DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application was filed 12 August 2024 and is a continuation of 16/752,497 filed on 24 January 2020.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art for the reasons set forth at pp. 12-14 of the 21 March 2024 PTAB decision in parent application 16/752,497.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are compared to claims 1-12 of US Pat. No. 12,106,081 in the following table:
Instant Application
US Pat. No. 12,106,081
Claim 1 – A computer-implemented method for uploading tenant code to a multi-tenant system to share document data, comprising:
receiving a metadata definition language (“MDL”) representation of tenant code from a computing device over a network;
storing the tenant code as source code metadata in a first repository of the multi-tenant system;
registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system;
receiving a request for the tenant code from a server of the multi-tenant system when there is a predetermined event;
extracting the tenant code from the source code metadata for execution;
executing the tenant code to create, in a second repository of the multi-tenant system, a temporary copy of a source document in the first repository of the multi-tenant system, with information of the source document transferred from the first repository of the multi-tenant system to the second repository; and
displaying the temporary copy of the source document before copying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 1 – A computer-implemented method for uploading tenant code to a multi-tenant system to share document data, comprising:
enabling display of a first interface for receiving tenant code, wherein the tenant code is Java source code developed by a tenant of the multi-tenant system and can run on a Java platform provided by the multi-tenant system, and wherein the first interface comprises an area for receiving the tenant code;
receiving a metadata definition language (“MDL”) representation of the tenant code from a computing device over a network;
storing the tenant code as source code metadata in a first repository of the multi-tenant system;
registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system;
receiving a request for the tenant code from a server of the multi-tenant system when there is a predetermined event;
extracting the tenant code from the source code metadata for execution;
executing the tenant code to create, in a second repository of the multi-tenant system, a temporary copy of a source document in the first repository of the multi-tenant system, with information of the source document transferred from the first repository of the multi-tenant system to the second repository; and
displaying the temporary copy of the source document before copying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 2 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: enabling display of a first interface for receiving tenant code, wherein the first interface comprises an area for receiving the tenant code.
Claim 1 – … enabling display of a first interface for receiving tenant code…wherein the first interface comprises an area for receiving the tenant code;
Claim 3 – The method of claim 2, wherein the first interface is an application programing interface (“API”).
Claim 2 – The method of claim 1, wherein the first interface is an application programing interface (“API”).
Claim 4 – The method of claim 2, wherein the first interface is a user interface.
Claim 3 – The method of claim 1, wherein the first interface is a user interface.
Claim 5 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the tenant code is executable in the multi-tenant system.
Claim 4 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the tenant code is executable in the multi-tenant system
Claim 6 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the multi-tenant system allows execution of the tenant code.
Claim 5 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the multi-tenant system allows execution of the tenant code.
Claim 7 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating an object in the multi-tenant system to establish a connection between the first and second repositories
Claim 6 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating an object in the multi-tenant system to establish a connection between the first and second repositories.
Claim 8 – The method of claim 6, further comprising: validating the connection between the first and second repositories
Claim 7 – The method of claim 6, further comprising: validating the connection between the first and second repositories.
Claim 9 – The method of claim 1, wherein the information of the source document transferred from the first repository to the second repository comprises metadata of the source document.
Claim 8 – The method of claim 1, wherein the information of the source document transferred from the first repository to the second repository comprises metadata of the source document
Claim 10 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending information for identifying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 9 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending information for identifying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 11 – The method of claim 9, wherein the information for identifying the source document comprises: a document number of the source document, rendition type of the source document, and attachment version of the source document.
Claim 10 – The method of claim 9, wherein the information for identifying the source document comprises: a document number of the source document, rendition type of the source document, and attachment version of the source document
Claim 12 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an application programing interface (“API”) call to the first repository to obtain information of the source document.
Claim 11 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an application programing interface (“API”) call to the first repository to obtain information of the source document.
Claim 13 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: transferring a copy of the source document to the second repository in response to a request for the copy of the source document.
Claim 12 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: transferring a copy of the source document to the second repository in response to a request for the copy of the source document.
Claim 14 – The method of claim 1, further comprising: registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system.
Claim 1 – … registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system…
Claim 15 – A computer-implemented method for uploading tenant code to a multi-tenant system to share document data, comprising:
enabling display of a first interface for receiving tenant code, wherein the first interface comprises an area for receiving the tenant code;
receiving the tenant code via the first interface from a computing device over a network;
storing the tenant code as source code metadata in a first repository of the multi-tenant system;
receiving a request for the tenant code from a server of the multi-tenant system when there is a predetermined event;
extracting the tenant code from the source code metadata for execution; and
executing the tenant code to create, in a second repository of the multi-tenant system, a temporary copy of a source document in the first repository of the multi-tenant system, with information of the source document transferred from the first repository of the multi-tenant system to the second repository.
Claim 1 – A computer-implemented method for uploading tenant code to a multi-tenant system to share document data, comprising:
enabling display of a first interface for receiving tenant code, wherein the tenant code is Java source code developed by a tenant of the multi-tenant system and can run on a Java platform provided by the multi-tenant system, and wherein the first interface comprises an area for receiving the tenant code;
receiving a metadata definition language (“MDL”) representation of the tenant code from a computing device over a network;
storing the tenant code as source code metadata in a first repository of the multi-tenant system;
registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system;
receiving a request for the tenant code from a server of the multi-tenant system when there is a predetermined event;
extracting the tenant code from the source code metadata for execution;
executing the tenant code to create, in a second repository of the multi-tenant system, a temporary copy of a source document in the first repository of the multi-tenant system, with information of the source document transferred from the first repository of the multi-tenant system to the second repository; and
displaying the temporary copy of the source document before copying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 16 – The method of claim 15, wherein the first interface is an application programing interface (“API”)
Claim 2 – The method of claim 1, wherein the first interface is an application programing interface (“API”).
Claim 17 – The method of claim 15, wherein the first interface is a user interface.
Claim 3 – The method of claim 1, wherein the first interface is a user interface.
Claim 18 – The method of claim 15, further comprising: displaying the temporary copy of the source document before copying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 1 -- … displaying the temporary copy of the source document before copying the source document from the first repository to the second repository.
Claim 19 – The method of claim 15, wherein the tenant code is received as a metadata definition language (“MDL”) representation of the tenant code
Claim 1 -- … receiving a metadata definition language (“MDL”) representation of the tenant code…
Claim 20 – The method of claim 15, further comprising: registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system.
Claim 1 -- … registering the tenant code with a tenant code registry of the multi-tenant system…
It is also noted that the present application and the issued claims share the same assignee and inventors.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of issued patent no. 12,106,081. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the issued claims anticipate all of the instant claims as set forth in the above table.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 14, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because it is dependent on claim 1 but only adds limitations already recited by claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 12,106,081 is cited because it is the patent issued from the parent application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights