DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to remarks filed on 11/17/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are amended.
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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 11, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/468,024 (reference application (now US Patent#12445419 B2)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitation of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 are anticipated by claims 1, 11, and 16. Though 18/468,024 contains limitations not claimed in instant application, the instant application is merely broader version of reference claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/468,024 in view of prior art rejection section below. Basically, all the limitations that are not disclosed by copending applications are obvious variant, and are rejected in similar fashion as dependent claims in prior art section.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process/method.
Step 2A, Prong One: The invention as claimed comprises:
A method, comprising:
using a first portion of cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP;
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure, wherein creating the first vPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to the first vPLC;
using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller;
creating, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first platform for providing a first solution listing to the one or more customers of the CSP; and
creating, using the first vPLC, a second platform for providing a second solution listing to the one or more customers of the first reseller, wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform, and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines. The above step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The claim presents offering cloud services at platforms to customers at high level, without claiming any technical features.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites additional element of cloud service provider infrastructure, platform, applications, and host machines.
The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer), in instant case cloud resources and services; similarly, any machine hosting application or cloud based infrastructure can be a platform. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 11, and 16 present corresponding CRM and system claims corresponding to claim 1, and are rejected under same rational. In addition, claims 11, and 16 further recite additional limitations of non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and memory.
Step 2A Prong Two: The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, further narrow the recited abstract idea above, and are rejected under same rational as claim 1. Regarding publishing solution listings associated with platform, it is nothing more than advertising the available services to customers.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cidon et al. (US 20190104035 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 16:
Cidon teaches:
A method, comprising (see, claim 1):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see, para 0326):
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (see, claim 1):
using a first portion of cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP (para 0010, 0012, 0056, Fig. 22);
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure (para 0056, 0274, 0276, Fig. 22), wherein creating the first vPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to the first vPLC (para 0276-0277, Fig. 22; Abstratc teaches cloud providers in several regions; also see para 0006);
using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller (para 0276, 0277, Fig. 22);
creating, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first platform for providing a first solution listing to the one or more customers of the CSP (para 0012, 0274-0286, Fig. 1C, Fig. 17, Fig. 20; here the first platform can be Tenant 1 (para 0012 teaches virtual network of the tenant, thus a platform); also, under BRI reseller can also be interpreted as platform (Fig. 22); para 0116 teaches list of the most popular SaaS providers and consumer web destinations.);
and creating, using the first vPLC, a second platform for providing a second solution listing to the one or more customers of the first reseller (para, 0012, Fig. 20, Fig. 1C; here the second platform can be tenant 2; Saas is software distribution model that offers solution such as Office365, Salesforce, etc.… (para 0057); also, under BRI reseller can also be interpreted as platform (Fig. 22); para 0116 teaches list of the most popular SaaS providers and consumer web destinations.), wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform (See, Fig. 1B, para 0011-0012), and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines (See, para 0057).
Note: though claim 16 recites terms “use”, “create”, etc. rather than “using”, “creating”, etc.… as in claim 1, the limitations of all independent claims are substantially same.
With respect to claims 7, and 15:
Cidon teaches:
The method of claim 1, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the second solution listing is uniquely identified by a resource ID and a tenancy ID associated with the tenancy of the first reseller (para 0080, 0084, 0142, 0181, 0197, 0231, 0277, 0289)
With respect to claims 8, and 19:
Cidon teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: The system of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to: creating a second vPLC for a second reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure (para 0274-0276, Fig. 22), wherein creating the second vPLC comprises allocating a third portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the second vPLC (para 0010, 0274-0276, Fig. 22); using the second vPLC to provide one or more second reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the second reseller (para 0274-0276, Fig. 22); and creating, using the second vPLC, a third platform for providing a third solution listing to the one or more customers of the second reseller (para 0012, para 0274 teaches resellers; under BRI platform can be any place that offers the services, Saas providers, resellers etc.. all can be first, second, third… platforms; for explicit teaching, please see Akkiraju as cited with regard to claim 2 that teaches multiple platforms, and publishing solution listing that can be viewed by users.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-69-10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cidon et al. (US 20190104035 A1) in view of Akkiraju et al. (US 20170069011 A1)
With respect to claim 2:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform.
Akkiraju teaches publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0048; the services are published at each platform; see para 0052 for list of services; Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 3:
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0012, 0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 4:
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the publisher associated with the first platform are the same as the publisher associated with the second platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 5:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 6:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform.
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform (para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus first solution listing and second solution listing is viewable on second platform; similar to claim 5, if same offer can be first and second listing, then both of them are viewable; para 0039 teaches “client program 112 collates information across multiple platforms and presents the information to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
Note: claims 2-6 are merely user business choices, technically once person of ordinary skill in the art knows how to publish the list on one platform, it can be done in any combination of offers at any platform.
With respect to claims 9, and 20:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 8 further comprising: and the system of claim 19, wherein the system is further caused to: publishing the third solution listing by a publisher associated with the third platform; and wherein the publisher associated with the second platform are the same as the publisher associated with the third platform.
Akkiraju teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising: and the system of claim 19, wherein the system is further caused to: publishing the third solution listing by a publisher associated with the third platform; and wherein the publisher associated with the second platform are the same as the publisher associated with the third platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 10:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform, and the third solution listing on the third platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform.
Akkiraju teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.), and the third solution listing on the third platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 12, and 17:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to: further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform; wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform.
Akkiraju teaches further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0048; the services are published at each platform; see para 0052 for list of services; Fig. 1); wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0012, 0033)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 13:
Akkiraju further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the publisher associated with the first platform are the same as the publisher associated with the second platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 14 and 18:
Cidon does not explicitly teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform, and the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform.
Akkiraju further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.), and the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform (para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus first solution listing and second solution listing is viewable on second platform; similar to claim 5, if same offer can be first and second listing, then both of them are viewable; para 0039 teaches “client program 112 collates information across multiple platforms and presents the information to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
Response to Arguments
With regard to 35 U.S.C 101, applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “here, the Examiner improperly abstracts Applicant's detailed claims to an observation, evaluation, and making predictions in an attempt to fit the claims to an abstract idea. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that the claimed features of the present invention relate to a process that can be performed by the human mind. However, by doing so, the Examiner describes the claims at an improperly high level of abstraction, untethered from the language of the claims. For example, at least the limitations of "creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure", " creating, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first platform for providing a first solution listing to the one or more customers of the CSP", and "creating, using the first vPLC, a second platform for providing a second solution listing to the one or more customers of the first reseller, wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform, and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines", are steps that cannot be performed completely in a mental manner.” (Pg. 9-10)
Office action mailed on 05/19/2025 states “the above step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claim presents offering cloud services at platforms to customers at high level, without claiming any technical features.”
As can be seen, the examiner have used the “organizing human activity grouping” that includes “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” In addition to claim language such as “using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller”, instant specification, para 0007 recites “[0007] The vPLCs created according to the various techniques described in this disclosure may be used for different purposes. For example, in one use case, a vPLC may be created for a reseller who is a customer of the CSP and can be used by the reseller to provide one or more reseller-offered cloud services to customers of the reseller. As another use case, a vPLC may be used as a virtual data center and may be associated with a different realm than the realm associated with the cloud infrastructure in the region provided by the CSP.” Thus, claims explicitly teaches business relation, marketing or sales activities, that fall within organizing human activity groupings of abstract idea. Also, note that examiner is using the exact claim language and not abstracting claims at high level; the use of additional limitations is addressed in further analysis. Simply put, amazon services etc… are well known service providers that provide resources to customers/tenants; these resources include cloud resource, that act as platform to provide specific customer related services. Thus, claims are merely applying cloud service technologies to abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “in the claimed invention, the vPLC segmented model offers some advantages, such as physical separation of the individual portions of the datacenter i.e., CSP provided infrastructure, and a shared common control plane e.g. control plane 1250 of FIG. 12 that the CSP operates for all the portions. Thus, the claimed invention provides a framework to seamlessly partition the datacenter into a number of portions, where each portion can be used by a organization to provide one or more of their services to their customers/users.” (pg. 10-11)
Based on the above remarks, it seems the technical improvement is “physical separation of the individual portions of the datacenter.” This seems more like a user design choice, rather than improvement; what technical field is being improved? The datacenter does not have all the resource, in single box; it contains multiple racks, which contain multiple blades; the blades host different applications; one can assign any blade/resources for any purposes, for any customer. Furthermore, we have datacenters worldwide, physically separated. The above statement does not present any technical detail, or how the separation of individual portions is achieved; rather provides a generic statement, which under broadest reasonable interpretation reads on any cloud resource management.
Applicant argues, “Here, is it clear that the claims involve more than performance of "well understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." For instance, it is not common practice to partition a data center, where one or more customers buy portions of the datacenter to provide one or more customer specific services to their users. Furthermore, the claimed invention creates independent platforms for the CSP as well as the vPLC which are deployed within the cloud service provider infrastructure.” (Pg. 12)
The applicant is merely providing a conclusory statement; contrary to applicant’s assertion, it is common to partition data center (datacenter is not just one server blade), where one or more customers buy portion of datacenter (this is no different than customer subscribing for cloud service for their business needs). Absence, any detail as to how the separation is being accomplished, this is merely application of cloud services. Please see, “Timeline of Amazon Web Services” for common practices.
With regard to prior art, applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “initially Applicant note that the Office Action misconstrues the term "marketplace" as corresponding to tenancy (i.e., an account) as described by Cidon. Applicant has amended the claims to replace the term "marketplace" with a "platform" (e.g., a digital platform) to clarify that in the claimed invention platforms are created in the CSP provided infrastructure. Applicant submits that the tenancy as described by Cidon corresponds to customer accounts and does not correspond to a digital platform on which one or more applications are deployed. Furthermore, the claims have been amended to recite the features " wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform, and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines ". (Pg. 12-13)
The applicant have replaced the term marketplace with platform; however, please note that each of the tenancy (account) is associated with a platform, that can deploy the applications. First of all, Fig. 1B makes it very clear that there are plurality of tenants, which are independent. Further para 0011 recites:
“[0011] Some embodiments establish different virtual networks for different entities over the same set of public clouds of the same public cloud providers and/or over different sets of public clouds of the same or different public cloud providers. In some embodiments, a virtual network provider provides software and services that allow different tenants to define different virtual networks over the same or different public clouds. In some embodiments, the same controller cluster or different controller clusters can be used to configure the public cloud components to implement different virtual networks over the same or different sets of public clouds for several different entities.”
Para 0057 recites:
“[0057] The virtual network 100 connects the corporate compute endpoints (such as datacenters, branch offices and mobile users) to each other and to external services (e.g., public web services, or SaaS services such as Office365 or Salesforce) that reside in the public cloud or reside in private datacenter accessible through the Internet. As further described below, SaaS in some embodiments is a software distribution model in which a third-party provider hosts applications and makes them available to customers over the Internet.”
As cab be SaaS provider (platforms) host applications and make them available to customers over the internet, thus tenant are hosted on platforms to provide the services.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, the claims have been amended to recite the features "wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform, and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines. " (Pg. 14)
Fig. 1c teaches multiple tenants providers, such as SaaS provider of Tenant 1, and SaaS provider of Tenant 2. These providers, are providing platform that host one or more application (SaaS (Software as a Service)).
Para 0062 recites:
“[0062] In some embodiments, each MFN (i.e., the group of components the conceptually forms an MFN) can be shared by different tenants of the virtual network provider that deploys and configures the MFNs in the public cloud datacenters. Conjunctively, or alternatively, the virtual network provider in some embodiments can deploy a unique set of MFNs in one or more public cloud datacenters for a particular tenant. For instance, a particular tenant might not wish to share MFN resources with another tenant for security reasons or quality of service reasons. For such a tenant, the virtual network provider can deploy its own set of MFNs across several public cloud datacenters.”
Thus, the reference explicitly teaches wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform (Fig. 1C, SaaS provider of Tenan1, and SaaS provider of Tenant 2), and wherein the first solution listing or the second solution listing includes one or more applications that are executed on one or more host machines (SaaS (Software as a Service)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Waseem Ashraf whose telephone number is (571) 270-3948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 7:00 A.M EST to 7:00 P.M EST, and Thursday 7:00 A.M EST to 11:00 A.M 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 hittoy/Awww uspte.qoy/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tariq Hafiz can be reached on (571) 272-5350. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights