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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 13, 2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants' arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0242197 to Alfonso et al. (hereafter “Alfonso”).
Claim 1.
Alfonso discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving data for a plurality of applications in a first tenant environment of a networked system (FIG.3, receive data for a plurality of applications in a node host, block 310 and related text);
exporting the data as a package; storing the package in a package repository data store (FIG.3, block 310, block 320, and related text);
importing the package from the package repository data store to a second tenant environment of the networked system (FIG.3, block 340; FIG.4, block 420, and related text),
thereby overwriting existing configuration data for the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment with respective portions of the data (0019, 0027, 0028, 0040, 0043)
to change behavior of the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment (0013, 0027, 0031, 0041, application updates change behavior of the applications).
Claim 3.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein importing the package from the package repository data store further comprises automatically determining to import the package to the second tenant environment based at least in part on a deployment order for the second tenant environment and one or more package import rules (0027, 0031, 0034, 0041).
Claim 5.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user selection of one or more data items of the data to be imported to the second tenant environment (0012, 0014, 0019, 0023, 0029, 0037).
Claim 6.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user selection of the first tenant environment from a plurality of tenant environments (0024, 0027, 0028).
Claim 7.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user selection of the second tenant environment from a plurality of tenant environments (0014, 0024, 0031, 0041).
Claim 8.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user selection of the plurality of applications for which the data is exported (0013, 0017, 0030, 0040).
Claim 13.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: associating a tag with individual data items in the data; and wherein exporting the data as the package further comprises identifying the data for export based at least in part on the data being associated with the tag (0031, 0032).
Claim 18.
Alfonso discloses a system, comprising:
a package repository data store; a multi-tenant networked system; at least one computing device; and instructions executable in the at least one computing device (FIG.1 and related text),
wherein when executed the instructions cause the at least one computing device to at least:
receive data for a plurality of applications in a first tenant environment of the multi-tenant networked system (FIG.3, receive data for a plurality of applications in a node host, block 310 and related text);
export the data as a package; store the package in the package repository data store (FIG.3, block 310, block 320, and related text); and
import the package from the package repository data store to a second tenant environment of the multi-tenant networked system (FIG.3, block 340; FIG.4, block 420, and related text),
thereby overwriting existing configuration data for the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment with respective portions of the data (0019, 0027, 0028, 0040, 0043)
to change behavior of the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment(0013, 0027, 0031, 0041, application updates change behavior of the applications).
Claim 20.
Alfonso discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device, wherein when executed the program causes the at least one computing device to at least:
receive data for a plurality of applications in a first tenant environment of a networked system (FIG.3, receive data for a plurality of applications in a node host, block 310 and related text);
export the data as a package; store the package in a package repository data store (FIG.3, block 310, block 320, and related text); and
import the package from the package repository data store to a second tenant environment of the networked system (FIG.3, block 340; FIG.4, block 420, and related text),
thereby, overwriting existing configuration data for the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment performing one or more actions with respective portions of the data (0019, 0027, 0028, 0040, 0043)
to change behavior configure operation of the plurality of applications in the second tenant environment(0013, 0027, 0031, 0041, application updates change behavior of the applications).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of US 2023/0289344 to Fuglsang et al. (hereafter "Fuglsang").
Claim 11.
Alfonso discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises content data, configuration data (0013, 0027, 0028, 0040).
Alfonso does not disclose security authorization data, and extension data.
However, Fuglsang further discloses security authorization data, and extension data (0068, 0138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fuglsang’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to manage different types of data as suggested by Fuglsang (0068).
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of US 2004/0153990 to Chen et al. (hereafter “Chen”).
Claim 12.
Alfonso does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein individual data items in the data of the package are associated with a respective unique uniform resource name (URN).
However, Chen further discloses individual data items in the data of the package are associated with a respective unique uniform resource name (URN) (0028, 0058, 0095).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chen’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to identify classes in a software package as suggested by Chen (0028).
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of 2016/0321248 to Narayan et al. (hereafter “Narayan”).
Claim 14.
Alfonso does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating a comparison report indicating corresponding data items of the data in the package that are different from data of the second tenant environment.
However, Narayan further discloses generating a comparison report indicating corresponding data items of the data in the package that are different from data of the second tenant environment (0036).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Narayan’s teaching into Alfondo‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to generate a list of items to be moved between tenants as suggested by Narayan (0036).
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of 2023/0281339 to Chen et al. (hereafter “Chen ‘339”).
Claim 15.
Alfonso does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the networked system comprises a cloud-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) system.
However, Chen ‘339 further discloses the networked system comprises a cloud-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (0066).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chen ’339’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to transform data in a multi-tenant environment as suggested by Chen ‘339 (0066).
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of 2021/0112138 to Eberlein (hereafter “Eberlein”).
Claim 16.
Alfonso does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first tenant environment and the second tenant environment are associated with a single customer account of the networked system, and the package is created as a local package available to the single customer account.
However, Eberlein further discloses the first tenant environment and the second tenant environment are associated with a single customer account of the networked system, and the package is created as a local package available to the single customer account (0018, 0022).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eberlein’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to perform a solution task in a cloud platform as suggested by Eberlein (0018).
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfonso in view of US 2008/0162491 to Becker et al. (hereafter “Becker”).
Claim 19.
Alfonso does not disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the package repository data store stores a plurality of local packages available for import by a respective exporting customer account and a plurality of global packages available for import by a plurality of customer accounts.
However, Becker discloses the package repository data store stores a plurality of local packages available for import by a respective exporting customer account and a plurality of global packages available for import by a plurality of customer accounts (0037, 0038, 0056, 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to store tenant-dependent and tenant-independent data structures as suggested by Becker (0037, 0037).
Claim 21.
Alfonso does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the first tenant environment and the second tenant environment are associated with different customer accounts of the networked system, and the package is created as a global package available to a plurality of customer accounts of the networked system.
However, Becker discloses the first tenant environment and the second tenant environment are associated with different customer accounts of the networked system, and the package is created as a global package available to a plurality of customer accounts of the networked system (0042, 0124, 0137).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker’s teaching into Alfonso‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to store tenant-dependent (customer-dependent) and tenant-independent (customer-independent) data structures as suggested by Becker (0037, 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 2 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising converting the package from a local package that is available for import to tenant environments of a customer account in the networked system to a global package that is available for import to tenant environments of a plurality of customer accounts in the networked system,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claim 2 into claims 1, 18, and 20 would put the case in condition for allowance.
14. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 4 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an entry of a namespace; verifying that the namespace is globally unique in the package repository data store; and wherein exporting the data as the package further comprises creating the package having the namespace after verifying that the namespace is globally unique.”
Incorporating claim 4 into claims 1, 18, and 19 would put the case in condition for allowance.
15. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 9 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising generating a user interface displaying a hierarchical list of a set of applications, wherein individual applications of the set of applications are user selectable for inclusion in or exclusion from the package,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claim 8 and claim 9 into claims 1, 18, and 19 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and is also allowable.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights