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 communication is in response to the remarks and amendments dated 8/18/2025. Claims 1-11 as amended and newly presented claims 12-14, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, (Remarks, Pages 7-8), “Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended patent eligible consistent with claim 1 of example 37 of the Patent Eligibility Guidelines because it recites a technical improvement. Consistent with claim 1 of example 37, of the Patent Eligibility Guidelines, claim 1 recites a ‘specific manner’ of ‘automatically’ executing ‘the customization based on the customization information’ as amended, claim 1 recites that the customization of the layout information of the customized service. Accordingly, the system automatically changes the layout of the customized service in the same way claim 1 of example 37 automatically reorganizes icons on the display”.
However, while the claim states that the customization is happens “automatically”, it is not ascertainable in the claim what the technical improvements are. It is recommended that the claim be amended to add more specifics of what the customized is, beyond broadly mentioning an adjustment of the layout information.
Applicant also argues (Remarks, Page 8), “Applicant also submits that new claim 13, which clarifies that the layout information is information relating to a layout of a plurality of screens to be provided in the customized service, is patent eligible. Applicant submits that this claim furthers the argument of claim 1 that the claim is similar to claim 1 of example 37 because claim 13 further clarifies how the layout information relates to the depiction of the customized service.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "The contract partner server" in lines 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the multi-tenant server" in lines 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the multi-tenant server" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are directed to the abstract idea of customizing and offering services to users. Further, the claims as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include inventive concept.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “the key question is ‘whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (referring to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “In this regard, [examiners] must articulate with specificity what the claims are directed to.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “[a]dding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 885 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Importantly, “[w]e [] assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]oundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018) citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 *2013).
Furthermore, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). “The fact that an identifier [or utilization of the underlying abstract idea] can be used to make a process more efficient . . . does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.” Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1728 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017). Importantly, the CAFC “ha[s] held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity, Appeal No. 2017-1147 (Fed. Cir. 2017) citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1355.
Here, the examiner finds the claims are not directed to “an improvement to computer technology," such as found in Enfish, but to the abstract idea itself.1 Examiners have been instructed to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract. Accordingly, the examiner refers to groupings that relate to concepts similar to the claimed concepts:
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Certain Methods of organizing human activities
Fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
As indicated above, the claims are directed to similar concepts.2 Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.3
Prong two considerations:
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claims do not include any structure or additional elements. The claim merely consists of method steps that are directed to data operations.
Regarding preemption, the examiner notes that “[w]hile preemption may signal ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this [application], preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
The claim elements that are considered the abstract idea are highlighted and the additional limitations are in boldface font below:
1. A multi-tenant system, comprising at least one processor configured to:
acquire, from a contract partner system of a contract partner contracted with a vendor of a multi-tenant service, customization information relating to customization specific to the contract partner;
automatically execute the customization based on the customization information; and
automatically provide a customized service, which is the multi-tenant service on which the customization has been executed, to a user who has performed a predetermined usage application;
wherein the customization comprises adjusting a layout information of the customized service.
3. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein in the contract partner system, the customization information is generated based on application content designated by the user in the predetermined usage application, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire the customization information generated based on the application content from the contract partner system; and execute the customization corresponding to the application content.
4. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the user uses a contract partner service independently provided by the contract partner, wherein in the contract partner system, the customization information is generated based on user information on the user in the contract partner service, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire the customization information generated based on the user information from the contract partner system; and execute the customization corresponding to the user information.
5. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the user uses an original service, which is the multi-tenant service originally provided by the vendor, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the customization based on the customization information and user information on the user in the original service.
6. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to create an environment for the customized service when the predetermined usage application is received.
8. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: issue predetermined authentication information when the user has performed the predetermined usage application; execute authentication relating to the contract partner system based on the predetermined authentication information; and acquire, when the authentication is successful, the customization information from the contract partner system.
9. The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the multi-tenant service is a task support service for supporting a task, and wherein the customization is customization specific to a task relating to a contract partner service independently provided by the contract partner.
Claim 12 (New): The multi-tenant system according to claim 1,
wherein the contract partner server sends a request to the multi-tenant server to create an environment for a customized service;
wherein the multi-tenant server creates the environment for the customized service;
wherein the multi-tenant server transmits the environment for the customized service to the contract partner server;
wherein the contract partner server transmits customization information to the multi-tenant server;
wherein the multi-tenant server customizes the environment for the customized service and
transmits a result of the customization to the contract partner server; and
wherein the contract partner server notifies the user that the customized service is ready to use.
Claim 13 (New): The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the layout
information is information relating to a layout of a plurality of screens to be provided in the customized service.
Claim 14 (New): The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the contract partner system is a third party system with respect to the multi-tenant sever
The claim does not include additional elements, (individually or as an ordered combination), that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the at least one processor, servers and plurality of screens are merely performing routine functions.
Significantly More Analysis
“[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, ‘we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Inc. v. InvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites “significantly more” than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. “As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo[] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo].” Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, “[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two.” West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database’ . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement”; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any “additional elements” in the claims that constitute “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those “additional features” must be more than “well understood, routine, conventional activity.” See Alice. To note, “under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered . . . abstract idea[] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “inventive concept” can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.”)(emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)(“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims ‘so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.’)”). Furthermore, “[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes “an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
the at least one processor are merely performing routine functions.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply determines interactions using data, which is considered an abstract idea, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The indicated claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-6 and 8-9 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
In sum, the examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. InvestPic, “[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.” Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter.
For the reasons stated, the examiner does not find the claims to recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waite (U.S. Patent No. 9,791,993).
As per claims 1, 10 and 11, Waite discloses a service provision method, non-transitory information storage medium and multi-tenant system, comprising at least one processor configured to
(Col. 3:5–17, Fig. 1: Multi-tenant system (100) with processors (102, 104) hosting multiple tenants (120, 122, 124)):
acquire, from a contract partner system of a contract partner contracted with a vendor of a multi-tenant service, customization information relating to customization specific to the contract partner
(Col. 5:1–44, Col. 7:9–35: Customization info received from tenant/partner via APIs or admin UI; see also Col. 11:42–65.);
automatically execute the customization based on the customization information
(Col. 5:45–67, Col. 8:1–30: System applies customization to data, UI, workflows, etc., based on received info.); and
automatically provide a customized service, which is the multi-tenant service on which the customization has been executed, to a user who has performed a predetermined usage application
(Col. 6:1–25, Col. 12:1–30: Users access tenant-specific, customized applications and data; see also Figs. 2, 4.);
wherein the customization comprises adjusting a layout information of the customized service
(Col. 5:45–67, Col. 8:1–30: System applies customization to data, UI, workflows, etc., based on received info.).
As per claim 2, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the customization by utilizing a customization API which is the same as a customization API of an original service, which is the multi-tenant service originally provided by the vendor (Col. 7:9–35, Col. 11:42–65: Same APIs and metadata model used for both original and customized (partner/OEM) tenants.).
As per claim 3, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein in the contract partner system, the customization information is generated based on application content designated by the user in the predetermined usage application (Col. 5:1–44: Tenant/partner provides customization data based on user or business requirements.), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire the customization information generated based on the application content from the contract partner system (Col. 7:9–35: APIs/UI for receiving customization info from partner.); and
execute the customization corresponding to the application content
(Col. 8:1–30: System applies customizations as specified by the partner/tenant.).
As per claim 4, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1,
wherein the user uses a contract partner service independently provided by the contract partner (Col. 12:1–30: Tenants/partners can provide their own branded/customized services.), wherein in the contract partner system, the customization information is generated based on user information on the user in the contract partner service (Col. 5:1–44; Col. 8:1–30: Customizations can be based on user-specific data.), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire the customization information generated based on the user information from the contract partner system (Col. 7:9–35.); and execute the customization corresponding to the user information (Col. 8:1–30.)
As per claim 5, Waite discloses The multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the user uses an original service (Col. 12:1–30: Users can access non-customized (original) service.), which is the multi-tenant service originally provided by the vendor, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the customization based on the customization information and user information on the user in the original service (Col. 8:1–30: System supports user-level customization.).
As per claim 6, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to create an environment for the customized service when the predetermined usage application is received (Col. 5:45–67, Col. 11:42–65: Environment (e.g., tenant instance, subdomain) is created and customized automatically upon tenant onboarding or application.).
As per claim 7, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire the customization information from the contract partner system based on a customization API different from an environment creation API for creating the environment (Col. 5:45–67, Col. 11:42–65: Environment (e.g., tenant instance, subdomain) is created and customized automatically upon tenant onboarding or application.).
As per claim 8, Waite discloses claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
issue predetermined authentication information when the user has performed the predetermined usage application (Col. 6:26–67: System issues credentials to tenants/users.);
execute authentication relating to the contract partner system based on the predetermined authentication information (Col. 6:26–67: Authentication step before allowing access/customization.); and
acquire, when the authentication is successful, the customization information from the contract partner system (Col. 7:9–35, Col. 8:1–30: Customization only after authentication.).
As per claim 9, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the multi-tenant service is a task support service for supporting a task (Col. 1:33–54, Col. 12:1–30: Examples include CRM, workflow, and task management applications.),
and wherein the customization is customization specific to a task relating to a contract partner service independently provided by the contract partner (Col. 8:1–30: Custom objects, workflows, and logic for partner-specific tasks.).
As per claim 12, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the contract partner server sends a request to the multi-tenant server to create an environment for a customized service (Col. 5:45–67; Fig. 4: Partner/tenant system sends request to create a new environment (tenant instance) via API or admin UI.);
wherein the multi-tenant server creates the environment for the customized service (Col. 5:45–67; Col. 11:42–65; Fig. 4: Multi-tenant server provisions (creates) a new tenant environment in response to the request.);
wherein the multi-tenant server transmits the environment for the customized service to the contract partner server (Col. 6:1–25; Col. 11:42–65: Server provides endpoint, credentials, or access details for the new tenant environment to the partner (e.g., subdomain, login info);
wherein the contract partner server transmits customization information to the multi-tenant server (Col. 5:1–44; Col. 7:9–35: Partner/tenant submits customization metadata (objects, layouts, logic) to the multi-tenant server via API.);
wherein the multi-tenant server customizes the environment for the customized service and transmits a result of the customization to the contract partner server (Col. 8:1–30; Col. 11:42–65: Multi-tenant server applies customizations and may return confirmation/status/result to the partner system.);
and wherein the contract partner server notifies the user that the customized service is ready to use (Col. 12:1–30; Col. 8:1–30: Partner system notifies its users when the custom environment is ready (e.g., via UI, email, or workflow).
As per claim 13, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the layout
information is information relating to a layout of a plurality of screens to be provided in the customized service (Col. 8:1–30; Col. 5:1–44; Col. 7:9–35: The system supports customization of layouts for multiple screens, pages, or user interfaces within the tenant’s application (e.g., custom page layouts, UI elements, navigation, dashboards, etc.).
As per claim 14, Waite discloses the multi-tenant system according to claim 1, wherein the contract partner system is a third party system with respect to the multi-tenant server (Col. 3:5–17; Col. 5:1–44; Col. 7:9–35; Col. 12:1–30; Fig. 1: The patent describes tenants, partners, or OEMs as external entities (third parties) that interact with the multi-tenant server via APIs and interfaces. For example, Col. 5:1–44 discusses customization information received from partner/tenant systems, which are distinct and external to the core multi-tenant platform. Col. 12:1–30 further describes partners providing their own branded/customized services using the multi-tenant platform, explicitly as third-party entities.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited form attached.
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 SEYE IWARERE whose telephone number is (571)270-5112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 16:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016) (“The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independent abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”).
2 “[The examiner] need not define the outer limits of ‘abstract idea,’ or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea—and hence require stage two analysis under § 101.” Electric Power Group, LLC. V. Alstom, case no. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016).
3 As stated in the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.”
Prosecution Insights