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 .
This Is in response to Application filed 11/09/23. Claims 1 – 19 have been examined and are pending.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims recites receiving a selection to be imported, the action of execution said command never actually takes place and hence the claims appear to be a collection of mental processes and Abstract commands lacking any physical transformation or interlinking functionality with the associated hardware to enable it to be actualized. Hence it doesn’t fall under any known category of statutory subject matter.
Applicant has added receiving and generating by a computing device, but the mere mention of a device in a scenario where the abstract mental process is simply jotted down in a word processing application on said device without any interlinking processes between software and hardware as in physical transformation of said program like for instance the process of executing by a processor and creating machine level instructions or for instance installation or deployment would still however read on it merely being a mental process and hence doesn’t fall under any known statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s)1 – 3, and 5 – 13 and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan US 20190306237 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Srinivasan anticipates a computer-implemented method/System comprising:
receiving by a computing device a selection of a package and of a target tenant environment into which the package is to be imported, the target tenant environment being one of a plurality of tenant environments in a multi-tenant networked system, the package including customization data for a plurality of applications [See summary, for multi-tenant cloud system and receive resources]; and
generating by a computing device a comparison report indicating corresponding data items of the customization data in the package that are different from data of the target tenant environment [Abstract, Discloses Generating master resource metadata in a multi-tenant cloud system, 0034 also discloses tenant customizations].
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a customer account associated with a request to import the package [0020 see importing users];
and generating a user interface listing a plurality of tenant environments of the customer account for selection as the target tenant environment [0027, shows designing and building multi-tenant microservices].
Regarding claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the package is selected from a plurality of packages in a package repository data store [0092, see data repositories].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying whether the package has a compatibility issue with the target tenant environment [0228, show resolving conflicting updates i.e. compatibility].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user approval of the comparison report before proceeding with an import of the package to the target tenant environment [0089, see reports service and generating reports].
Regarding claims 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a user selection of a portion of the customization data; and importing the package to the target tenant environment, thereby customizing one or more of the plurality of applications in the target tenant environment using the portion of the customization data [0047 – 0051, see custom objection definitions].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein importing the package to the target tenant environment comprises overwriting one or more first data items in the target tenant environment with one or more second data items in the customization data [0020, shows importing and see 0048 and et seq. for custom data and tabs].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the customization data comprises content data, configuration data, security authorization data, and extension data [0047 – 0051, shows custom and several other configuration data objects].
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) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan US 20190306237 A1 as applied in claim 1, in view of Brooks et al. US 20170003947 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Srinivasan discloses all the claimed limitations recited in claim 1. Srinivasan doesn’t expressly disclose wherein identifying a dependency of the package on a second package and determining whether the target tenant environment has the second package installed.
Brooks in a similar configuration utilizing a multi-tenant environment discloses in a multi-tenant system it automatically determines object dependencies for the metadata included in the package [0047 – 0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine Srinivasan and Brooks because it would enable automatically identifying the dependency by the system.
Regarding claim 10, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein individual data items in the customization data of the package are associated with a respective unique uniform resource name (URN) [0073, shows Uniform resource locator identifies tenants].
Regarding claim 11, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the multi-tenant networked system comprises a cloud-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) system [0089, shows utilizing a cloud system and store and network].
Correspondence Information
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on 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 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).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192