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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 11/15/24 cancelling claims 1-20 and adding claims 21-40, subsequently claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
To ensure proper consideration and to the extent required by 37 CFR 1.56, applicant is required to update the information hereby incorporated by reference under “Cross-Reference to Related Applications” by updating the cited U.S. Application numbers 17/198,871 and 18/476690 with corresponding U.S. Patent numbers 11,809,218 and 12,093,730 respectively [p. 2, paragraph [0001]].
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.
Claims 16-18 and 22 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: “a dispatcher device configured to…” (i.e. device configured to perform dispatching) and “scheduler device configured to” (i.e. device configured to perform scheduling) recited in claims 37-38 and 40 which are interpreted as hardware and software computing component(s) capable of performing the recited functions [Figs. 9-10 and corresponding text].
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 Objections
Claims 32 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 32, “whether a first local function executor on which function…” should read --determining whether a first local function executor on which the function…--.
As to claim 37, this claim is objected to for the same reason as claim 32 above,
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11,809,218 (hereafter ‘218) in view of US PG Pub. 2002/0083244 to Hammarlund et al. (hereafter Hammarlund). Claim 1 of Patent ‘218 teaches all the limitations recited in claim 32 of the instant application except the availability of a first local function executor on which the function was previously deployed is determined based at least on a customer tier associated with the function. However, Hammarlund teaches prioritizing buffered requests in accessing cache data based on Requestor ID, namely association between the requestor priority and data to be accessed [paragraphs 33-35]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify claim 1 of Patent ‘218 to include prioritize handling of tasks or assignment of resource in ensuring important tasks or tasks associated with higher importance clients are being address first.
Patent 11,809,218
Instant Application
1. A computer-implemented method for function dispatching in a function-as-a-service (FaaS) computing environment, the method comprising:
receiving a request to execute a function, the request comprising a function identifier of the function; and
executing a dispatching algorithm to dispatch the function, wherein executing the dispatching algorithm comprises:
determining, based at least in part on the function identifier, whether the function was previously deployed on one or more local function executors associated with a local computing node;
responsive to determining that the function was previously deployed on the one or more local function executors, determining whether a particular local function executor is available; and
responsive to determining that the particular local function executor is available, dispatching the function for invocation and execution by the particular local function executor.
32. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors, the plurality of instructions when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to:
receive a request to execute a function, the request comprising a function identifier of the function;
determine, based at least on a customer tier associated with the function, whether a first local function executor on which function was previously deployed is available; and
responsive to determining that the first local function executor is available, dispatching the function for invocation and execution by the first local function executor.
Additionally, claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,093,730 (hereafter ‘730) in view of US PG Pub. 2002/0083244 to Hammarlund et al. (hereafter Hammarlund). Claim 1 of Patent ‘730 teaches all the limitations recited in claim 32 of the instant application except the availability of a first local function executor on which the function was previously deployed is determined based at least on a customer tier associated with the function. However, Hammarlund teaches prioritizing buffered requests in accessing cache data based on Requestor ID, namely association between the requestor priority and data to be accessed [paragraphs 33-35]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify claim 1 of Patent ‘730 to include prioritize handling of tasks or assignment of resource in ensuring important tasks or tasks associated with higher importance clients are being address first.
Patent 12,093,730
Instant Application
1. A computer-implemented method for function dispatching in a function-as-a-service (FaaS) computing environment, the method comprising:
receiving a request to execute a function, the request comprising a function identifier of the function; and
determining whether a first local function executor on which function was previously deployed is available; and
responsive to determining that the first local function executor is available, dispatching the function for invocation and execution by the first local function executor.
32. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors, the plurality of instructions when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to:
receive a request to execute a function, the request comprising a function identifier of the function;
determine, based at least on a customer tier associated with the function, whether a first local function executor on which function was previously deployed is available; and responsive to determining that the first local function executor is available, dispatching the function for invocation and execution by the first local function executor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following lacks antecedent basis:
As to claims 34-35, the following lacks antecedent basis: “the QoS value”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-31 and 37-40 are allowed.
Claims 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 32 and 34-35 are allowable by overcoming the claim objection and non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US PG Pub. 20200220924 teaches a function call request having a function identifier to a function executor if the function executor is available and creation of a function executor in a designated host if a function executor is not available [abstract lines 1-4; Fig. 2 and corresponding text]. “Towards a Serverless Platform for Edge Computing” teaches algorithm applied upon receiving a request for service that includes placement of services taking into consideration proximity such as the number of network hops in reducing service/function access latency; caching service allowing data to be kept at the edge mitigating the overhead of function initialization [Section C. Latency Optimization; Section D. Opportunistic Data Analysis]. Routing requests for different DAG of functions representing an application to an appropriate semi-global scheduler using a load balancing layer in meeting latency objective was disclosed in “Archipelago: A Scalable Low-Latency Serverless Platform” (hereafter reference 1) [whole document]. “Predictive Scheduling of Function-as-a-Service” teaches improving assignment and scheduling of function using regression models; a local cache that stores object on the same machine, such that functions are schedule to executors with the most cached function arguments to minimize task execution latencies (hereafter reference 2) [whole document]. The above-mentioned references are cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 9/5/24. The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole “determining…whether a first local function executor on which the function was previously deployed is available” as recited in independent claim 21 and substantially in independent claims 32 and 37.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 21, 32 and 37 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights