DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
01. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
02. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
03. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
04. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Examiner notes that claims 1 – 20 have been cancelled and new claims 21 – 40 have been filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
05. 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 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.
06. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 21 – 23, 30, 31 – 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US PGPub 2012/0173589), hereinafter “Kwon”, in view of Molteni et al. (US PGPub 2024/0143367), hereinafter “Molteni”.
Consider claim 21, Kwon disclose a system to provide a multi-tenant database accessible by multiple tenants with shared access rights (paragraphs [0005], [0078], a multi-tenant database system is utilized, that allows for access of multiple tenants), the system comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by one or a combination the processors, are configurable to cause the system to perform operations comprising (paragraphs [0013] – [0015], [0079], various hardware and/or software is utilized to perform operations on the system, such as the usage of processors and media that execute instructions);
accessing, from the multi-tenant database, a first standard rule that identifies operations to perform, has an associated first extension point, and may be seen by the multiple tenants (paragraphs [0035], [0046], [0061], functions (rules) are defined for tenants in the multi-tenant database, which includes various operations that are performed by way of extensions);
accessing, based on the first extension point, a first extension rule from a first tenant context that is accessible by one and not the others of the multiple tenants, wherein the first extension rule defines a first tenant controlled extension to customize performance of the first standard rule for the one of the multiple tenants based on data from the first tenant context (paragraphs [0057], [0063], [0064], each of the tenants can have their own definitions, such as by way of utilizing private metadata, that are defined by way of tenant-dependent extensions and exist only for one tenant and are thus private and are customized for the needs of that particular tenant);
executing both the first standard rule and the first extension rule, wherein the first extension rule is executed by a rules engine (paragraphs [0039], [0041], [0049], [0063], the public and private functions can be performed by the system, such that corresponding engines can be used to performs the functions).
However, Kwon does not specifically teach storing state information.
In the same field of endeavor, Molteni discloses a system comprising:
when it was determined to temporarily save state information related to the executing, saving the state information for later use to enable stateful rule execution by the rules engine (paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0031], [0040], as a result of processing functions, the rules engine can store state information relating to objects and rules, such that the state can be a temporary state and is used to perform stateful operations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the storing of state information taught by Molteni into the private functions for a tenant taught by Kwon for the purpose of allowing state information to dictate how subsequent operations are to be performed by determining the state and then the appropriate rules/functions to be applied to the data.
Consider claim 22, and as applied to claim 21 above, Molteni discloses a system comprising:
executing, during a subsequent execution of rules by the rules engine, the first extension rule only if the state information was not saved or is no longer current for a fact object for the first extension rule, otherwise avoiding the executing the first extension rule during the subsequent execution (paragraphs [0013], [0027], [0040], certain rules are only processed based on the state matching a desired state, such that if the system is not in a proper state, different processing will occur).
Consider claim 23, and as applied to claim 21 above, Molteni discloses a system comprising:
before the executing, synchronizing data from a first database object to a first fact object, wherein the first database object is of the database and is associated with the first standard rule, wherein the first fact object is for the rules engine and is associated with the first extension rule (paragraphs [0044], [0051], database objects are synchronized, such that they are each associated with different extensions/rules);
synchronizing data from first fact object to the first database object because the first fact object was modified by the executing of the first extension rule (paragraphs [0030], [0040], [0044], [0051], synchronization is performed on objects as a result of changes made to the objects).
Consider claim 30, and as applied to claim 21 above, Kwon discloses a system comprising:
modifying a first result of the first standard rule based at least in part on the first extension rule (paragraph [0062], the content of the tables is modifying by way of performing the extension functions for a particular tenant).
Claims 31 – 33 and 40 are rejected under the same rational with respect to claims 21 – 23 and 30 (respectively). The only difference between these claims is that either a system or a method is claimed. Since the same claim limitations are otherwise present, the same claim rejections are applied therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
08. Claims 24 – 29 and 34 – 39 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.
Reasons for the Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
09. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for allowance of claims 24 and 34 in the instant application is because the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest an event listener for extension rules to perform synchronization of database objects. The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
The primary reason for allowance of claims 25, 26, 35, and 36 in the instant application is because the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest a second synchronization based on state information not being saved or current. The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
The primary reason for allowance of claims 27 and 37 in the instant application is because the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest a second fact object that is translated based on a map that is updated. The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
The primary reason for allowance of claims 28, 29, 38, and 39 in the instant application is because the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest . The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Mellor et al. (US PGPub 2015/0033365) discloses a method of controlling extensions of services in a multi-tenant cloud environment by initializing objects for the extension based on public and private configuration files. Service access rules are used that enforce policies for tenants to perform different functionality with respect to the multi-tenant environment.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Christopher Raab whose telephone number is (571) 270-1090. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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) or 703-305-3028.
/CHRISTOPHER J RAAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
March 06, 2026