DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a request for continued examination filed 17 March 2026 responsive to the 17 December 2025 final Office action. (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 March 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. 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 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that Satish does not teach “managing multi-tenancy of an observability ingestion pipeline according to solution packages and their software coded extension points” because, according to Applicant, Satish does not disclose the ingestion pipeline itself is governed according to the solution packages as the mechanism by which multi-tenancy is managed. Applicant adds that Satish is fundamentally about presenting data as opposed to processing data at ingestion time and that allowing users to integrate data into their plugins for visualization is different from governing how an ingestion pipeline processes incoming observability data on a per-tenant basis according to solution packages. (Remarks, p. 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits because the plugins of Satish are enabled or disabled for the tenants (Satish at par. [0281]), multi-tenancy is “manag[ed]” according to the plugins. This multi-tenancy is also “of” an observability data ingestion pipeline because the system of Satish includes visualizing data from external data sources (Satish at par. [0255]), i.e., ingesting data and making it observable to a user. The claim does not require any particular type of “managing” multi-tenancy or governing of how an ingestion pipeline processes incoming data. Visualizing data is also, in the examiner’s view, a form of processing that data.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 is moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, similarity with claim 1 or dependence from a similar claim are unpersuasive or moot for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments unless reproduced herein below.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
[a] method, comprising:
providing, by a process, a core technology stack for an extensibility platform;
managing, by the process, a plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform that are separated from the core technology stack, wherein managing the plurality of solution packages comprises deploying the plurality of solution packages, receiving configuration data that declaratively defines data mode and processing dependencies for each solution package, and storing the configuration data in association with respective solution package, wherein the plurality of solution packages have one or more globally shared core solution packages, wherein a respective solution package includes a plurality of models that refer to each other, and integrity and consistency of mutual references among the plurality of models are tracked and enforced;
operating, by the process, according to one or more tenant-based solution packages within the plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform, the one or more tenant-based solution packages defining corresponding tenant-specified models and configurations for soft-coded customized extension points for the extensibility platform; and
managing, by the process, multi-tenancy of an observability data ingestion pipeline according to the plurality of solution packages including the soft-coded customized extension points for the extensibility platform
Though the claim recites a process (Step 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because all of the above steps are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. Note that “providing” a core technology stack may include merely include supplying some description or indication of the stack and “managing” or “operating” packages or multi-tenancy may merely include evaluating or making judgements with respect to the packages or multi-tenancy. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1).
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, at least because the deploying of the packages and storing the configuration information in association with the solution packages only appear to nominally or insignificantly related to the process and thus appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. Their collective function is merely to implement the abstract idea along with insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. (Step 2B). Note that re-evaluation of the “storing…” and “deploying…” noted above does not indicate that these elements are anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Courts have recognized that storing data in memory is well-understood, routine and conventional. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). And deploying software is well-understood, routine and conventional at least as evidenced by its description in various references of record. (See, e.g., US 2022/0247784 at par. [0089], US 2015/0347617 at par. [0037], US 2023/0103087 at par. [0026]).
As to claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 18 the features of these claims do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because they add no additional elements. They only further describe the abstract idea.
As to claim 13, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because add no additional elements either. Note that displaying information is still part of a mental process per M.P.E.P. § 2104(a)(2)(III)(A).
As to claim 14, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because the “processing” of logic provided as a container image is recited at a high-level of generality and may thus only include making judgements or observations with respect to that logic, and because “to expose a service interface…” only refers to non-limiting intended use.
As to claims 15, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because “evolving” the core technology stack may merely include changing description or indication of it noted above with respect to claim 1.
As to claims 16, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because “updating” a package is recited at a high level of generality and may merely include changing some information associated with the package, which is performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper.
As to claim 17, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because they only further describe the abstract mental process. Note that the human mind is capable of “receiving” information.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. The addition of a “tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored therein that, when executing by a processor on a computer, cause the computer perform” the process amounts mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 20, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. The addition of a “one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured to” perform the method of claim 1 amounts mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satish et al. (US 2022/0247784) (art of record – hereinafter Satish) in view of Greenstein (US 2003/0208456) (art made of record – hereinafter Greenstein).
As to claim 1, Satish discloses a method, comprising:
providing, by a process of a computing platform, a core technology stack for an extensibility platform; (e.g., Satish, par. [0334]: computer programs will cause a computing device [computing platform] to execute functions [processes] involving the disclosed techniques; Fig. 11 and associated text, par. [0259]: Fig. 11 illustrates an example architecture of an extension framework [extensibility platform] for an IT and security operations application [see figure, data intake and query system 102 being the core technology stack and is separate from extension framework 550])
managing, by the process, a plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform that are separated from the core technology stack, (e.g., Satish, Fig. 11 and associated text, par. [0261]: an extension framework 550 provides GUIs 1108 and APIs 1114. These components enable the users to develop plugins [solution packages] for subscription by users of an IT and security operations application 502; Fig. 13 and associated text, par. [0263]: backend system 1104 stores name information, plugin metadata, and plugin specifications in a database table “(e.g., provided by one or more storage services 1124, which may be part of provide network 504)” [or part or extension framework as shown in Fig. 13]; Fig. 5 and associated text discloses [see figure, tenant networks 510A…N (core technology stack)are separated from Extension framework 550]) wherein managing the plurality of solution packages comprises deploying the plurality of solution packages, (e.g., Satish, par. [0263]: responsive to receiving a request to register a plugin [solution package], the backend system 1104 stores any plugin metadata, and plug specifications in a database table; par. [0282]: a user request to subscribe to a plugin. The backend system 1104 may store data indicating the user’s subscription and provision various resources) receiving configuration data that declaratively defines data models, and processing dependencies for each solution package, (e.g., Satish, par. [0284]: a plugin specification includes a structured data definition “(e.g., including JSON-formatted data)” [a JSON formatted definition being declarative] of a plugin’s extension components and data) sources [these definitions being data models]; par. [0293]: a data source definition can include information identifying an external endpoint or other source of data [processing dependency] and query information used to obtain a desired set of information from the data source) and storing configuration data in association with a respective solution package (e.g., Satish, par. [0263]: responsive to receiving a request to register a plugin [solution package], the backend system 1104 stores any provided name information, plugin metadata, and plug specifications in a database table) wherein the plurality of solution packages have one or more globally shared core solution packages; (e.g., Satish, in some embodiments, a data source definition can be referenced in other extension definitions that desire to use the data defined by the data source definition; par. [0264]: the extension framework 550 provides the user with a development plugin that the user can use to develop the custom plugin), wherein a respective solution package includes a plurality of models; (e.g., Satish, par. [0284]: a plugin specification includes a structured data definition of a plugin’s extension components and data) sources [the definition of each component being a model])
operating, by the process, according to one or more tenant-based solution packages within the plurality of solution packages, the one or more tenant-based solution packages defining corresponding tenant-specified models (e.g., Satish, par. [0301]: the user can customize the plugin for the user to the user’s tenant; par. [0281]: indicating whether the plugin is currently enabled or disabled for the user’s tenant; par. [0284]: a plugin specification includes structure data definition of a plugin’s components and data sources) and declarative configurations for soft-coded customized extension points of the extensibility platform; (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: a specification includes a definition of components used to extent interfaces or functionality of the IT and security operations application 502 at one or more defined extension points; par. [0284]: a plugin specification includes a structured data definition “(e.g., including JSON-formatted data)” [a JSON formatted definition being declarative] of a plugin’s extension components and data sources) and
managing, by the process, multi-tenancy of an observability data ingestion pipeline (e.g., Satish, par. [0281]: the plugin is currently enabled or disabled for the user’s tenant; par. [0255]: the extension framework 550 includes a data integration system that provides users with mechanisms to integrate data “(e.g., to visualize data from any external data source in the IT and security operations application 502 or to otherwise enhance users’ investigative experience with data originating outside of the IT and security operations application or data intake and query system 102)” [visualizing data or investigating with data being observability, the operations the extension framework performs being an observability data ingestion pipeline]) according to the plurality of solution packages including the soft-coded customization extension points for the observability platform; (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: plugin “specifications”, where a specification includes a definition of components used to extend interfaces or functionality of the IT and security operations application 502 at one or more defined extension points; par. [0291]: the plugin specification snippet 1900 includes data illustrating three different extension points).
Satish does not explicitly disclose models that refer to each other, and integrity and consistency of mutual references among the plurality of models are tracked and enforced.
However, in an analogous art, Greenstein discloses:
models that refer to each other (e.g., Greenstein, par. [0107]: a service element (SE); par. [0129]: a service element is represented by a data structure [model]; par. [0130]: as one example, data structure 200 includes, for instance: par. [0135]: E. zero or more dependencies 220 [i.e., the service element data structures refer to their dependencies]; par. [0155]: a case of two SEs co-requiring one another “(i.e., the first SE depends on the second, which the second SE depends on the first) and integrity and consistency of mutual references among the plurality of models are tracked and enforced (e.g., Greenstein, par. [0174]: further details regarding dependency verification are described with reference to FIGS. 6a-6c; par. [0175]: <direction> is set to “bi-directional” for later use; par. [0177]: if the attempt to retrieve the target SE is unsuccessful, INQUIRY 622, processing returns “invalid <direction> dependency on SE [checking if the integrity of the mutual reference]; par. [0179]: returning to INQUIRY 632, the attempt to find the reverse of the input relationship in the list of relevant relationships of the target SE is unsuccessful. Processing terminates and returns “invalid <direction> dependency on SE [checking consistency of mutual reference]).
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 model of Satish such that the models refer to each other, and integrity and consistency of mutual references among the plurality of models are tracked and enforced, as taught by Greenstein, as Greenstein would provide the advantage of a means of specifying dependency relationships among the models and a means of verifying dependency relationships are valid. (See Greenstein, par. [0155], pares. [0164-0170]).
As to claim 2, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses:
wherein managing the multi-tenancy of the observability data ingestion pipeline comprises:
obtaining observability data collected across multiple tenants and data sources (e.g., Satish, par. [0271]: incoming payloads; par. [0272]: a data payload containing the data desired for ingestion by the IT and security operations application 502; Fig. 5 and associated text, par. [0221]: ingestion of data related to IT assets of various tenant networks. Data sources may include one or more of the IT assets 514)
mapping the observability data to a plurality of entities according to models as defined within the plurality of solution packages, (e.g., Satish, par. [0273]: the proxy 1302 determines whether the data contains notable or non-notable data by inspecting the payload contents; par. [0261]: plugin “specifications”, where a specification includes a structured definition of data sources [data model(s), or comprising them]; par. [0274]: each of the notable index 1304 and plugin data index 1306 represents a data source that plugins can query as part of generating extension components; par. [0275]: if the proxy determines the at the data contains non-notable data 1310, the proxy sends the data to a data stream processor 1312 for storage in a plugin data index 1306) and
processing the observability data for each tenant of the extensibility platform according to the core technology stack, (e.g., Satish, par. [0250]: data can be collected and analyzed on a per-tenant basis; par. [0216]: a data intake and query system 102 or IT and security operations application 502 may ingest, index and store data received from each tenant network; Fig, 5 and associated text, pars. [0211]: settings associated with proxies 512A…512N used to establish connections between on-premises networks [core technology stack] and the IT and security operations application 502; par. [212]: a tenant network can include components hosted in an on-premises network) the one or more globally shared core solution packages, (e.g., Satish, in some embodiments, a data source definition can be referenced in other extension definitions that desire to use the data defined by the data source definition; par. [0264]: the extension framework 550 provides the user with a development plugin that the user can use to develop the custom plugin) and the one or more tenant-based solution packages including their soft-coded customized extension points for that tenant (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: plugin “specifications”, where a specification includes a definition of components used to extend interfaces or functionality of the IT and security operations application 502 at one or more defined extension points; par. [0281]: the plugin is currently enabled or disabled for the user’s tenant).
As to claim 4, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
determining an object type of particular traffic within the observability data ingestion pipeline; (e.g., Satish, par. [0273]: the proxy 1302 determines whether the data contains notable or non-notable data by inspecting the payload contents) and
routing the particular traffic within the extensibility platform to a specific object store added on the object type of the particular traffic (e.g., Satish, par. [0275]: if the proxy determines the at the data contains non-notable data 1310, the proxy sends the data to a data stream processor 1312 for storage in a plugin data index 1306).
As to claim 8, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
providing subscription-based access for tenants to subscribe to registered third- party solution packages of the extensibility platform (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: these components enable users to develop plugins, to publish approved plugins for subscription by other users, among other features; par. [0212]: a user “(also referred to herein as a ‘customer,’ ‘tenant,’ or analyst)”).
As to claim 9, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
grouping entities for composite observability data processing (e.g., Satish, par. [0081]: the group of files can be associated together to form the bucket; par. [0116]: the indexing system may optimize the data retrieval process by the query system to search buckets corresponding to time ranges).
As to claim 10, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
processing queries into observability data and/or entities based on the observability data ingestion pipeline (e.g., Satish, par. [0293]: a query can be executed an index storing data; par. [0268]: the obtained data from the search queries can be used as part of interface elements “(e.g., dashboard panels, analyst queues, etc.)” [performing any sequence of steps related to “observability data ingestion” being an observability data ingestion “pipeline”]).
As to claim 11, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
providing processed assessments of a status of entities based on the observability data ingestion pipeline (e.g., Satish, par. [0223]: IT and security operations application 502 can be configured to recognize different types of incidents depending on the corresponding type of data ingested; par. [0204]: once an incident is identified, the process for remediating such incidents can involve interacting with one or several assets. For example, responsive to identification of a security related issued involving an endpoint device, a system administrator may use software to quarantine the device).
As to claim 12, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses
wherein the observability data ingestion pipeline is based on metrics, entries, logs, and traces (e.g., Satish, par. [0208]: the IT and security operations application 502 may use environment 548 to interface with the data intake and query system 102 to obtain relevant data; the data intake and query system is particularly useful for analyzing data found in log files, metrics data, tracing data and other input sources; par. [0119]: different entries of the log).
As to claim 13, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
receiving configuration of tenant-specific iconography as part of the one or more tenant-based solution packages; (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: plugin “specifications,” where a specification includes a definition of interface elements and other components; par. [0281]” the plugin is currently enabled or disabled for a user’s tenant; par. [0287]: extension points generally represent points of the interfaces of the IT and security application 502 at which plugins can extend, e.g., including dashboard elements, menus, tabs, etc.; par. [0292]: the dashboards 1902 extension point specification includes “blobs”, the data elements including a layout. The layout enables a user to specify where defined dashboard panels are to be rendered in a user interface. The specification information can further specify a type of visualization to render in each panel) and
displaying the tenant-specific iconography within a tenant-specific interface according to the one or more tenant-based solution packages (see immediately above).
As to claim 15, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
evolving the core technology stack for the extensibility platform without affecting the plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform (e.g., Satish, par. [0233]: a user can also user [sic] interface elements 604 to create a new paybook [evolve the core technology stack, without affecting the solution packages because playbooks are not solution packages]).
As to claim 16, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
updating one or more of the plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform without affecting the core technology stack for the extensibility platform (e.g., Satish, par. [0266]: once a plugin is published, application 502 stores a read-only copy of the plugin for use and any updates to the plugin are made to the separate development plugin [i.e., application 502 is using the read-only copy, the updates are made to a separate version and therefore don’t affect application 502]).
As to claim 17, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), Satish further discloses further comprising:
receiving updates for one or more of the plurality of solution packages from any of a first-party developer, a second-party developer, or a third-party developer (e.g., Satish, par. [0261]: these components enable users to develop plugins “(e.g., including creating, testing, debugging and updating plugins in an isolated development environment)”).
As to claim 18, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Satish further discloses:
wherein the soft-coded customized extension points are selected from a group consisting of: a model-based extension point defining one or more of entity types, association types, and metric types; a pre-ingestion-based extension point defining one or more of collection configuration, agent configuration, and pre-ingestion transformations; a processing-based extension point defining one or more of mapping rules and processing rules; and a consumption-based extension point defining one or more of interface configuration, report configuration, and webhook configuration (e.g., Satish, par. [0287]: the extension points generally represent defined points of the default interfaces or other components of the IT and security operations application 502 at which plugins can extend, e.g., including various dashboard element, menus, tabs, etc. [i.e., a consumption-based extension point (at least)]).
As to claim 19, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Satish, include:
a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, that, when executed by a processor on a computer, cause the computer to perform a process (e.g., Satush, par. [0327]: the techniques herein are performed by computer system 2700 in response to processor 2704 executing instructions contained in main memory 2706) comprising: (see rejection of claim 1 above)
As to claim 20, it is an apparatus claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Satish, include:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; (e.g., Satish, Fig. 27 and associated text, par. [0331]: a computer system 2700 may also include, one or more communication interfaces 2718. A communication interface provides a coupling to a network link 2720 connected to a local network 2722)
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces (e.g., Satish, Fig. 27 and associated text, par. [0322]: computer system 2700 includes one or more processors 2704 [coupled to interface 2718 via bus 2702, see figure]) and configured to execute one or more processes; (see below)
a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured (e.g., Satish, par. [0327]: the techniques herein are performed by computer system 2700 in response to processor 2704 executing instructions contained in main memory 2706) to: (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satish (US 2022/0247784) in view of Greenstein (US 2003/0208456) in further view of Kirmse (US 2023/0103087) (art of record – hereinafter Kirmse).
As to claim 3, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses tenant-based solution packages (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more tenant-based solution packages comprise one or more container images.
However, in an analogous art, Kirmse discloses:
wherein the one or more packages comprise one or more container images (e.g., Kirme, par. [0080]: plugin container may be built from plugin container images. A plugin container image may comprise payload data for implementing the plugin).
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 tenant-based solution package plugins of Satish such that the packages comprise one or more container images, as taught by Kirmse, as Kirmse would provide the advantage of means of installing a plugins to a legacy application executing in a container without providing direct access to the containers. (See Kirmse, pars. [0078-0080]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satish (US 2022/0247784) in view of Greenstein (US 2003/0208456) in further view of Ripberger et al. (US 2012/0150912) (art of record – hereinafter Ripberger) and Geldart et al. (US 2020/0034177) (art of record – hereinafter Geldart).
As to claim 5, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: providing an object layering system based on: a global layer of settings and fields; and global layer of applications and solution constructs; an account layer of multi-cell tenants; a tenant layer; and a user layer.
However, in an analogous art, Ripberger discloses further comprising:
providing an object layering system based on: a global layer of settings and fields; and global layer of applications and solution constructs; an account layer of tenants; a tenant layer; and a user layer (e.g., Ripberger, par. [0015]: resource groups associated with a particular management hierarchy; par. [0052]: data structure 62 includes one or more resource group attributes [settings and fields]; par. [0075] a user is with the global resource scope can create, modify or delete any resource group within the hierarchy; par. [0086]: the hierarchy may be based on a set of systems of a given type or a set of applications running on that set of systems; par. [0056]: to assign a particular scope to a user account; par. [0078] user IDs with a user administrator role for each supported tenant).
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 Satish by incorporating providing an object layering system based on: a global layer of settings and fields; and global layer of applications and solution constructs; an account layer of tenants; a tenant layer; and a user layer as taught by Ripberger, as Ripberger would provide the advantage of a means of providing hierarchical management of the system. (See Ripberger, par. [0002]).
Further, in an analogous art, Geldart discloses:
multi-cell tenants (e.g., Geldart, par. [0048]: each tenant is limited to a particular cell and, thus, the resources of an execution cell are shared by a limited number of tenants).
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 tenants of Satish/Ripberger by incorporating multi-cell tenants, as taught by Geldart, as Geldart would provide the advantage of a means of improved resource scaling in a compute zone. (See Geldart, par. [0047-0048]).
As to claim 6, Satish/Greenstein/Ripberger/Geldart discloses the method as in claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but Satish does not explicitly disclose wherein the object layering system provides hierarchical modification control between layers.
However, in an analogous art, Ripberger discloses:
wherein the object layering system provides hierarchical modification control between layers (e.g., Ripberger, par. [0013] at least one of the users having authority to perform one of creating modifying, delete and managing the storage resources associated with the resource groups; par. [0075]: a user ID with global resource scope can modify any resource group).
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 Satish by incorporating an object layering system providing hierarchical modification control between layers, as taught by Ripberger, as Ripberger would provide the advantage of a means of providing hierarchical management of the system. (See Ripberger, par. [0002]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satish (US 2022/0247784) in view of Greenstein (US 2003/0208456) in further view of Geldart (US 2020/0034177).
As to claim 7, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the extensibility platform comprises a multi-celled architecture, the method further comprising: synchronizing a local copy of the one or more globally shared core solution packages across each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture; and maintaining, within each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture, one or more specific tenant-based solution packages based on one or more specific tenants corresponding to that globally distributed cell.
However, in an analogous art Geldart discloses the method further comprising:
synchronizing a local copy of the one or more globally shared core solution packages across each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture; (e.g., Geldart, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0045]: shared resources may include software, databases [solution packages] and other resources; par. [0046]: zones may correspond to resources in a particular geographical region; par. [0048]: resources may be replicated [synchronized] among execution cells. For example, compute zone 112 has cells 116, 18 with a database and message bus in each cell [the cells are globally distributed in that they exist in geographical regions, i.e., on the globe. The resources in a zone are the “local copy”]) and
maintaining, within each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture, one or more specific tenant-based solution packages based on one or more specific tenants corresponding to that globally distributed cell (e.g., Geldart, Fig. 1 and associated text, par. [0045]: shared resources may include software, databases [solution packages] and other resources; par. [0048]: cells [globally distributed as noted above] can be created in which these resources are replicated [see figure, resources are maintained within each cell]; par. [0048]: each tenant is limited to a particular cell and, thus, the resources of an execution cell are shared by a limited number of tenants).
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 multi-tenant system of Satish by incorporating synchronizing a local copy of the one or more globally shared core solution packages across each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture; and maintaining, within each globally distributed cell of the multi-celled architecture, one or more specific tenant-based solution packages based on one or more specific tenants corresponding to that globally distributed cell, as taught by Geldart, as Geldart would provide the advantage of a means of improved resource scaling in a compute zone. (See Geldart, par. [0047-0048]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satish (US 2022/0247784) in view of Greenstein (US 2003/0208456) in further view of Weinig et al. (US 2015/0347617) (art of record – hereinafter Weinig).
As to claim 14, Satish/Greenstein discloses the method as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: processing custom logic provided as a container image to expose a service interface for execution within a controlled sandbox of the extensibility platform.
However, in an analogous art, Weinig discloses further comprising:
processing custom logic provided as a container image to expose a service interface for execution within a controlled sandbox of the extensibility platform (e.g., Weinig, par. [0023]: a developer can utilize an extension template to generate executable image of both the second application, referred to as a container application, and the associated extension. The container application and the extension can be launched in separate sandboxed environments; par. [0065]: the service includes one of social networking service, messaging service or other service provided by a container application; par. [0068]: a user interface provided by the container application).
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 Satish by incorporating processing custom logic provided as a container image to expose a service interface for execution within a controlled sandbox of the extensibility platform, as taught by Weinig, as Weinig would provide the advantage of a means of executing the application within an isolated operating environment. (See Weinig, par. [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights