DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 19/083,360.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131), further in view of Fan et al. (US Patent Pub 2023/0123841).
Claims 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131), further in view of Langouev et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0063989).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131), further in view of Oukid et al. (US Patent Pub 2019/0171721).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131), further in view of Mordani et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0075019).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, a period is missing at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605) (Dominguez), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131) (Dennis).
In regards to claim 1, Dominguez discloses a method, comprising:
at a computing device having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors (Dominguez at para. 0040):
receiving a request to modify user information with respect to at least a first site of a plurality of sites (Dominguez at para. 0039)1;
in response to the request to modify the user information, executing a first workflow to update the user information (Dominguez at paras. 0042-45)2, including:
updating a global table with temporary changes corresponding to the user information (Dominguez at paras. 0048, 0050)3; and
initiating an update to a local table with the user information, wherein the local table is stored in a database that is associated with a server instance where the first site is deployed at (Dominguez at para. 0053)4;
in accordance with a determination that the update to the local table failed, rolling back the temporary changes made to the global table (Dominguez at paras. 0059)5; and
in accordance with a determination that the update to the local table was successful, committing updates made to the global table and the local table with respect to the user information and marking the first workflow as completed. (Dominguez at Fig. 6; para. 0056)6.
Dominguez does not expressly disclose (1) the first site of a plurality of sites is a first cloud sites of a plurality of cloud sites, wherein the plurality of cloud sites are contained within a cloud tenant containing cloud sites, users, and licenses associated with a respective organization, (2) the request to modify is handled by a cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant, (3) the global table is connected to a user service in the cloud manager, and (4) the local table is at a local pod.
Dennis discloses a system and method for managing users of cloud services in a cloud platform, which comprises a centralized server and a plurality of cloud services (i.e., sites). The cloud platform is subscribed to by an entity, such as a company or organization (i.e., a tenant). Dennis at para. 0008. The system also includes users specific to the entity and user access privileges specific to the entity and its services (i.e., licenses). Dennis at paras. 0021, 0052-53. The system provides a management tool, which is used to manage user access (i.e., cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant). Dennis at para. 0052-53. The system provides a database at the centralized server, which stores user information associated with services subscribed to by the entity (i.e., global table connected to a user service…). Dennis at paras. 0043-46. The system further provides servers that provide cloud services (i.e., pods that provide sites), which also store user information (i.e., local table is at a local pod). Dennis at para. 0028.
Dominguez and Dennis are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database updates.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez by adding the features of (1) the first site of a plurality of sites is a first cloud sites of a plurality of cloud sites, wherein the plurality of cloud sites are contained within a cloud tenant containing cloud sites, users, and licenses associated with a respective organization, (2) the request to modify is handled by a cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant, (3) the global table is connected to a user service in the cloud manager, and (4) the local table is at a local pod, as disclosed by Dennis.
The motivation for doing so would have been because modern companies require management of software experiences of users of a company for different cloud based services. Providing the cloud platform and method to manage user information, as disclosed by Dennis, enables a company to take advantage of modern cloud infrastructure while also being able to manage their specific users. Dennis at para. 0006.
In regards to claim 2, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein execution status of the first workflow is tracked in a central database (Dominguez at para. 0050)7, and the method includes: in accordance with a determination that the update to the global table was successful and the update to the local table was successful, marking the first workflow as completed in the central database. Dominguez at para. 0056.8
In regards to claim 8, Dominguez discloses a computing device, comprising:
one or more processors (Dominugez at para. 0040); and
memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Dominugez at para. 0040), the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving a request to modify user information with respect to at least a first site of a plurality of sites (Dominguez at para. 0039)9;
in response to the request to modify the user information, executing a first workflow to update the user information (Dominguez at paras. 0042-45)10, including:
updating a global table with temporary changes corresponding to the user information (Dominguez at paras. 0048, 0050)11; and
initiating an update to a local table with the user information, wherein the local table is stored in a database that is associated with a server instance where the first site is deployed at (Dominguez at para. 0053)12;
in accordance with a determination that the update to the local table failed, rollbacking the temporary changes made to the global table (Dominguez at paras. 0059)13; and
in accordance with a determination that the update to the local table was successful, committing updates made to the global table and the local table with respect to the user information and marking the first workflow as completed. (Dominguez at Fig. 6; para. 0056)14.
Dominguez does not expressly disclose (1) the first site of a plurality of sites is a first cloud sites of a plurality of cloud sites, wherein the plurality of cloud sites are contained within a cloud tenant containing cloud sites, users, and licenses associated with a respective organization, (2) the request to modify is handled by a cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant, (3) the global table is connected to a user service in the cloud manager, and (4) the local table is at a local pod.
Dennis discloses a system and method for managing users of cloud services in a cloud platform, which comprises a centralized server and a plurality of cloud services (i.e., sites). The cloud platform is subscribed to by an entity, such as a company or organization (i.e., a tenant). Dennis at para. 0008. The system also includes users specific to the entity and user access privileges specific to the entity and its services (i.e., licenses). Dennis at paras. 0021, 0052-53. The system provides a management tool, which is used to manage user access (i.e., cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant). Dennis at para. 0052-53. The system provides a database at the centralized server, which stores user information associated with services subscribed to by the entity (i.e., global table connected to a user service…). Dennis at paras. 0043-46. The system further provides servers that provide cloud services (i.e., pods that provide sites), which also store user information (i.e., local table is at a local pod). Dennis at para. 0028.
Dominguez and Dennis are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database updates.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez by adding the features of (1) the first site of a plurality of sites is a first cloud sites of a plurality of cloud sites, wherein the plurality of cloud sites are contained within a cloud tenant containing cloud sites, users, and licenses associated with a respective organization, (2) the request to modify is handled by a cloud manager associated with the cloud tenant, (3) the global table is connected to a user service in the cloud manager, and (4) the local table is at a local pod, as disclosed by Dennis.
The motivation for doing so would have been because modern companies require management of software experiences of users of a company for different cloud based services. Providing the cloud platform and method to manage user information, as disclosed by Dennis, enables a company to take advantage of modern cloud infrastructure while also being able to manage their specific users. Dennis at para. 0006.
Claim 9 is essentially the same as claim 2 in the form of a computing device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 16 are essentially the same as claims 1 and 2, respectively, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Dominguez at para. 0040). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605) (Dominguez), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131), further in view of Fan et al. (US Patent Pub 2023/0123841) (Fan).
In regards to claim 3, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose comprising: in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated from a first region and that the first site is deployed at a second region different from the first region, invoking a user replication service deployed at the first region to initiate execution of the first workflow. In other words, Dominguez does not expressly disclose awareness of what region a request to modify is initiated from, what region the first site is deployed at, and invoking from a particular region. Dominguez does disclose a replication service because changes made to the secondary server are also reflected in the primary server (i.e., replicated), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fan discloses a cloud computing and storage system that includes a core computing site and edge computing sites. Fan at paras. 0018-19. The system provides the ability to determine where to service a request for an application (i.e., some type of request for a service) received from a client. Where the request is invoked is periodically or dynamically determined in response to designated conditions, such as load levels on edge or core sites. Thus, a request received by a user who initiates the request at an edge site (i.e., first region) and the system is deployed at a core site or another edge site (i.e., second region different from the first region), and determining where to service the request (i.e., initiating execution of the first workflow), which can be at the edge site the user is using, the core site, or another edge site (i.e., first, second, third regions). Fan at Fig. 8; paras. 0066-67; 0071.
Dominguez, Dennis, and Fan are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of servicing data requests over a network/distributed system.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez in view of Dennis by adding the features of in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated from a first region and that the first site is deployed at a second region different from the first region, invoking a user replication service deployed at the first region to initiate execution of the first workflow, as disclosed by Fan. As discussed above, Dominguez discloses receiving a request to modify user information, and executing the workflow. When modified by Fan, Dominguez in view of Fan results in a system and method that determines the best server to handle the request (primary server vs secondary servers).
The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and balance resource load. Fan at para. 0071.
In regards to claim 4, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated from a first region and that the first site is deployed at a second region different from the first region, invoking, by a user replication service deployed at the first region, a user replication service deployed at the second region to initiate execution of the first workflow. In other words, Dominguez does not expressly disclose awareness of what region a request to modify is initiated from, what region the first site is deployed at, and invoking from a particular region. Dominguez does disclose a replication service because changes made to the secondary server are also reflected in the primary server (i.e., replicated), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Fan discloses a cloud computing and storage system that includes a core computing site and edge computing sites. Fan at paras. 0018-19. The system provides the ability to determine where to service a request for an application (i.e., some type of request for a service) received from a client. Where the request is invoked is periodically or dynamically determined in response to designated conditions, such as load levels on edge or core sites. Thus, a request received by a user who initiates the request at an edge site (i.e., first region) and the system is deployed at a core site or another edge site (i.e., second region different from the first region), and determining where to service the request (i.e., initiating execution of the first workflow), which can be at the edge site the user is using, the core site, or another edge site (i.e., first, second, third regions). Fan at Fig. 8; paras. 0066-67; 0071.
Dominguez, Dennis, and Fan are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of servicing data requests over a network/distributed system.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez in view of Dennis by adding the features of in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated from a first region and that the first site is deployed at a second region different from the first region, invoking, by a user replication service deployed at the first region, a user replication service deployed at the second region to initiate execution of the first workflow, as disclosed by Fan. As discussed above, Dominguez discloses receiving a request to modify user information, and executing the workflow. When modified by Fan, Dominguez in view of Fan results in a system and method that determines the best server to handle the request (primary server vs secondary servers).
The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and balance resource load. Fan at para. 0071.
Claims 10 and 11 are essentially the same as claims 3 and 4, respectively, in the form of a computing device. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17 and 18 are essentially the same as claims 3 and 4, respectively, in the form of non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605) (Dominguez), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131) (Dennis), further in view of Langouev et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0063989) (Langouev).
In regards to claim 5, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is received from a first user interface of a global cloud manager system:
executing the request to modify the user information and the first workflow asynchronously; and
sending polling requests from the first user interface to a central database to determine whether the first workflow has been successfully completed; and
in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is received from a second user interface of a data visualization system deployed at the server instance:
executing the request to modify the user information and the first workflow synchronously, such that the second user interface forgoes polling requests to the central database to determine whether the first workflow has been successfully completed.
Langouev discloses a system and method for a distributed cloud-based system. The system supports both synchronous and asynchronous requests, which are tracked using different queues. Synchronous requests are handled relatively quickly by the system. It is noted that synchronous requests would not return a response until the request is completed and by their nature, does not support polling. Asynchronous requests are handled by creating a tracking object and the request is processed. A client can poll the tracking object for progress and completion status. Once the request is complete, the tracking object is assigned the results of the request (if any) or simply is assigned a complete status, which the user is able to notice. Langouev at paras. 0002, 0024. Thus, Langouev discloses a user request from a cloud based user interface, where the request is asynchronous, and the user polls for the completion status.
Dominguez, Dennis, and Langouev are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of distributed storage systems.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez in view of Dennis by adding the features of in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is received from a first user interface of a global cloud manager system: executing the request to modify the user information and the first workflow asynchronously; and sending polling requests from the first user interface to a central database to determine whether the first workflow has been successfully completed; and in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is received from a second user interface of a data visualization system deployed at the server instance: executing the request to modify the user information and the first workflow synchronously, such that the second user interface forgoes polling requests to the central database to determine whether the first workflow has been successfully completed, as disclosed by Langouev.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide fairness to requests by utilizing different queues for synchronous and asynchronous requests for each tenant. Langouev at para. 0009, 0032.
Claims 12 and 13 are essentially the same limitations as claim 5 in the form of a computing device. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 19 and 20 are essentially the same limitations as claim 5 in the form of non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605) (Dominguez), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131) (Dennis), further in view of Oukid et al. (US Patent Pub 2019/0171721) (Oukid).
In regards to claim 7, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request to update the user information is associated with a respective user record (Dominguez at para. 0042)15, but does not expressly disclose the method includes:
in response to the request to modify the user information:
in accordance with a determination that a second workflow that is associated with the respective user record is active, aborting the first workflow;
in accordance with a determination that there is no other active workflow associated with the respective user record, marking the first workflow to update the user information active in a central database.
Dominguez does disclose keeping a status log of change requests (i.e., workflow status in a central database). Dominguez at para. 0050.
Oukid discloses and system and method for performing transactions of one or more records in a database system. The system provides a transaction object that includes a status variable that indicates whether a transaction is invalid, active, committed or aborted (i.e., no other active workflow … marking the first workflow … active). Transactions are aborted if there is a conflict with another transaction (i.e., second workflow … is active, aborting the first workflow). Oukid at abstract; para. 0044.
Dominguez, Dennis, and Oukid are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database systems.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez in view of Dennis by adding the features of in response to the request to modify the user information: in accordance with a determination that a second workflow that is associated with the respective user record is active, aborting the first workflow and in accordance with a determination that there is no other active workflow associated with the respective user record, marking the first workflow to update the user information active in a central database, as disclosed by Oukid.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid having to rollback uncompleted transactions. Oukid at para. 0044.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 7 in the form of a computing device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397605) (Dominguez), in view of Dennis et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0006131) (Dennis), further in view of Mordani et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0075019) (Mordani).
In regards to claim 21, Dominguez in view of Dennis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated by a cloud administrator, allowing the cloud administrator to make a request to modify the user information for a first plurality of cloud sites, wherein the first plurality of cloud sites includes cloud sites from a plurality of local pods. Dennis at paras. 0034, 0053.16
Dominguez in view of Dennis does not expressly disclose in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated by a site administrator, allowing the site administrator to make a request to modify the user information for a second plurality of cloud sites, wherein the second plurality of cloud sites includes a subset of cloud sites form a local pod.
Mordani discloses a system and method for providing service management in a cloud computing environment. The system provides a plurality of different roles, such as a system administrator role, which is able to install, configure, manage, and maintain the cloud environment, a cloud account administrator role, which is responsible for provisioning new services and managing roles for each service, and a service administrator, which is responsible for administering and managing specific services (i.e., site administrator that only manages a subset of cloud sites). Mordani at para. 0044.
Dominguez, Dennis, and Mordani are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database systems.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dominguez in view of Dennis by adding the features of in accordance with a determination that the request to modify the user information is initiated by a site administrator, allowing the site administrator to make a request to modify the user information for a second plurality of cloud sites, wherein the second plurality of cloud sites includes a subset of cloud sites form a local pod, as disclosed by Mordani.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide delegation to administrative responsibilities.
Response to Amendment
Objection to claims 7 and 14 for Minor Informalities
Applicant’s amendment to claims 7 and 14 to address the minor informalities is acknowledged. Consequently, the objection to claims 7 and 14 is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101
Claim 6 is cancelled rendering its rejection moot.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-5 and 7-20 is acknowledged. As discussed in the interview conducted 3/11/2026, the amendments overcome the rejection under 101 because the limitations can no longer be performed by a person in the mind even with the aid of a generic computer as a tool. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Consequently, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are set forth above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The new grounds of rejection rely on Dennis which provides a system and method for a cloud platform having cloud services for an organization and managing user information for the organization.
Rejection of claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim 6 is cancelled rendering its rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 3-5, 10-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Mihara (US Patent Pub 2012/0317621) discloses a cloud system for license management for cloud services.
Calvin et al. (US patent Pub 2016/0021166) discloses a system and method for user management of site network mappings.
Eberlein (US Patent Pub 2021/0089665) discloses a system and method for aggregated authorization in a cloud platform.
Yum et al. (US Patent Pub 2015/0067171) discloses a system and method for cloud service brokering.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 A client can make a request to make changes to the database.
2 A change request can be made to the servers, which initiates a change process (i.e., first workflow).
3 The secondary server (i.e., global table) makes tentative changes to its database table (i.e., updating a global table with temporary changes).
4 The primary server (i.e., local table) makes the change at its database (i.e., database associated with server instance where first site is deployed).
5 If primary server (i.e., local table) fails after the transaction (i.e., temporary changes) are rolled back.
6 When the primary server (i.e. local table) successfully commits the transaction (i.e., update to the local table was successful), the secondary server (i.e., global table) are committed and the change is marked as finalized (i.e., workflow as completed).
7 Primary server (i.e., central database) stores a log or record with flags indicating status of a change (i.e., status of first workflow).
8 Log record for the change is marked as finalized (i.e., completed).
9 A client can make a request to make changes to the database.
10 A change request can be made to the servers, which initiates a change process (i.e., first workflow).
11 The secondary server (i.e., global table) makes tentative changes to its database table (i.e., updating a global table with temporary changes).
12 The primary server (i.e., local table) makes the change at its database (i.e., database associated with server instance where first site is deployed).
13 If primary server (i.e., local table) fails after the transaction (i.e., temporary changes) are rolled back.
14 When the primary server (i.e. local table) successfully commits the transaction (i.e., update to the local table was successful), the secondary server (i.e., global table) are committed and the change is marked as finalized (i.e., workflow as completed).
15 The change request may be to change existing data, such as a record/row (i.e., respective user record).
16 An administrator for the entity manages user information for all the subscribed cloud services.
Prosecution Insights