Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Application 19/092,343 filed 03/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, under section “Cross-Reference to Related Applications”, the cited copending application 18/514,292 should be updated with current statuses such as U.S. Patent No. and the issued date.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 18 of claim 1, line 21 of claim 8 and line 19 of claim 15: “for first the tenant” should be “for first tenant”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
7. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,343.
For example:
Instant application 19/092,343
U.S. Patent No. 12,267,343
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for compressing metadata in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting one or more global properties in entity metadata for each tenant in a plurality of tenants of the SaaS system, wherein the one or more global properties are properties shared by all tenants in the plurality of tenants;
partitioning the plurality of tenants into one or more groups;
identifying one or more common properties in each group of the one or more groups, wherein the one or more common properties include non-global properties shared by all tenants in the group;
compiling the one or more global properties in a global-level list and the one or more common properties of a first group in a corresponding first group-level list;
compiling the one or more common properties of a second group in a corresponding second group-level list;
obtaining one or more tenant-specific properties in the entity metadata for each tenant in the plurality of tenants, wherein the one or more tenant-specific properties exclude the one or more global properties and the one or more common properties;
defining a first data structure of a first entity object for a first tenant of the plurality of tenants using the global-level list, the first group-level list for the first group that contains the first tenant, and the one or more tenant-specific properties for first the tenant; and
defining a second data structure of a second entity object for a second tenant of the plurality of tenants using the global-level list, the second group-level list for the second group that contains the second tenant, and the one or more tenant-specific properties for the second tenant.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for compressing metadata in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting one or more global properties in entity metadata for each tenant in a plurality of tenants of the SaaS system, wherein the one or more global properties are properties shared by all tenants in the plurality of tenants;
partitioning the plurality of tenants into one or more groups;
identifying one or more common properties in each group of the one or more groups, wherein the one or more common properties include non-global properties shared by all tenants in the group;
compiling the one or more global properties in a global-level list and the one or more common properties of each group in a corresponding group-level list;
obtaining one or more tenant-specific properties in the entity metadata for each tenant in the plurality of tenants, wherein the one or more tenant-specific properties exclude the one or more global properties and the one or more common properties; and
defining a data structure of a entity object for a tenant using the global-level list, the group-level list for the group that contains the tenant, and the one or more tenant-specific properties for the tenant.
.
9. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,343 substantially contains limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application, hence, the claims 1-20 of the instant application is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over the reference claim(s). Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)”. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY vs. BARR LABORATORIES INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Prior Art Zhu et al. (US 2023/0033059 A1) discloses systems and methods that enhance log data processing, storage, and querying by dynamically allocating mapping connections between processing/storage components based on characteristics of incoming data and the processing/storage components. More particularly, incoming data from a data stream may be parsed to determine and/or extract one or more groups of log data. The one or more groups of log data may be identified, extracted, and grouped according to a common property of the log data, such as ownership metadata associated with a sub-tenant entity ([0052]).
11. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights