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 communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 2/17/26.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 8, 18 have been previously cancelled.
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-7,9-10 are directed to a method, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory medium and claims 11-17, 19 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-7,9-17,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite methods for managing software provisioning including monitoring usage of a plurality of software items, associated with a particular user; identifying a first software item that is being actively used; during active usage of the first software item: identifying a contract governing the usage of the plurality of software items, wherein the contract includes at least one usage condition to comply with to access the first software item of the plurality of software items wherein the at least one usage condition comprises at least a first usage condition and a second usage condition; retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition to a first functional feature of the first software item and the second usage condition to a second functional feature of the first software item; determining whether a discrepancy between the at least one usage condition in the contract and the active usage of the first software item exists; and in response to determining that the discrepancy exists for the first usage and not for the second usage condition, wherein the discrepancy is a violation, disabling the first functional feature to resolve the discrepancy while maintaining access to the second functional feature of the first software item during the active usage
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a network, a first computing device, processor, memory), the claims are directed to managing software usage based on contract. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving usage data, analyzing it, and providing whether discrepancy exist based on contract. In particular, the claims only recites the additional elements – a network, a first computing device, processor, memory (Claims 1, 11 and 20). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; managing software usage based on contract. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the network, computing devices, processor, memory these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0022] details “ Consider network 102, which is connected to a plurality of computing devices 104. Network 102 may be a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN). In an example where the customer is a university, computing device 104a may belong to a first user (e.g., a professor), computing device 104b may belong to a second user (e.g., a student). [0046] the computer system 20 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 21, a system memory 22, and a system bus 23 connecting the various system components, including the memory associated with the central processing unit 21.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. The additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19, add additional limitations, that only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative claims 1, 11 and 20.
Claim 2, 12 recites wherein the plurality of software items are hosted on a cloud and wherein the plurality of software items includes one or more of: a software application, a software-as-a-service, a platform-as-a-service, an infrastructure-as-a-service, and a container-as-a-service, which further refine the abstract idea. The cloud/software items are recited at high level of generality. The claims do not include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3-5, 13-15 recites wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a usage term period after which the first software item is no longer accessible to the first computing device, and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the usage term period has elapsed; , wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a maximum number of computing devices that can run the first software item in the network, and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the first computing device causes the maximum number to be exceeded; wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a maximum amount of software item features that can be used by the first computing device, and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the first software item causes the maximum amount to be exceeded which further refine the abstract idea by adding usage conditions. The claims do not include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6-7, 16-17 recites wherein adjusting the parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling access/write abilities/ network functionality to the first software item using the first computing device, which further refine the abstract idea by adding adjusting conditions. The claims do not include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9, 19 recites determining that the first software item is being used on a second computing device of the network; determining whether a discrepancy between the at least one usage condition in the contract and usage of the first software item on the second computing device exists; and in response to determining that the discrepancy exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the first software item on the second computing device to comply with the at least one usage condition, which further refine the abstract idea by adding usage conditions. The claims do not include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim 10 recites identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device; during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items, wherein the another contract includes another usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the second software item of the different plurality of software items; in response to determining that a discrepancy between the another usage condition in the another contract and usage of the second software item exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the second software item to comply with the another usage condition, which further refine the abstract idea by adding usage conditions for second application. The claims do not include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea
The dependent claims merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. (US 11,403,370B2) in view of Dickson et al. (US 2021/0182363), further in view of Gunyakti et al. (US 10,437,964 B2)
Regarding Claims 1,11 and 20, Tyagi discloses the method/system/medium for managing software provisioning (Col 1 lines 5-10 An enterprise may license software and install the licensed software on various computing devices in the enterprise's managed network. In order to comply with license rights associated with the licensed software, it can be desirable for the enterprise to keep track of where and how the licensed software is used in the managed network.), the method comprising:
Tyagi discloses monitoring usage of a plurality of software items distributed over a network of computing devices ([0007] The watcher is configured to monitor a usage of the network function by the second party in real-time based on the terms and conditions in the licensing agreement), wherein each computing device is associated with a particular user (Fig 3 # 302 client devices);
Tyagi discloses monitoring usage of a plurality of software items distributed over a network of computing devices (Col 17 lines 15-35 the enterprise may attempt to keep track of which of its computing, client, and/or server devices use what licensed software. The license information may include information that represents collective software usage for managed network, Col 19 lines 13-20 an enterprise is using two different intermediary packages in managed network 300 to indirectly access licensed software 600 installed on server device 602, Fig 6 # 600 license software, 602 service device, Col 20 lines 33-35 monitoring software license usage in managed networks—particularly large managed networks with hundreds or thousands of computing devices, software applications, and user activity thereon, Col 18 lines 12-19 licensed software (also referred to herein as “licensed software applications”) can be licensed per user, per computing device, based on one or more metrics (e.g., licensed for use in making only a predefined number of purchase orders)), wherein each computing device is associated with a particular user (Fig 7 # 602,610 software application on user device, Col 18 lines 15-20 the user interface may be provided as part of a software application developed by the licensor and installed on a user's computing device, and a licensed user can use the user interface to log on to access the licensed software.)
Tyagi discloses identifying a first software item that is being used on a first computing device of the network; during usage of the first software item (Col 6 lines 65-67 Applications 104C may be one or more user-space software programs, such as web browsers or email clients, as well as any software libraries used by these programs. Col 17 lines 15-20, 50-55 the enterprise may attempt to keep track of which of its computing, client, and/or server devices use what licensed software, Tracking the use of software within an enterprise may be achieved using an aPaaS system. Col 31 lines 5-20 FIG. 10, record 1000 can include, for each user that has been accessing the licensed software, and from left to right, columns associated with the following fields: user identifier (shown as “User” in FIG. 10), a number of steps (e.g., steps such as the act of opening a particular website, clicking on a hyperlink, etc.) that the user has taken while using the licensed software (shown as “Steps” in FIG. 10), a total amount of time (e.g., in seconds) that the user has been active in the licensed software, Col 26 lines 10-18 software application 608 could transmit an instruction to one of proxy servers 312 to in turn transmit a discovery probe to the IP address of target computing device 614 to obtain information about target computing device 614, which can be stored in CMDB 500. These and other discovery processes could also be used to determine which applications or other software is running on target computing device 614), identifying a contract for the network governing the usage of the plurality of software items (Col 17 lines 18-30 the enterprise may attempt to maintain software entitlement records (contract), which provide information about software license rights held by the enterprise's managed network. Such license information may include information specific to various software applications. As an example, for a given software application, license information may include a publisher/vendor name for the software application, a publisher part number, a software model (e.g., a name, version, and/or edition of the software application), a license metric of the software application (e.g., whether the software application is licensed per computing device, per processor, per processor core, per user, etc.), and/or a license duration of the software application.), wherein the contract includes at least one usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the first software item of the plurality of software items (Col 17 lines 18-30 As an example, for a given software application, license information may include a publisher/vendor name for the software application, a publisher part number, a software model (e.g., a name, version, and/or edition of the software application), a license metric of the software application (e.g., whether the software application is licensed per computing device, per processor, per processor core, per user, etc.), and/or a license duration of the software application. (usage condition));
Tyagi discloses wherein the at least one usage condition comprises at least a first usage condition and a second usage condition (Col 1 lines 29-36 For example, multiple concurrent uses of the licensed software, all using the same account, could be considered misuse. As another example, if only a certain number of users in the managed network are licensed to use the licensed software (a first usage condition), but more than that number of users are using the licensed software over time or concurrently, that could be considered misuse as well. Col 22 lines 60-67(iv) whether the user identifier is associated with one or more licenses held by the enterprise (v) conditions of the license(s) associated with the user (e.g., how long the license term is (first usage condition) and/or how many transactions the enterprise or user is licensed to make with licensed systems) (second usage conditions));
Tyagi discloses retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition of the first software item (Col 20 lines 1-10 the software application can identify one or more sessions that meet a set of license misuse criteria and identify a “target computing device” (metadata)—namely, a computing device related to the managed network that is involved in the identified session(s) and that is a potential source of misuse of one or more licensed software licenses held by the enterprise. Thus, the software application can flag (e.g., store, and possibly display, an indication that identifies) the target computing device as a potential source of misuse of one or more of such licenses) and the second usage condition of the first software item(Col 20 lines 46 -58provide the enterprise with the ability to dynamically define customized criteria, or to use predefined criteria, for flagging a computing device as a potential source of license misuse (usage conditions). Enterprise to obtain detailed information about sessions between computing devices within the enterprise's managed network and server devices running licensed software. This detailed information can advantageously provide insight into the time, extent, and nature of such sessions, as well as the extent and nature of data communicated during such sessions, which can enable the enterprise to identify potential sources of license misuse and make more informed decisions in response to detecting license misuse.);
Tyagi discloses determining whether a discrepancy between the at least one usage condition in the contract and the active usage of the first software item on the first computing device exists (Col 17 lines 49-52, 60-67 Tracking the use of software within an enterprise may be achieved using an aPaaS system as described above in relation to FIGS. 1 through 5B. Such an aPaaS system may be particularly suited to tracking such software usage because the aPaaS system may already be configured to gather information from computing devices in managed networks. Monitoring use of certain types of licensed software and accurately detecting misuses of such licenses. For example, existing techniques for software assert management can involve counting licenses and comparing the license count to a number of software installations. This can be performed on a cyclical basis, such as during audit cycles. By contrast, improved approaches described herein dynamically identify potential license misuse and can notify an administrator in real-time or close to real-time, rather than waiting for an audit cycle or other time to assess license use. Col 19 lines 62-67a software application for detecting activity indicative of misuse of licensed software licenses. In particular, the software application can be configured to analyze session records stored by the server device on which the licensed software is running, as well as analyze network layer traffic to and from the server device. Based on these analyses, the software application can identify one or more sessions that meet a set of license misuse criteria and identify a “target computing device, Col 24 lines 14-21 The set of license misuse criteria can include one or more criteria used individually or in combination to detect license misuse. Along these lines, each criterion in the set of license misuse criteria can be considered to be criterion that, when met by one session or a combination of sessions in which a given target computing device is involved, triggers software application 608 to flag the session(s) as a set of sessions that is/are a source of potential license misuse. (discrepancy between usage and criteria/contract), Col 1 lines 38-45 automatically detect and flag scenarios in which software licensed by the enterprise is potentially being misused. In addition, it may be desirable for the enterprise to be able to identify users and/or computing devices within the managed network that are associated with such misuse. This may help the enterprise avoid the risk of penalties resulting from license misuse. The enterprise may also be able to learn from license misuse scenarios and take action to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of such scenarios.); and in response to determining that the discrepancy exists, flagging/suspend the first computing device (Col 24 lines 14-21 each criterion in the set of license misuse criteria can be considered to be criterion that, when met by one session or a combination of sessions in which a given target computing device is involved, triggers software application 608 to flag the session(s) as a set of sessions that is/are a source of potential license misuse. Col 1 lines 38-48 automatically detect and flag scenarios in which software licensed by the enterprise is potentially being misused. In addition, it may be desirable for the enterprise to be able to identify users and/or computing devices within the managed network that are associated with such misuse. This may help the enterprise avoid the risk of penalties resulting from license misuse. The enterprise may also be able to learn from license misuse scenarios and take action to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of such scenarios., Col 30 lines 35-40 The administrator might then take various actions in response, such as temporarily suspending the flagged user/device from accessing resources at that same path name until it is confirmed whether the flagged user/device misused a license. )
Tyagi does not specifically teach identifying a first software item that is being actively used on a first computing device of the network; during active usage of the first software item, identifying a contract; retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition to a first functional feature of the first software item and the second usage condition to a second functional feature of the first software item; Tyagi, however teaches monitoring software license usage in managed network (Col 20 lines 33-55 provide the enterprise with the ability to dynamically define customized criteria, or to use predefined criteria, for flagging a computing device as a potential source of license misuse. Further, implementations of this disclosure can provide a way for the enterprise to obtain detailed information about sessions between computing devices within the enterprise's managed network and server devices running licensed software.)
Dickson teaches identifying a first software item that is being actively used on a first computing device of the network ([0013] detecting, by the client computer software executing on the client computer, an initiation of the software application on the client computer); during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items ([0013] determining, by the client computer software executing on the client computer, that the software application is subject a plurality of software license entitlement criteria defined by the at least one software license agreement (contract). Requesting, by the client computer software executing on the client computer and from the server computer software, a license for a usage of the software application (contract) on the client computer, storing, by the client computer executing on the client computer, transaction information for the usage of the second software application on the client computer (contract), where the transaction information includes at least: software application identification, client computer identification, usage duration, and software license entitlement criteria satisfaction data. ); wherein the contract includes usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the first software item of the plurality of software items ([0096] system for managing software license, [0081] license checkout information may include any, or any combination, of: record number, application transaction number, transaction type (here, “checkout”), number of available licenses, usage (e.g., number of checked out licensees at the time of the transaction), timestamp, software application identification, user identification, user actual name, node identification, group identification, pool identification, skill identification, domain identification, site identification, chargecode, license server identification, client identification, identification of the request for usage of the software application, and/or identification of the license for the usage, [0153] and Fig 10 # 1010 , At 1010, license server 102 determines that the usage of the software application satisfies the plurality of license entitlement criteria; [0154] At 1012, license server 102 provides a license for the usage of the software application to client 104); determine compliance with licensing requirements ([0001], [0030] provide a software application license terms-and-conditions compliance enforcement application. ) retrieving metadata that indicates when the first usage condition is being violated ([0071] List of users test 316 determines whether the requested usage of the software application would violate conditions specified by one or more lists of users. Such lists of users are stored by license server 102. To evaluate list of users test 316 for a particular request for usage of a software application, the user is identified per (1) of the parameter test algorithm. The user's identification (metadata)may be retrieved from the request) when the second usage condition is being violated; ([0074] List of domains test 322 determines whether the requested usage of the software application would violate conditions specified by one or more lists of domains. Here, a domain may be a geographic region or a network domain. Example domains include Eastern USA, Western USA, European Union, Australia, Asia, etc. An accept domains list and a reject domains list may be stored by license server 102. To evaluate list of domains test 322 for a particular request for usage of a software application, the parameter test algorithm may be applied with the parameter “domain”. To do so, the domain is identified per line (1) of the parameter test algorithm. The domain may be retrieved from the request, for example. Alternately, license server 102 may look up the domain from a stored look-up table that associates the node identified in the request with the respective domain in which it is located. The output of list of domains test 322 is one of affirmative or negative, e.g., “1” or “0”. [0080] For requests that failed, the report to transaction information block 330 for the checkout process may include details of all tests that passed and failed, Claim 4 the client computer to display an error message for a failed software application execution attempt, wherein the error message identifies associated software license entitlement criteria failures.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device; during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items, as disclosed by Dickson in the system disclosed by Tyagi, for the motivation of providing a method of ensuring compliance with software licensing requirements and avoid provoking violations of the terms and condition and penalties for non-compliance ([0008] Dickson)
Tyagi/Dickson do not specifically teach retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition to a first functional feature of the first software item and the second usage condition to a second functional feature of the first software item; in response to determining that the discrepancy exists for the first usage condition and not the second usage condition, disabling the first functional feature to resolve the discrepancy while maintaining access to the second functional feature of the first software item during the active usage
Gunyakti teaches retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition to a first functional feature of the first software item and the second usage condition to a second functional feature of the first software item (Col 2 lines 19-26 A right may be associated with information, which becomes available after a successful call to the “consume right” method. For example, a given software product may have individual rules (usage conditions) about when it is permissible to edit, print, save, etc., and these rules can be stored in the license that contains the right. The API provides a “get information” method or information-retrieval component that allows this information to be retrieved from the license. Col 5 lines 64-67, Col 6 lines 1-4 Software licensing service 202 manages license store 204 and trust store 206, and also performs various functions relating to the licensing of software. For example, software licensing service 202 may contain modules that parse license files, modules that enforce the binding of a license to a particular machine and/or to a particular instance of a software product, and a secure timer/counter, Col 9 lines 22-30The SLConsumeRight function lets an application to examine or exercise the rights on a locally-stored license. Calling this function binds a license to the right mentioned in pszRightName. If this right cannot be exercised by the current caller, then the application fails. If the function succeeds, the action associated with the right can be executed (like decreasing usage count, decreasing time quota, or nothing) Col 16 lines 18-22, 43-54 Checking validity may include determining that the right has not expired (in the case of licenses that specify an expiration date), and that the maximum number of uses of the right is not exceeded (in the case where the license specifies a maximum number of times that the right may be used (i.e., “consumed”)).if the right is successfully consumed, then the application can use the binding of the right to the license (metadata that maps usage) to get information from the license about the right. A license may contain a general right called “run,” which indicates that the application may be run. However, for the “run” right, the license may contain more specific parameters about the usage of the application (a first/second functional feature print/edit)—e.g., the license may specify whether particular features of an application (e.g., print, edit, save, etc.) should be turned on or off, and may give specific parameters for the use of these features (e.g., the document can be saved only on machines that are running in a particular domain (usage feature for first feature), or the print feature can only be used for thirty days, etc.) (second usage condition for second feature)., Fig 4 # 406, 408, 412 License bound to specific right, Col 16 lines 64-67, Col 17 lines 1-7the application calls the SLGetInformation method on the bound right (502). The various types of information that can be retrieved are described above in connection with the description of the SLGetInformation method. The licensing service then receives the call (504). The service retrieves the requested information from the license file that contains the bound right (506). ); in response to determining that the discrepancy exists for the first usage condition and not the second usage condition, disabling the first functional feature to resolve the discrepancy while maintaining access to the second functional feature of the first software item during the active usage (Col 17lines 15-24 When the information is retrieved from the license, it is simply passed by the licensing service to the application in a buffer. The application then interprets the retrieved information, decides what actions to be taken based on that information, and uses its own security features to enforce the application's decision. (E.g., if, based on the retrieved information, the application decides to disable the print feature, the application contains the code that actually disables this features and, possibly, code that prevents a hacker from tampering with the disabling of the print feature.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included retrieving metadata that maps the first usage condition to a first functional feature of the first software item and the second usage condition to a second functional feature of the first software item; in response to determining that the discrepancy exists for the first usage condition and not the second usage condition, disabling the first functional feature to resolve the discrepancy while maintaining access to the second functional feature of the first software item during the active usage, as disclosed by Gunyakti in the system disclosed by Tyagi/Li/Dickson, for the motivation of providing a method of determining based on license information whether particular features of an application (e.g., print, edit (write), save, etc.) should be turned on or off and decides what actions to be taken based on that information, and uses its own security features to enforce the application's decision including the application decides to disable the print feature (Col 17 lines 18-25 Gunyakti)
Claim 11. Tyagi disclose the system for managing software provisioning, comprising: a memory (Col 36 lines 18-20 The computer readable medium can also include non-transitory computer readable media such as computer readable media that store data for short periods of time like register memory and processor cache.); and a hardware processor communicatively coupled with the memory (Col 2 lines 49-51 a computing system may include at least one processor, as well as memory and program instructions)
Claim 20. Tyagi discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon computer executable instructions for managing software provisioning (Col 36 lines 18-20 The computer readable medium can also include non-transitory computer readable media such as computer readable media that store data for short periods of time like register memory and processor cache.)
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi teaches wherein the plurality of software items are hosted on a cloud (Col 6 lines 5-7 cloud based computing environment, Col 7 lines 40-42 cloud based server clusters) and wherein the plurality of software items includes one or more of: a software application (Col 6 lines 65-67Applications 104C may be one or more user-space software programs, such as web browsers or email clients, as well as any software libraries used by these programs.), a software-as-a-service, a platform-as-a-service (Col 7 lines 32-35 one or more instances of computing device 100 may be deployed to support an aPaaS architecture), an infrastructure-as-a-service, and a container-as-a-service.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi teaches wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a usage term period after which the first software item is no longer accessible to the first computing device (Col 17 lines 18-30 As an example, for a given software application, license information may include a publisher/vendor name for the software application, a publisher part number, a software model (e.g., a name, version, and/or edition of the software application), a license metric of the software application (e.g., whether the software application is licensed per computing device, per processor, per processor core, per user, etc.), and/or a license duration of the software application (time period)), and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the usage term period has elapsed. (Col 34 lines 36-38 the set of license misuse criteria may also comprise an average duration of the set of communication sessions exceeding a threshold duration., Col 25 lines 14-19 Another criterion may be the average session duration of the set of sessions exceeding a threshold duration (e.g., a minute, two minutes, five minutes, etc.). For example, if the average duration of the session(s) in which target computing device 614 is involved exceeds ten minutes, software application 608 may flag target computing device 614.)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi teaches wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a maximum number of computing devices that can run the first software item in the network (Col 17 lines 18-35 license information may include information that represents collective software usage for managed network 300, including but not limited to purchased rights (e.g., number of licenses purchased/held by managed network 300) and/or license metrics for managed network 300, Col 17 lines 60-67 software assert management can involve counting licenses and comparing the license count to a number of software installations, Col 19 lines 18-27 In this example, User 1 and User 2 are shown to be using intermediary package 604 to indirectly access licensed software 600, User 3 and User 4 are shown to be using intermediary package 606 to indirectly access licensed software 600, and User 5 is shown to be using both intermediary packages 604, 606. Even though User 5 is using both intermediary packages 604, 606, the enterprise in this scenario may be required to purchase of only five licenses because the total number of users indirectly accessing licensed software 600 is five.), and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the first computing device causes the maximum number to be exceeded.(Col 19 lines 24-33 the enterprise in this scenario may be required to purchase of only five licenses because the total number of users indirectly accessing licensed software 600 is five (maximum). Further, if User 1, User 2, User 3, and/or User 4 began using both intermediary packages 604, 606, the enterprise would not be violating its license. However, if an additional user (e.g., User 6, not shown in Fig 6) begins using one or both of intermediary packages 604, 606, such as by using the same account as any one or more of the other users, the enterprise may then be in violation of the license.)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi teaches wherein the at least one usage condition indicates a maximum amount of software item features that can be used by the first computing device (Col 19 lines 35-40 the enterprise may purchase an indirect access license that authorizes a limited number of transactions between the enterprise and the licensed software per year such as a limited number of purchase orders or other transactions placed per year using the licensed software. (maximum amount of software item feature), Additionally or alternatively, the enterprise may purchase an indirect access license that authorizes a limited amount of data (e.g., a limited number of bytes) to be transmitted per year.), and wherein determining whether the discrepancy exists comprises determining that the first software item causes the maximum amount to be exceeded. (Col 19 lines 43-48 if within a given year the enterprise exceeds the limitations specified by the respective licenses, the enterprise may be in violation of the license. )
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Li teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi/Dickson do not specifically teach wherein adjusting the first set of parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling write abilities of the first software item on the first computing device. Li, further teaches disabling access abilities of the first software item on the first computing device ([0176] the user may not have an entitlement, and the user will not be granted unauthorized access to Office., [0224] If the device is not authorized, an error is returned at block 1816).
Gunyakti teaches wherein adjusting the first set of parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling write abilities of the first software item on the first computing device. (Fig 4 # 408, 410 Col 16 lines 34-38, 49-55 If the license and/or right has been found to be invalid (discrepancy), or not correctly bound to the machine, environment, or product ID, then the SLConsumeRight call returns to the calling application and indicates that the operation failed (410). For the “run” right, the license may contain more specific parameters about the usage of the application—e.g., the license may specify whether particular features of an application (e.g., print, edit (write), save, etc.) should be turned on or off (on or disable), and may give specific parameters for the use of these features. Col 17 lines 5-8, 18-24 The application then interprets the retrieved information, decides what actions to be taken based on that information, and uses its own security features to enforce the application's decision. (E.g., if, based on the retrieved information, the application decides to disable the print feature, the application contains the code that actually disables this features (print, edit (write) or save) and, possibly, code that prevents a hacker from tampering with the disabling of the print feature.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein adjusting the first set of parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling write abilities of the first software item on the first computing device, as disclosed by Gunyakti in the system disclosed by Tyagi/Dickson, for the motivation of providing a method of determining based on license information whether particular features of an application (e.g., print, edit (write), save, etc.) should be turned on or off and decides what actions to be taken based on that information, and uses its own security features to enforce the application's decision including the application decides to disable the print feature (Col 17 lines 18-25 Gunyakti)
Claims 6, 9-10, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. (US 11,403,370B2) in view of Dickson et al. (US 2021/0182363), further in view of Gunyakti et al. (US 10,437,964 B2) as applied to claims 1, 11, further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0193607 A1)
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11,
Tyagi/Dickson do not specifically teach wherein adjusting the parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling access to the first software item using the first computing device. Gunyakti teaches disabling access to print feature (Col 16 lines 47-54, Col 17 lines 17-24)
Li teaches wherein adjusting the parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling access to the first software item using the first computing device.([[0045] the OLS is configured to periodically check a user's license state. This may allow for a balance between the ability to use the product offline and the ability to obtain the latest licensing information, e.g., whether a license has been deprovisioned. The user's license state may be referred to as the "subscription heartbeat." The subscription heartbeat may be used to determine whether a license for an application is to be disabled, thereby deactivating (adjusting parameter of usage includes disabling access) the corresponding application, Fig 6 # 602, 604, 606 stops functioning of software (office), [0159] Office may stop functioning if the license has expired or been terminated for some reason., [0160] the license may be expired (discrepancy) and, thus, Office may stop functioning. [0175] The status of the product key may be enabled, pending disablement, or disabled., [0257] At block 2404, the licensing service monitors a state of the license. Monitoring the state of the license may include detecting a fraudulent activity, wherein a fraudulent activity is an activity that is not authorized by the conditions of the license. In various embodiments, monitoring the state of the license includes determining if the license is expired. (discrepancy exists), [0258] At block 2406, the conditions of the license are adjusted according to the state of the license. In some embodiments, adjusting the conditions of the license includes deprovisioning the license if the license is expired. Adjusting the conditions of the license may also include reprovisioning the license if the license is renewed by the user. Fig 24 # 2406 adjust conditions of license according to state of license)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein adjusting the parameters of the usage of the first software item on the first computing device comprises disabling access to the first software item using the first computing device, as disclosed by Li in the system disclosed by Tyagi, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting fraud periodically check a user's license state and based on user license status determine whether a license for an application is to be disabled, thereby deactivating the corresponding application. ([0045] Li).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising:
Tyagi teaches determining that the first software item is being used on a second computing device of the network (Col 25 lines 34-44 software application 608 may identify various commonalities among sessions other than a single target computing device, and may flag such commonalities. For example, software application 608 may identify within the records that the same username (or other identifier associated with an account for licensed software 600 (first software item) is being used in each session of a set of sessions. In turn, software application 608 may flag the username and/or may engage in efforts to determine which client devices or other devices (second computing device) are being used in managed network 300 to log on to server device 602 via target computing device 614 with the username Col 27 lines 5-10 FIG. 9B depicts another example service map 908. As shown, service map 908 includes two client devices, named “C1” and “C2,” visually represented as nodes: node 910 and node 912, respectively. Node 910 and node 912 are each shown to have an edge connecting the node to node 904, which visually represents the two client devices that are accessing server device 602 via intermediary package 604. Col 6 lines 65-67 Applications 104C may be one or more user-space software programs, such as web browsers or email clients, as well as any software libraries used by these programs);
Tyagi teaches determining whether a discrepancy between the at least one usage condition in the contract and usage of the first software item on the second computing device exists (Col 23 lines 55-67 using a set of license misuse criteria, software application 608 can parse the records to identify (e.g., flag) a potential license misuse scenario, namely, a set of one or more sessions between a given target computing device and server device 602 that meet the set of license misuse criteria., Col 24 lines 14-20 each criterion in the set of license misuse criteria can be considered to be criterion that, when met by one session or a combination of sessions in which a given target computing device is involved, triggers software application 608 to flag the session(s) as a set of sessions that is/are a source of potential license misuse. A determination of whether a given criterion is met can involve comparing at least a portion of the record information and/or user profile information described above to a threshold, Col 25 lines 1, 5, 34-44 In turn, software application 608 may flag the username and/or may engage in efforts to determine which client devices or other devices (second computing device) are being used in managed network 300 to log on to server device 602 via target computing device 614 with the username); and in response to determining that the discrepancy exists, flag the usage (Col 25 lines 1, 5, 34-44 In turn, software application 608 may flag the username and/or may engage in efforts to determine which client devices or other devices (second computing device) are being used in managed network 300 to log on to server device 602 via target computing device 614 with the username, Col 27 lines 28-30 determine the relationships between computing devices and applications that define and use services associated with licensed software 600.),
Tyagi does not specifically teach adjusting parameters of the usage of the first software item on the second computing device to comply with the at least one usage condition
Li teaches Li teaches in response to determining that the discrepancy exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the first software item on the second computing device to comply with the at least one usage condition ([[0045] the OLS is configured to periodically check a user's license state. This may allow for a balance between the ability to use the product offline and the ability to obtain the latest licensing information, e.g., whether a license has been deprovisioned. The user's license state may be referred to as the "subscription heartbeat." The subscription heartbeat may be used to determine whether a license for an application is to be disabled, thereby deactivating the corresponding application, Fig 6 # 602, 604, 606 stops functioning of software (office), [0159] Office may stop functioning if the license has expired or been terminated for some reason., [0160] the license may be expired (discrepancy) and, thus, Office may stop functioning. [0175] The status of the product key may be enabled, pending disablement, or disabled., [0257] At block 2404, the licensing service monitors a state of the license. Monitoring the state of the license may include detecting a fraudulent activity, wherein a fraudulent activity is an activity that is not authorized by the conditions of the license. In various embodiments, monitoring the state of the license includes determining if the license is expired. (discrepancy exists), [0258] At block 2406, the conditions of the license are adjusted according to the state of the license. In some embodiments, adjusting the conditions of the license includes deprovisioning the license if the license is expired. Adjusting the conditions of the license may also include reprovisioning the license if the license is renewed by the user. Fig 24 # 2406 adjust conditions of license according to state of license)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in response to determining that the discrepancy exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the first software item on the second computing device to comply with the at least one usage condition, as disclosed by Li in the system disclosed by Tyagi, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting fraud periodically check a user's license state and based on user license status determine whether a license for an application is to be disabled, thereby deactivating the corresponding application. ([0045] Li).
Regarding Claim 10, Tyagi as modified by Dickson/Gunyakti teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising:
Tyagi teaches some software applications used by managed network 300 may be hosted by an aPaaS system, as described above in relation to FIGS. 1 through 4, others (second software item) may be installed on the individual computing, client, and/or server devices themselves. software is often proprietary, and may be licensed in various ways. (Col 17 lines 1-12, 15-22 the enterprise may attempt to maintain software entitlement records, which provide information about software license rights held by the enterprise's managed network. Such license information may include information specific to various software applications. As an example, for a given software application, license information may include a publisher/vendor name for the software application, a publisher part number, a software model (e.g., a name, version, and/or edition of the software application), a license metric of the software application (e.g., whether the software application is licensed per computing device, per processor, per processor core, per user, etc.), and/or a license (another contract) duration of the software application. Additionally or alternatively, such license information may include information that represents collective software usage for managed network 300, including but not limited to purchased rights (e.g., number of licenses purchased/held by managed network 300) and/or license metrics for managed network 300, among others.). However, Tyagi does not specifically teach identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device; during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items, wherein the another contract includes another usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the second software item of the different plurality of software items; in response to determining that a discrepancy between the another usage condition in the another contract and usage of the second software item exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the second software item to comply with the another usage condition.
Li teaches identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items ([00232] allow a partner to identify whether a user is to be given access to its roaming setting service. [0233] determination by a partner of whether a user is to be granted access to its services. Such a determination may be made using service provisioning information. In some embodiments, partners maintain a user provisioning cache that caches results from a GetEntitlementForIdentityEx( ) API call. (contract for usage/roaming)), wherein the another contract includes another usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the second software item of the different plurality of software items ([0233] the user provisioning cache may expire based on how often real time information is desired by the service (another usage condition) and the performance cost of calling the OLS for the provisioning information.) in response to determining that a discrepancy between the another usage condition in the another contract and usage of the second software item exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the second software item to comply with the another usage condition. ([0234] If the user provisioning cache either does not exist or is not valid, the provider calls the GetEntitlementForIdentityEx( ) API at block 2006. At block 2008, the partner updates the user provisioning cache. It is then determined whether the user is provisioned for the service at block 2010. If the user is not provisioned for the service (discrepancy exists), access to the service is not granted (adjust parameter of usage), as shown at block 2012. Otherwise, the user is granted access to the service at block 2004.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items, wherein the another contract includes another usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the second software item of the different plurality of software items; in response to determining that a discrepancy between the another usage condition in the another contract and usage of the second software item exists, adjusting parameters of the usage of the second software item to comply with the another usage condition, as disclosed by Li in the system disclosed by Tyagi, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting fraud by periodically checking a user's license state and based on user license status determine whether a license for an application is to be disabled, thereby deactivating the corresponding application. ([0045] Li) and performing various functions relating to licensing for services ([0232] Li)
Tyagi/Li do not specifically teach identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device; during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items
Dickson teaches identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device ([0014] detecting, by the client computer software executing on the client computer, an initiation of a second software application on the client computer); during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items ([0014] determining, by the client computer software executing on the client computer, that the second software application is subject to an enterprise wide license (contract) for the second software application. Requesting, by the client computer software executing on the client computer and from the server computer software, a license for a usage of the second software application (another contract) on the client computer, storing, by the client computer executing on the client computer, transaction information for the usage of the second software application on the client computer (contract), where the transaction information includes at least: software application identification, client computer identification, usage duration, and software license entitlement criteria satisfaction data. ); wherein the another contract includes another usage condition that the first computing device has to comply with to access the second software item of the different plurality of software items ([0096] system for managing software license, [0081] license checkout information may include any, or any combination, of: record number, application transaction number, transaction type (here, “checkout”), number of available licenses, usage (e.g., number of checked out licensees at the time of the transaction), timestamp, software application identification, user identification, user actual name, node identification, group identification, pool identification, skill identification, domain identification, site identification, chargecode, license server identification, client identification, identification of the request for usage of the software application, and/or identification of the license for the usage, [0153] and Fig 10 # 1010 , At 1010, license server 102 determines that the usage of the software application satisfies the plurality of license entitlement criteria; [0154] At 1012, license server 102 provides a license for the usage of the software application to client 104); determine compliance with licensing requirements ([0001], [0030] provide a software application license terms-and-conditions compliance enforcement application. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included identifying, from a different plurality of software items, a second software item that is being actively used on a first computing device; during active usage of the second software item: identifying another contract governing the usage of the different plurality of software items, as disclosed by Dickson in the system disclosed by Tyagi/Li, for the motivation of providing a method of ensuring compliance with software licensing requirements and avoid provoking violations of the terms and condition and penalties for non-compliance ([0008] Dickson)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 101 rejection, examiner has considered all arguments. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant states cited art does not teach amended claims. The 103 rejection has been updated to address new limitations. Gunyakti teaches disabling the first functional feature to resolve the discrepancy while maintaining access to the second functional feature of the first software item during the active usage (Col 17lines 15-24 When the information is retrieved from the license, it is simply passed by the licensing service to the application in a buffer. The application then interprets the retrieved information, decides what actions to be taken based on that information, and uses its own security features to enforce the application's decision. (E.g., if, based on the retrieved information, the application decides to disable the print feature, the application contains the code that actually disables this features and, possibly, code that prevents a hacker from tampering with the disabling of the print feature.)
Applicants remarks regarding 101 rejection have been considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are directed to managing software usage based on contract, which is abstract idea of organizing human activity (commercial interaction between business and user) but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving usage data, analyzing it, and providing whether discrepancy exist based on contract. In particular, the claims only recites the additional elements – a network, computing devices, processor, memory (Claims 1, 11 and 20). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant on page 9, states that amended claims integrate judicial exception into practical application and points to para 0039 for such integration. Para [0039] discusses the exact adjustment taken depends on the software item being accessed. Specification does not discuss how the adjustments are determined and implemented. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Further, on page 11, applicant states claims provide significantly more than abstract idea similar to BOSCOM. In BASCOM, as in the instant case, the claimed invention was directed to an abstract idea, and only contained additional elements not amounting to significantly more when considered individually. However, the distinction between BASCOM and the instant case is that the claimed invention had a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.” This non-conventional arrangement was “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345). In the instant case, there is no indication that the arrangement of the display is non-conventional or non-generic. Instead, the computer appears to be a generic computer ([0046] the computer system 20 includes a central processing unit (CPU) ) used to manage software license violations. Therefore, the arrangement of elements is conventional and generic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naik (US 2015/0095237) discloses in response to a discrepancy between the restored licensing transaction stamp value and the current licensing transaction stamp value existing, the processor 110 may disable at least one feature of the NE 108a and may generate an alert and transmit the alert to a user via an output port. [0075]
Diaz et al. (US 2022/0237267A1) discloses methods for license management framework. In particular, the systems and methods relate to blockchain-based license management framework for automatically managing licenses.
Jenkins (US 10,373,218) discloses use of software components by software applications in a configurable manner. In some situations, the software components are fee-based components that are made available by providers of the components for use by others in exchange for fees defined by the components providers, and in at least some situations, the software components may have various associated restrictions or other non-price conditions related to their use
Tsuji (US 2014/0244545) discloses identifying an accumulated amount of service that has been provided by a service, and determine whether to restrict access to a software resource provided by the service based on the accumulated amount of service.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights