Notice should be withdrawn, or the Examiner should provide documentary evidence and enter a new ground of rejection so that Applicant may meaningfully respond” and that “Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal or production of evidence and a new ground of rejection”.
Applicant appears to be arguing that the rejections using OFFICIAL NOTICE should be withdrawn, or if not withdrawn new documents should be provided alongside new grounds of rejection. According to MPEP 2144.03, the Examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office Action upon Applicant’s adequate traversal of the Examiner’s assertions. Nowhere in MPEP 2144.03 is there the requirement for documentary evidence to be accompanied by new grounds of rejection, which would therefore prevent the issuance of a Final Office Action after the Non-Final Office Action.” Furthermore, according to MPEP, 2144.03, rejections incorporating OFFICIAL NOTICE without associated documentary evidence may be properly established and introduced. Although Applicant has not specifically asked for documentary evidence to support the OFFICIAL NOTICE rejections in question, the Examiner has provided several documents covering topics pertaining to serverless systems incorporating topics including at least NVMe storage systems, iSCSI storage systems, CHAP authentication protocol, and IP address accessing.
As such, the Examiner maintains the rejections as disclosed supra according to MPEP 706.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Brian R. Peugh whose telephone number is (571) 272-4199. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez, phone number 571-270-5935, can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN R PEUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights