Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 4/18/2024, with priority to PRO 63/462,868 Filing Date 04/28/2023.
Claim(s) 1-23 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 12, 23 is/are independent claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-16, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paradis; Jean-Francois et al. US Pub. No. 20190238559 (Paradis).
Claim 1:
Paradis teaches:
A method comprising:
providing a computer comprising a microprocessor [¶ 0034, 44, 46] (Figs. 1A-1B, computer with processor);
providing a customizable console [¶ 0147, 139, 154] (customization ability, community branding is also a type of customization) [¶ 0139, 154-155] (Figs. 13A-13B, interfaces for selecting community theming options for color and font, this interface could be considered a “console”) within the context of a cloud environment [¶ 32-34, 60] (services can be provided in a cloud computing environment) [see also ¶ 0003, 57, 63, 96, 108, 120, 134] (see these paragraphs for additional discussion of the cloud environment), the customizable console providing access to subscription-based products, services, and other offerings [¶ 0041] (a subscriber of on-demand services) [see also ¶ 48, 76-78, 80, 83, 85-86, 90, 92] (see these paragraphs for addition discussion of subscriber, membership or subscription);
providing access to the customizable console within the context of the cloud environment [¶ 0150-152] (displaying the interface could be considered “providing access” to the “console”, retrieval and display of JSON content from an external CMS system, the cloud environment and customization is discussed in the limitation above); and
customizing, by a first entity associated with a first tenancy of the cloud environment, the customizable console via a configuration service [¶ 0032] (the different cloud services list could each be considered a “configuration service”), wherein the configuration service generates a console configuration resource in response to received instructions [¶ 0157-159] (user input could be considered “received instructions”, receive user input for the display of JSON content and for display of the user chosen content on a community page) from the first entity associated with the first tenancy [¶ 0051-56] (user-specific data and tenant-specific data, the system also can maintain system level data usable by multiple tenants or other data, the cloud environment and customization is discussed in the limitations above), the generated console configuration resource being utilized in customizing the customizable console when access is provided to the customizable console [¶ 0035-36] (provide access, users accessing the on-demand database service via user systems).
Claim 2:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the generated console configuration resource at a first storage location [¶ 0036-37, 47, 51-52, 63-65, 68, 70-71] (application platform manages the creation and storage of the applications into one or more database objects and the execution of the applications in one or more virtual machines in the process space of the system).
Claim 3:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 2,
wherein the first storage location comprises a preview storage; and
wherein, based upon the generated console configuration resource being stored at the preview storage location, a live preview of the console is generated for use within a console configuration user interface [¶ 0107] (preview mode, FIG. 1B, for a visitor to a web page (or its administrator, in a preview mode), the settings may be transferred to the client, reside in memory 12B and be used by processor 12A to display various output systems 12B, and even possibly input systems 12C, depending on the content retrieved from the remote system).
Claim 4:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
tokenizing the generated console configuration resource prior to being stored at the first storage location and the second storage location [¶ 0139, 154] (theme may be implemented as CSS tokens defined in that community for, for example, color, fonts).
Claim 5:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein received instructions comprise of a set of selected colors for use within the customizable console, the method further comprising:
based upon the received instructions, generating a color palette comprising a plurality of colors for use within the customizable console, the color palette comprising colors having perceptual similarity to the set of colors [¶ 0155] (Fig. 13A, choosing color themes for a community in accordance with various implementations. a user may select a different color for each of text, text detail, action, link, overlay text, borders, or page background).
Claim 9:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the generated console configuration resource follows a lifecycle that supports generation, modification, deletion and unpublishing [¶ 0036-37, 56, 141] (creation, management and execution of one or more applications developed by the provider of the on-demand database service) [¶ 0051] (add and remove application servers).
Claim 10:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein, prior to receiving instructions at the configuration service, the instructions are received at a proxy [¶ 0061, 64, 103, 113, 122-130, 143] (proxy);
wherein the proxy performs at least one authentication, authorization, auditing, and load balancing [¶ 0128, 141-145] (authentication).
Claim 11:
Paradis teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the received instructions are received from the first tenancy of the cloud environment, the first tenancy being associated with a first identity provider [¶ 0032-38, 47-48] (multi-tenant database system); and
wherein the configuration service is associated with a second tenancy of the cloud environment, the second tenancy being associated with a second identity provider [¶ 0051-56] (user-specific data and tenant-specific data, the system also can maintain system level data usable by multiple tenants or other data).
Claims 12-16, 20-23:
Claim(s) 12, 23 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 12 is a “system” claim and claim 23 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 9 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 21 is/are substantially similar to claim 10 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 22 is/are substantially similar to claim 11 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-8, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis; Jean-Francois et al. US Pub. No. 20190238559 (Paradis) in view of Chen; Chun-Chi et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0370605 (Chen).
Claim 6:
Paradis teaches all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Paradis teaches tokenizing [¶ 0139, 154] (theme may be implemented as CSS tokens defined in that community for, for example, color, fonts) and a color palette[¶ 0155] (Fig. 13A, choosing color themes for a community in accordance with various implementations. a user may select a different color for each of text, text detail, action, link, overlay text, borders, or page background), but it is unclear if the palette is tokenized.
Paradis does not appear to explicitly disclose “tokenizing each of the plurality of colors of the generated color palette”.
However, the disclosure of Chen teaches:
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
tokenizing each of the plurality of colors of the generated color palette [¶ 0059-60] (palette token block includes a plurality of palette token values, and each of the palette token values may be an index into the list of palette colors that identifies the palette color).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of customizing interfaces in Paradis and the method of tokenizing color palettes in Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of tokenizing color palettes in Chen could be applied to the method of customizing cloud interfaces in Paradis. Paradis and Chen are similar devices because both output an interface with a color palette and websites from a web server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved portability and faster implementation of web pages and user interfaces.
Claim 7:
The combination of Paradis and Chen discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Paradis, which teaches:
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a further instruction to publish the customizable console [¶ 0096-99, 127, 161] (application deployment, securely inserting portions of HTML pages maintained on external web servers into an online community web page),
storing the generated console configuration resource at a second storage location, the second storage location comprising a production storage [¶ 0034, 44, 46] (Figs. 1A-1B, different storage components);
generating a live version of the customizable console by polling the storage location to detect the generated console configuration resource stored therein [¶ 0096-99, 127, 161] (application deployment, securely inserting portions of HTML pages maintained on external web servers into an online community web page, deploying to a web page could be considered “generating a live version”).
Claim 8:
The combination of Paradis and Chen discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Paradis, which teaches:
The method of claim 7,
wherein the live console is accessible by a customer of the cloud environment ¶ 0147, 139, 154] (customization ability, community branding) [¶ 0139, 154-155] (Figs. 13A-13B, interfaces for selecting community theming options for color and font) [¶ 0041, 48, 76-78, 80, 83, 85-86, 90, 92] (subscriber, membership or subscription) [¶ 0003, 32-34, 57, 60, 63, 96, 108, 120, 134] (services can be provided in a cloud computing environment).
Claims 17-19:
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Akhoury; Arnav et al. US 20240107122 teaches: cloud, customize the appearance of the user interface provided by the resource access application, such as logos, color, and preferences.
Hargrove; Alex J. et al. US 20200396274 teaches: a cloud-based, enterprise-customizable (i.e. “branded”) multi-tenant service interface which can automatically provide the enterprise-branded look and feel of the user interface presented to a user of the system.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights