DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2025, 09/22/2025 and 11/07/2025 have been considered by the Examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to the Amendment.
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on October 17, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 19 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or newly added. Claims 1-20 presented for the examination and remain pending in the application.
The previous objection to claims 3, 12 and 20 has been withdrawn due to the claims amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0160231 A1,(hereinafter Kumar) in view of Tsurbeleu et al. U.S. 20170171211 A1, (hereinafter Tsurbeleu) further in view of Pub. No. Carru et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0168128 A1, (hereinafter Carru).
Regarding claim 1.
Kumar teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a multi-cloud console of a multi-cloud infrastructure, the request including a first token that is generated by a first identity system associated with the first cloud environment, (Kumar teaches in Fig. 2 and Para. [0039] Fig. 2 shows two different cloud services environment and various applications/services in cloud 208 such as cloud services 210, cloud applications 212, and further, Kumar teaches in Para. [0017] a system that implements a number of microservices in a stateless middle tier to provide cloud-based multi-tenant identity and access management services (i.e., note that here the multi-tenants accessing the service in a cloud system indicates a multi-cloud console that enable customers to configure or access resources) each requested identity management service is broken into real-time and near-real-time tasks…, while the near-real-time tasks are offloaded to a message queue implements tokens (i.e., note that here one of the tokens is “a first token”) that are consumed by a routing tier to enforce a security model for accessing the microservices. Accordingly, embodiments provide a cloud-scale IAM platform based on a multi-tenant, microservices architecture and further teaches in Para. [0127] in a cloud-based service structure uses tokens to determine who is using what application to access which resources. The three tenancies are codified by tokens, enforced by Cloud Gate, and used by the business services in the middle tier…, an OAuth server generates the tokens…, the tokens may be used in conjunction with any security protocol other than OAuth. Additionally, see Para. [0132] how each tenant or user request services), and authorizing, by a platform, the user based on the first token, the authorizing including verifying identity information associated with the user, wherein the identity information is previously migrated from a second identity system associated with the second cloud environment to the first identity system of the first cloud environment (Kumar teaches in Para. [0166] OAuth microservice 1004 (i.e., platform which authorization) may receive an authorization request from browser 1002 to authenticate a user of an application according to 3-legged OAuth flow… Browser 1002 sends the AZ code to OAuth microservice 1004 to request the required tokens 1032…, and further teaches in Para. [0167] OAuth microservice 1004 may receive an authorization request from a native application 1011 to authenticate a user according to a 2-legged OAuth flow. In this case, an authentication manager 1034 in OAuth microservice 1004 performs the corresponding authentication (e.g., based on ID/password received from a client 1011) and a token manager 1036 issues a corresponding access token upon successful authentication…, and further teaches in Para. [0229] enterprise migration to cloud based services has accelerated. Enterprises that want to migrate their existing identity (i.e., previously migrated) solution to a cloud-based identity solution can migrate their users' identities). While, Kumar teaches about two different cloud services environments in Fig. 2 and in the [Abstract] and Para. [0003] access to one or more cloud-based services (i.e., note that here the term “one or more cloud-based services indicate the claimed “a first and a second cloud services provider”). Also see Para. [0030], [0034]and [0039]). Kumar does not explicitly teach multi-cloud infrastructure included in a first cloud environment that is provided by a first cloud services provider, a request for a service from a user of a second cloud environment that is provided by a second cloud services provider and wherein the first cloud services provider is different than the second cloud services provider.
However, Tsurbeleu teaches included in a first cloud environment that is provided by a first cloud services provider, a request for a service from a user of a second cloud environment that is provided by a second cloud services provider and wherein the first cloud services provider is different than the second cloud services provider (Tsurbeleu teaches in Figs. 3 and 4 and Para. [0020] two cloud systems. Each cloud system 301, 305 has its own identity system 302, 306 and its own API layer 303, 307…, and [0031] an example method for accessing resources across a plurality of distributed computing networks. In step 401, a resource is provided on a first computing network…, one or more first security tokens are loaded from the first identity system to allow a user on the first computing network to access the first extension. In step 403, one or more second security tokens are loaded from the remote computing network to allow the user on the first computing network to access the second extension).
Therefore, Kumar and Tsurbeleu are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to access multiple resources in a cloud system and infrastructure to request for a service based on a deployment of a resource associated with the multiple tenancies by using two different cloud services in separated areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using two different cloud services providers (Figs. 3 and 4 and Para. [0020] and [0032]) as taught, by Tsurbeleu into the teachings of Kumar invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the system frees the enterprise users from managing information technology infrastructure, such that cloud computing provides virtually limitless compute, storage, and network resources at low cost, while allowing services to scale on demand. The system provides a software-as-a-service offering to deliver a single finished application or suite of applications to customers through a web browser, thus eliminating need to manage underlying components of an information technology stack including application code.
Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu does not explicitly teach deploying, by a multi-cloud control plane of the multi-cloud infrastructure, in response to the user being successfully verified, a resource associated with the service in a tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment.
However, Carru teaches deploying, by a multi-cloud control plane of the multi-cloud infrastructure, in response to the user being successfully verified, a resource associated with the service in a tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment (Carru teaches in Para. [0224]-[0225] signing key pair exists in each IDCS deployment…, access token that can be acquired only by the “Global IDCS Client” in one region…, and further Carru teaches in para. [0205] deployments (designated as “CP”). An island is a collection of regions that are integrated into one “cloud” and managed by one control plane…, a typical control plane deployment can serve one or more regions…, and further teaches in Para. [0206] customer account is maintained by cloud 1300 for each user/customer that buys/gets various public cloud services. One type of service available to a customer can be a multi-tenant identity management service (i.e., the multi-cloud infrastructure), and also teaches in Para. [0134] a service knows how to work with different tenants, and the multiple tenancies are different dimensions in the business function of a service. FIG. 8…, function of the OAuth microservice is performed in microservice 804 using data from database 806 to verify that the request of client 802 is legitimate, and if it is legitimate (i.e., note that here the client or the user is successfully verified), use the data from different tenancies 808 to construct the token and further teaches in Para. [0244]-[0245] to validate the global access token, in one embodiment the following sequence of events in the remote region of the global IDCS client (i.e., the region in which the client DOES NOT HAVE a physical footprint) are performed and Global IDCS Client tries to access the resource by presenting the ‘Global Token’).
Therefore, Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu and Carru are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to access multiple resources in a cloud system and infrastructure to request for a service based on a deployment of a resource associated with the multiple tenancies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of deployments (designated as “CP”). An island is a collection of regions that are integrated into one “cloud” and managed by one control plane. For example, control plane 1310 and a service knows how to work with different tenants, and the multiple tenancies are different dimensions in the business function of a service ([0205]-[0206] and [0134]) as taught, by Carru into the teachings of Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the experience and efficiency of the end user and to reduce costs from help desk calls. A single consistent security model for protecting the entire system, thereby allowing for outstanding security compliance since the fewer security models implemented in a system.
Regarding claim 2.
Kumar teaches receiving, at a sign-on portal of the first cloud environment, credentials of the user, wherein the first token is generated by the first identity system in response to successfully authenticating the credentials, and wherein the sign-on portal is different than the multi-cloud console of the multi-cloud infrastructure (Kumar teaches in Para. [0017] a system that implements a number of microservices in a stateless middle tier to provide cloud-based multi-tenant identity and access management services (i.e., note that here the multi-tenants accessing the service in a cloud system indicates a multi-cloud console that enable customers to configure or access resources and further, Kumar teaches in para. [0024] Identity Cloud Service (“IDCS”) that is a multi-tenant, cloud-scale, IAM platform… For example, IDCS can be used to provide Single Sign On (“SSO”) functionality across such variety of services/applications/systems and further teaches in Para. [0164] SSO microservice 1008 provides login ceremony 1018, ID/password recovery 1020, first time login flow 1022, an authentication manager 1024… Authentication manager 1024 issues authentication tokens upon successful authentication. HTTP cookie manager 1026 saves the authentication token in an SSO cookie).
Regarding claim 6.
Kumar teaches instantiating, by the multi-cloud control plane, a service account in the second cloud environment, the service account being associated with a cloud services provider of the first cloud environment (Kumar teaches in Para. [0018] provides an identity cloud service that enables organizations to rapidly develop fast, reliable, and secure services for their new business initiatives. In one embodiment, the identity cloud service… The identity cloud service also supports end users in, for example, modifying profiles, setting primary/recovery emails, verifying emails, unlocking their accounts, changing passwords, recovering passwords in case of forgotten password, etc. and further teaches in Para. [0067] provides privileged account to prevent unauthorized insider account use. The main component of a PAM solution is a password vault which may be delivered in various ways, e.g., as software to be installed on an enterprise server, as a virtual appliance also on an enterprise server, as a packaged hardware/software appliance, or as part of a cloud service (i.e., note that here the privileged account is in the second cloud environment)); and
obtaining, by the multi-cloud control plane, access to a user's account in the second cloud environment via the service account (Kumar teaches in Para. [0276] the user can use an Authenticator application and enter the OTP (i.e., one time password) displayed against his account. After receiving the OTP, the service (e.g., IDCS) can then fetch the shared secret for this user and generate a new OTP. It can then be checked whether the OTP generated matches the OTP entered by the user, and if so, access is granted. Also, see Para. [0101] and [0111]).
Regarding claim 7.
Kumar teaches wherein the identity information of the user is migrated from the second identity system associated with the second cloud environment to the first identity system of the first cloud environment based on a trust configured between the service account and the user's account in the second cloud environment (Kumar teaches in Para. [0229] enterprise migration to cloud based services has accelerated. Enterprises that want to migrate their existing identity (i.e., previously migrated) solution to a cloud-based identity solution can migrate their users' identities and also teaches in Para. [0067] provides privileged account management (“PAM”). Generally, every organization, whether using SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, or on-premise applications, is vulnerable to unauthorized privileged account abuse by insiders with super-user access credentials such as system administrators, executives, HR officers, contractors, systems integrators, etc. Moreover, outside threats typically first breach a low-level user account to eventually reach and exploit privileged user access controls within the enterprise system…The main component of a PAM solution is a password vault which may be delivered in various ways, e.g., as software to be installed on an enterprise server, as a virtual appliance also on an enterprise server, as a packaged hardware/software appliance, or as part of a cloud service (i.e., note that here a second cloud service is the second cloud environment)).
Regarding claim 9.
Kumar does not explicitly teach establishing a network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, the network link facilitating, access of the resource that is deployed in the tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment, from the second cloud environment.
However, Carru teaches establishing a network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, the network link facilitating, access of the resource that is deployed in the tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment, from the second cloud environment (Carru teaches in Para. [0206] a customer account is maintained by cloud 1300 for each user/customer that buys/gets various public cloud services (i.e., note that here various cloud services include “the first and the second cloud environments”). One type of service available to a customer can be a multi-tenant identity management service,… For example, a control plane component defined in one region may desire to access an IDCS customer tenancy located another region (i.e., hosted in a different IDCS deployment) and this requires establishment of trust between these deployments in a way to allow components/customers assigned to an IDCS in one region to invoke IDCS APIs (e.g., to access a specific microservice of IDCS microservices 614 of FIG. 6) against an IDCS in other regions… Also, see Para. [0212], [0214] and [0218]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of deployments (designated as “CP”). An island is a collection of regions that are integrated into one “cloud” and managed by one control plane. For example, control plane 1310 and a service knows how to work with different tenants, and the multiple tenancies are different dimensions in the business function of a service ([0206]) as taught, by Carru into the teachings of Kumar invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the experience and efficiency of the end user and to reduce costs from help desk calls. A single consistent security model for protecting the entire system, thereby allowing for outstanding security compliance since the fewer security models implemented in a system.
Regarding claims 10 and 19.
Claims 10 and 19 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media and device, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Regarding claim 11.
Claim 11 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 2 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Regarding claim 15.
Claim 15 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Regarding claim 16.
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Claims 3, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru and further in view of Kampas et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0124211 A1, (hereinafter Kampas).
Regarding claim 3. Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru does not explicitly teach wherein the request is received at a GUI of the multi-cloud console, the GUI listing a plurality of services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure.
However, Kampas teaches wherein the request is received at a GUI of the multi-cloud console, the GUI listing a plurality of services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure (Kampas teaches in Para.[0052] an entire environment may be cloned (that is, a like number of instances may be provisioned with identical configurations) also through User Interface 200 through a console (i.e., web-based user interface) and further teaches in Para. [0047] as presented in FIGS. 2-5, example user interfaces (e.g., user interfaces 200, 300, 400, and 500) of an integrated services framework (e.g., the integrated services framework 100) are depicted, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. different resource services displayed on the user interface (i.e., GUI) and Para. [0035] list of displayed services can also change dynamically, depending on the state of the resource and further teaches in Para. [0049] as presented in FIG. 2, the environments are listed as "Development," "Test," "Performance," "Production," and "Q/A." In one embodiment, actuating on an environment in environment window 207 generates user interface 300 (described below), which allows a user to manage the environment separately and also teaches in Para. [0010] a system is implemented which provides cloud computing consumers with the specific tools needed to provision and manage requested cloud computing services from a single web-based portal…, the system may include additional tools for efficiently governing multi-platform cloud computing services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using one or more adaptors in a cloud system ([0069]) as taught, by Kampas into the teachings of Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the system to allow the user to efficiently publish and apply policies, request optimal configurations of resources and services, and standardize integration and alignment of cloud-hosted platforms to comply with industry standards. Reduces the infrastructure of data center and set up and delivery time for cloud operated applications, while maintaining the flexibility to design and deploy alternate and ad hoc configured environments. Improves the efficiency of managing units individually and eliminating the need to access each cloud supplier individually. Improves the efficiency of combining services from multiple cloud providers and from assimilating services from infrastructure clouds with traditional, physical hardware resources.
Regarding claims 12 and 20.
Claims 12 and 20 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media and device, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru and further in view of Mathew et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0124722A1, (hereinafter Mathew).
Regarding claim 4. Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-cloud control plane hosts a cloud-link adaptor, a network link adaptor, and a pool of adaptors, each of which corresponds to a specific service in a set of one or more cloud services provided by the multi-cloud infrastructure.
However, Mathew teaches wherein the multi-cloud control plane hosts a cloud-link adaptor, a network link adaptor, and a pool of adaptors, each of which corresponds to a specific service in a set of one or more cloud services provided by the multi-cloud infrastructure (Mathew teaches in Para. [0069] MCS 122 (i.e., mobile cloud service) may include an adaptor interface configured to support communication with one or more services provided by cloud infrastructure service 102, some of which may support different protocols or techniques for communications, MCS 122 may include an adaptor interface (i.e., cloud link adaptor) configured to support communication with enterprise computer systems 126…, support different protocols or techniques for communications MCS 122 may include one or more adaptors (i.e., pool of adaptors) each of which may be configured to communicate according to a communication protocol (i.e., one or more adaptors are network link adaptor), a type of enterprise computer system, a type of application, a type of service, or combinations thereof. A communication protocol supported by an adaptor may be specific to a service or one or more of enterprise computer systems 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using one or more adaptors in a cloud system ([0069]) as taught, by Mathew into the teachings of Carru by including one or more “Control Plane” deployments (designated as “CP”). An island is a collection of regions that are integrated into one “cloud” and managed by one control plane ([0205]) as taught, by Carru and further in the teachings of Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the cloud infrastructure system comprises a suite of applications, middleware, development service and database service offerings delivered to a customer in a self-service, subscription-based, elastically scalable, reliable, highly available and secure manner. The customers can acquire the application services without the need for customers to purchase separate licenses and support. The utilization of resources is maximized.
Regarding claim 13.
Claim 13 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 4 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru and further in view of Frei et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0142409 A1, (hereinafter Frei).
Regarding claim 5. Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru does not explicitly teach converting, by the multi-cloud control plane, the first token to a second token, the second token being associated with the service and being used to access the service.
However, Frei teaches converting, by the multi-cloud control plane, the first token to a second token, the second token being associated with the service and being used to access the service (Frei teaches in the [Abstract] and Para. [0008] the user authentication token (i.e., the first token) is converted into a proxy token (i.e., the second token) that is not convertible back to the user authentication token. The proxy token is forwarded from the first service to the second service to enable access to the second service (i.e., note that here the proxy token (i.e., the second token) is associated with the service) and additionally, see Para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using one or more adaptors in a cloud system ([0069]) as taught, by Mathew into the teachings of converting an authentication token (i.e., the first token) into a proxy token (i.e., the second token) ([Abstract] and [0008]) as taught, by Frei into the teachings of Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the system enables providing service-to-service user authorization in secure communication in an efficient manner. The system enables providing the second service that is not enabled to generate the user authentication token based on the proxy token to be acceptable by the first service on behalf of the user, thus providing additional security for the user and other users relative to server-to-server and token forwarding techniques.
Regarding claim 14.
Claim 14 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru and further in view of Viswanathan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0197246 A1, (hereinafter Viswanathan).
Regarding claim 8. Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru does not explicitly teach creating, using the multi-cloud infrastructure, a mapping/link between an account of the user in the second cloud environment and the tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment.
However, Viswanathan teaches creating, using the multi-cloud infrastructure, a mapping/link between an account of the user in the second cloud environment and the tenancy associated with the user in the first cloud environment (Viswanathan teaches in Para. [0019] implementing of access control policies may be implemented for a cloud computing environment 110 of multi-tenant services, such as storage services, website hosting services, application creation and execution services, etc. A tenant, such as a user, company, service, application, or other entity, may create a tenancy, such as an account, with the cloud computing environment 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of creating a tenancy, such as an account, with the cloud computing environment 110 ([0019]) as taught, by Viswanathan into the teachings of Kumar in view of Tsurbeleu further in view of Carru invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the access control rule restricts read access to a first time range of the time series data from a particular resource and allows read access to a second time range of the time series data from that resource. Since by permitting use of components and applications developed by third party vendors, a multi-tenant service can significantly enhance the functionality available to tenants and increase tenant satisfaction with the platform. The multi-tenant platforms provide ability for each tenant to customize their instantiation of the integrated business system to that tenant's specific business needs or operational methods. The integrated customer relationship management (CRM) system is designed to assist in obtaining a better understanding of customers, thus, enhance service to existing customers and assist in acquiring new and profitable customers.
Regarding claim 17.
Claim 17 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 8 in a computer readable non-transitory media and a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of non-transitory media, the prior art of record Kumar teaches in Para. [0197]-[0198] and claim 20.
Response to Arguments
§ 103 Rejections
Applicant argues that Carru describes a framework where one or more data centers are integrated into one island that is managed by a control plane of the CSP. Thus, the framework of Carru describes a single CSP which includes one or more regions. In contrast, independent claims have been amended herewith to recite a multi-cloud console of a multi-cloud infrastructure included in a first cloud environment that is provided by a first cloud services provider that receives a request for a service from a user of a second cloud environment that is provided by a second cloud services provider. Applicant has amended the claim to further clarify that the first cloud services provider is different than the second cloud services provider. (Remarks. Pages 9-10).
In response to the above argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the prior art of record Kumar in view of Carru from the same field of endeavor still believed to teach the limitations in question by reciting additional paragraphs to show how the prior art of record Kumar and Carru invention read the claimed limitation in a reasonable manner as indicated in the 103 rejection above. Furthermore, the Examiner has introduced the new prior arts based on the disclosure of Tsurbeleu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0171211 A1) to teach the change in scope of the amended claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and they do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455