Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 4/21/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 4/21/2025, are acknowledged.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date of 4/26/2024 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath (US 20150237114 A1), in view of Laventman (US 20190332979 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McGrath teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method comprising: provisioning a domain account, corresponding to a domain application, as one of a set of domain accounts to a map server to process a set of domain application requests from a set of domain applications comprising the domain application; (McGrath; [0023]: the broker layer 220 may facilitate the creation and deployment on the cloud (via node layer 230) of software applications being developed by an end user at client layer 210)
controlling access to the domain accounts based on a user role configuration; (McGrath; [0027]: using the command line tools 214 at client layer 210, requests the creation of a new application 235a-c, or some other action to manage the application 235a-c, the broker 222 first authenticates the user using an authentication service 224)
mapping a domain application request from the domain application to the domain account on the map server based on a user role configuration; and (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
McGrath does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laventman discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request. (Laventman; [0024]: a one-to-one mapping between tenant and virtual portal may be defined, so the virtual portal's unique properties may be used to map request metered information to the correct tenant)
Laventman is combinable with McGrath because all are from the same field of endeavor of multi-tenant environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of McGrath to incorporate granting particular access to a virtual portal in response to a map request as in Laventman in order to ensure that information is granted to the correct tenant.
Regarding claim 11, McGrath teaches the limitations of claim 11 substantially as follows:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and an application that, when executing on the at least one processor, performs: provisioning a domain account, corresponding to a domain application, as one of a set of domain accounts to a map server to process a set of domain application requests from a set of domain applications comprising the domain application, (McGrath; [0023]: the broker layer 220 may facilitate the creation and deployment on the cloud (via node layer 230) of software applications being developed by an end user at client layer 210)
controlling access to the domain accounts based on a user role configuration, (McGrath; [0027]: using the command line tools 214 at client layer 210, requests the creation of a new application 235a-c, or some other action to manage the application 235a-c, the broker 222 first authenticates the user using an authentication service 224)
mapping a domain application request from the domain application to the domain account on the map server based on a user role configuration, and (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
McGrath does not teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laventman discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request. (Laventman; [0024]: a one-to-one mapping between tenant and virtual portal may be defined, so the virtual portal's unique properties may be used to map request metered information to the correct tenant)
Laventman is combinable with McGrath because all are from the same field of endeavor of multi-tenant environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of McGrath to incorporate granting particular access to a virtual portal in response to a map request as in Laventman in order to ensure that information is granted to the correct tenant.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 3 and 13 as follows:
provisioning a map server of a map service to a region to host a set of domain accounts comprising a domain account; and receiving the domain application request within a set of domain application requests from a set of instances of the domain application to access the domain account. (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
Regarding claims 4 and 14 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as follows:
applying a map service by transmitting the geospatial service request to a map server of the map service, wherein the map server hosts multitenant data with a set of domain accounts corresponding to a set of data partitions, wherein the set of domain accounts comprises a domain account corresponding to the domain application. (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
Regarding claims 5 and 15 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as follows:
applying a map service by transmitting the geospatial service request to a map server of the map service, wherein the map server hosts multitenant data with a set of domain accounts corresponding to a set of data partitions, wherein the set of domain accounts comprises a domain account corresponding to a data partition of the set of data partitions. (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
Regarding claims 6 and 16 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 6 and 16 as follows:
wherein provisioning the domain account further comprises: validating credentials from the domain application; and creating the domain account on the map server. (McGrath; [0027]: using the command line tools 214 at client layer 210, requests the creation of a new application 235a-c, or some other action to manage the application 235a-c, the broker 222 first authenticates the user using an authentication service 224)
Regarding claims 7 and 17 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17 as follows:
wherein controlling access to the domain accounts further comprises: determining that a user is authorized to access the domain account based on the user role configuration. (McGrath; [0027]: using the command line tools 214 at client layer 210, requests the creation of a new application 235a-c, or some other action to manage the application 235a-c, the broker 222 first authenticates the user using an authentication service 224)
Regarding claims 8 and 18 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 8 and 18 as follows:
wherein mapping the domain application request further comprises: retrieving the user role configuration; and executing a mapping algorithm to map the domain application request to the map server. (McGrath; [0027]: Once the user has been authenticated and allowed access to the system by authentication service 224, the broker 222 uses a server orchestration system 226 to collect information and configuration information about the nodes)
Regarding claims 9 and 19 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 9 and 19 as follows:
wherein mapping the domain application request further comprises: receiving the domain application request from a geospatial interface element incorporated into the domain application, wherein the geospatial interface element executes on a browser on a user device. (McGrath; [0016], [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS; Users can interact with applications executing on the cloud-based VMs 111, 112, 121, 122 using client computer systems, such as clients 160, 170 and 180, via corresponding web browser applications)
Regarding claim 10 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claim 1.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein securing access to the data partition further comprises: retrieving the data partition entitlement corresponding to the domain account; and authorizing access to the domain account by comparing permissions from a user role to the data partition entitlement. (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
Regarding claim 20, McGrath teaches the limitations of claim 20 substantially as follows:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by at least one processor to perform: provisioning a domain account, corresponding to a domain application, as one of a set of domain accounts to a map server to process a set of domain application requests from a set of domain applications comprising the domain application; (McGrath; [0023]: the broker layer 220 may facilitate the creation and deployment on the cloud (via node layer 230) of software applications being developed by an end user at client layer 210)
controlling access to the domain accounts based on a user role configuration; (McGrath; [0027]: using the command line tools 214 at client layer 210, requests the creation of a new application 235a-c, or some other action to manage the application 235a-c, the broker 222 first authenticates the user using an authentication service 224)
mapping a domain application request from the domain application to the domain account on the map server based on a user role configuration; and (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
McGrath does not teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laventman discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
securing access to a data partition within the domain account using a data partition entitlement for the request. (Laventman; [0024]: a one-to-one mapping between tenant and virtual portal may be defined, so the virtual portal's unique properties may be used to map request metered information to the correct tenant)
Laventman is combinable with McGrath because all are from the same field of endeavor of multi-tenant environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of McGrath to incorporate granting particular access to a virtual portal in response to a map request as in Laventman in order to ensure that information is granted to the correct tenant.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath (US 20150237114 A1), in view of Laventman (US 20190332979 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Turner (US 20120301054 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
McGrath and Laventman teach the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as follows:
receiving the domain application request from the domain application for a map tile corresponding to geospatial data; and (McGrath; [0038]: The broker 222 utilizes its geographic component 250 to assist in placement of nodes 232a-c and/or application components (of deployed or deploying applications 235a-c) at nodes 232a-c of the PaaS over several distinct geographies. A user of the PaaS may specifically request placement of a deployed (or deploying) application in a particular geography provided by the PaaS.)
McGrath and Laventman do not teach the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as follows:
transmitting a geospatial service response comprising a map tile from the map server of a map service to the domain application, wherein the map tile is displayed by the domain application.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turner discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as follows:
transmitting a geospatial service response comprising a map tile from the map server of a map service to the domain application, wherein the map tile is displayed by the domain application. (Turner; [0024]-[0025]: a user device client would make an image request directly to a mapping server (MS); an image tile server importantly including an image tile cache, to support a tiled map display in a user device)
Turner is combinable with McGrath and Laventman because all are from the same field of endeavor of information management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of McGrath and Laventman to incorporate granting map tiles in response to user request via a mapping server as in Turner in order to distribute information, such as map tiles, to requesting tenants.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Rasmussen (US 20100020091 A1) which teaches an image tile-based digital mapping system configured for generating map tiles during an offline session, and serving selected sets of those tiles to a client when requested.
Xie (US 20210199444 A1) which teaches a map server that can receive a request for map tiles required to render a portion of a map. Map server has access to map tiles in databases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights