DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 10/23/2025.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 12 have been canceled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
As per claims 1, 3-11, 13-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
• Claim 11 recites:
transmitting, by a license server executing on a computing device, over a network, one or more temporary licenses to a component executing on a remote host, the one or more temporary licenses authorizing the component to enable execution of managed software on the remote host;
determining, by the license server, that a predefined time has elapsed without receiving a heartbeat message from the component; and
in response to (a),instructing, by the license server, the component, over the network, to expire the one or more temporary licenses; and
refusing, by the license server, a request from the component for an additional temporary license.
• Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of transmitting/managing licenses (a certain method of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. Claim 1 recites similar abstract idea. That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) 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. For example, the additional elements of “license server”, “computing device”, “component”, “processing devices”, “memory”, “remote host”, “network”, merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 3, 4, 13, 14 which further recite the abstract idea without extra additional elements.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 5-10, 15-20 which include additional claim elements that 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. For example, “container”, “cluster”, “orchestrator”, “servers”, “cloud computing platform”.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen discloses:
an apparatus comprising: a computing device including one or more processing devices and one or more memory devices operably coupled to the one or more processing devices, the one or more memory devices storing executable code that, when executed by the one or more processing devices (Col 9 lines 58-67), causes the one or more processing devices to:
transmit, over a network, a first temporary license with an expiration date to a component executing on a host, the first temporary license authorizing the component to enable execution of managed software on the host (By disclosing, “In one embodiment, the local machine 10 receives from the remote machine 30 a license authorizing execution of the plurality of application files. In some embodiments, the license authorizes execution for a specified time period. In one of these embodiments, the license requires transmission of a heart beat message to maintain authorization for execution of the plurality of application files.” (Col 41 lines 54-60; Col 7 lines 47-63)); and
if a predefined time elapses without receiving a heartbeat message from the component, instruct the component, over the network, to expire the first temporary license (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, a license expires and ceases to be valid upon a failure of the local machine 10 to transmit a predetermined number of heartbeat messages to the remote machine.” (Col 66 lines 38-43); and “the group of remote machines 30 logically grouped as a farm 38 may be interconnected using a wide-area network (WAN) connection or medium-area network (MAN) connection” (Col 8 lines 36-54)).
Pedersen does not disclose:
if a predefined time elapses without receiving a heartbeat message from the component, refuse a request from the component for a second temporary license for use upon expiration of the first temporary license.
However, Obligacion teaches:
if the predefined time elapses without receiving the heartbeat message from the component, refuse a request from the component for a second temporary license for use upon expiration of the first temporary license. (By disclosing, “Additional licenses may be requested by sending a request message to an address of the team 204. The team 204 may respond with a message either granting the requested licenses or refusing the requested licenses.” ([0026] of Obligacion); and “If the selected one of the slave devices 208a-c fails, the client may detect the failure after a pre-determined period of time, such as three missed heartbeats. After the pre-determined period of time, the client 210 may terminate the license tunnel due to inactivity or the client 210 may shutdown.” which means a secondary license will be refused since the license tunnel is terminated ([0031] of Obligacion)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, in view of Obligacion to include techniques of if the predefined time elapses without receiving the heartbeat message from the component, refuse a request from the component for a second temporary license for use upon expiration of the first temporary license. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would save the resources for deploying applications to unconnected servers.
Regarding claim(s) 3, Pedersen discloses:
if the predefined time does not elapse without receiving the heartbeat message from the component, transmit a second temporary license to the component for use upon expiration of the first temporary license (By disclosing, “A second state that a session may be in is an active and unlicensed state. In one embodiment, a session is in this state when the local machine 10 fails to transmit heartbeat messages and a license to the local machine 10 has expired. In another embodiment, if a session is in this state then, while the license has expired, insufficient time has elapsed for the session to expire, and the session is considered active. In some embodiments, while a session is in this state, a remote machine 30 or a session management server 562 may store session-related data on behalf of the local machine 10. In other embodiments, if a local machine 10 transmits a heartbeat message prior to the expiration of the session, session-related data is transmitted to the local machine 10 with a new license and the session returns to the active and licensed state.” (Col 69 lines 29-46)).
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen discloses:
wherein the host comprises a cluster (By disclosing, “Although FIG. 1A shows a network 40 and a network 40' between the clients 10-10-10'' and the servers 30-30'', the clients 10-10' and the servers 30-30'' may be on the same network 40.” (Col 7 lines 47-50)).
Regarding claim 9, Pedersen discloses:
wherein the remote host is one or more servers. (By disclosing, “a server 30 includes an application delivery system 500 for delivering a computing environment or an application and data file to one or more clients.” (Col 9 lines 43-46 of Pedersen)).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Pedersen discloses:
transmitting, by a license server executing on a computing device, one or more temporary licenses to a component executing on a host, the one or more temporary licenses authorizing the component to enable execution of managed software on the host (By disclosing, “In one embodiment, the local machine 10 receives from the remote machine 30 a license authorizing execution of the plurality of application files. In some embodiments, the license authorizes execution for a specified time period. In one of these embodiments, the license requires transmission of a heart beat message to maintain authorization for execution of the plurality of application files.” (Col 41 lines 54-60));
(a) determining, by the license server, that a predefined time has elapsed without receiving a heartbeat message from the component (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, a license expires and ceases to be valid upon a failure of the local machine 10 to transmit a predetermined number of heartbeat messages to the remote machine.” (Col 66 lines 38-43)).
Pedersen does not disclose, but Obligacion teaches:
in response to determine the connection between the license server and the host is failed, refraining, by the license server, from transmitting an additional temporary license to the host (By disclosing, “If the selected one of the slave devices 208a-c fails, the client may detect the failure after a pre-determined period of time, such as three missed heartbeats. After the pre-determined period of time, the client 210 may terminate the license tunnel due to inactivity or the client 210 may shutdown.” ([0031] of Obligacion)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, in view of Obligacion to include techniques of in response to determine the connection between the license server and the host is failed, refraining, by the license server, from transmitting an additional temporary license to the host. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would save the resources for deploying applications to unconnected servers.
Regarding claim(s) 13, Pedersen discloses:
determining, by the license server, that the predefined time has not elapsed without receiving the heartbeat message prior to expiration of the first temporary license; and in response to transmitting, by the license server, the second temporary license to the remote host for use upon expiration of the first temporary license (By disclosing, “A second state that a session may be in is an active and unlicensed state. In one embodiment, a session is in this state when the local machine 10 fails to transmit heartbeat messages and a license to the local machine 10 has expired. In another embodiment, if a session is in this state then, while the license has expired, insufficient time has elapsed for the session to expire, and the session is considered active. In some embodiments, while a session is in this state, a remote machine 30 or a session management server 562 may store session-related data on behalf of the local machine 10. In other embodiments, if a local machine 10 transmits a heartbeat message prior to the expiration of the session, session-related data is transmitted to the local machine 10 with a new license and the session returns to the active and licensed state.” (Col 69 lines 29-46)).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Pedersen discloses:
wherein the remote host comprises a cluster (By disclosing, “Although FIG. 1A shows a network 40 and a network 40' between the clients 10-10-10'' and the servers 30-30'', the clients 10-10' and the servers 30-30'' may be on the same network 40.” (Col 7 lines 47-50)).
Regarding claim 19, Pedersen discloses:
wherein the remote host is one or more servers. (By disclosing, “a server 30 includes an application delivery system 500 for delivering a computing environment or an application and data file to one or more clients.” (Col 9 lines 43-46 of Pedersen)).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Suraski (US 20050050319).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Pedersen does not disclose, but Suraski teaches:
wherein the first temporary license specifies a number of nodes that may use the managed software (By disclosing, “Embodiments of the present invention overcome these limitations of the prior art by enabling an application provider to control the number of clients who may concurrently access the application on a given server or cluster of servers. Based on this capability, the application provider can sell software under a license that specifies not only the number of servers on which the application may run, but also the number of clients that may be served simultaneously.” ([0008] of Suraski)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion in view of Suraski to include techniques of specifies a number of nodes that may use the managed software in a license. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the software vendors to control the volume of user traffic that their applications generate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Suraski (US 20050050319), and Condon (US 20220083629).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Pedersen in view of Obligacion and Suraski discloses all the limitations in claim 4. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the nodes are containers (By disclosing, “The container groups 110a-n may each include one or more containers and may be distributed across multiple nodes of the cluster 105.” ([0024] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, Obligacion and Suraski, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the nodes are containers. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using containers nodes (e.g. creating responsive and easily maintainable user interfaces, etc.).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Condon (US 20220083629).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Pedersen and Obligacion discloses all limitations in claim 6. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the cluster is a KUBERNETES cluster (By disclosing, “The cluster 105 (e.g., a Kubernetes cluster) may represent a highly-available cluster of multiple nodes (not shown). The nodes may be virtual machines or physical computer systems among which sets of containers or pods (e.g., container groups 110a-n) are distributed.” ([0023] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, Obligacion, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the cluster is a KUBERNETES cluster. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using Kubernetes (e.g. enhanced scalability, self-healing capabilities, improved resource efficiency, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Pedersen in view of Obligacion discloses all limitations in claim 6. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the managed software comprises an orchestrator for deploying containers and application instances in the cluster (By disclosing, “FIG. 2 illustrates a license 225 in accordance with an example embodiment. License 225 is a non-limiting example of license 125 of FIG. 1. As noted above, a traditional (non-cloud-native) license server typically has a fixed IP address, which does not reflect the reality of the lifecycle of container groups or pods (e.g., container groups 110a-n) or the nature of cluster IP addresses (e.g., the ClusterIP of a Kubernetes service), which may be dynamically assigned by a container orchestration system (e.g., container orchestration system 100) to represent a service (e.g., service 140) provided by a cluster (e.g., cluster 105) operating within the container orchestration system.” ([0028]-[0029] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the managed software comprises an orchestrator for deploying containers and application instances in the cluster. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using orchestrators (e.g. streamlined deployments, automated scaling, enhanced resource utilization, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Pedersen in view of Obligacion does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the remote host is a cloud computing platform (By disclosing, “As such, in various embodiments described herein, the license 225 uses that which is fixed in the cloud environment,” ([0029] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the host is a cloud computing platform. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using cloud computing platforms (e.g. cost savings, enhanced security, flexibility, etc.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Suraski (US 20050050319).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Pedersen in view of Obligacion does not disclose, but Suraski teaches:
wherein the first temporary license specifies a number of nodes that may use the managed software (By disclosing, “Embodiments of the present invention overcome these limitations of the prior art by enabling an application provider to control the number of clients who may concurrently access the application on a given server or cluster of servers. Based on this capability, the application provider can sell software under a license that specifies not only the number of servers on which the application may run, but also the number of clients that may be served simultaneously.” ([0008] of Suraski)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion, in view of Suraski to include techniques of specifies a number of nodes that may use the managed software in a license. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the software vendors to control the volume of user traffic that their applications generate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Suraski (US 20050050319), and Condon (US 20220083629).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Pedersen in view of Obligacion and Suraski discloses all the limitations in claim 14. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the nodes are containers (By disclosing, “The container groups 110a-n may each include one or more containers and may be distributed across multiple nodes of the cluster 105.” ([0024] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, Obligacion and Suraski, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the nodes are containers. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using containers nodes (e.g. creating responsive and easily maintainable user interfaces, etc.).
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 7970923 B2), in view of Obligacion (US 20140068041), further in view of Condon (US 20220083629).
Regarding claim(s) 17, Pedersen and Obligacion disclose all limitations in claim 16. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the cluster is a KUBERNETES cluster (By disclosing, “The cluster 105 (e.g., a Kubernetes cluster) may represent a highly-available cluster of multiple nodes (not shown). The nodes may be virtual machines or physical computer systems among which sets of containers or pods (e.g., container groups 110a-n) are distributed.” ([0023] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the cluster is a KUBERNETES cluster. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using Kubernetes (e.g. enhanced scalability, self-healing capabilities, improved resource efficiency, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Pedersen and Obligacion disclose all limitations in claim 16. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the managed software comprises an orchestrator for deploying containers and application instances in the cluster (By disclosing, “FIG. 2 illustrates a license 225 in accordance with an example embodiment. License 225 is a non-limiting example of license 125 of FIG. 1. As noted above, a traditional (non-cloud-native) license server typically has a fixed IP address, which does not reflect the reality of the lifecycle of container groups or pods (e.g., container groups 110a-n) or the nature of cluster IP addresses (e.g., the ClusterIP of a Kubernetes service), which may be dynamically assigned by a container orchestration system (e.g., container orchestration system 100) to represent a service (e.g., service 140) provided by a cluster (e.g., cluster 105) operating within the container orchestration system.” ([0028]-[0029] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the managed software comprises an orchestrator for deploying containers and application instances in the cluster. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using orchestrators (e.g. streamlined deployments, automated scaling, enhanced resource utilization, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Pedersen and Obligacion disclose all limitations in claim 11. Pedersen does not disclose, but Condon teaches:
wherein the remote host is a cloud computing platform (By disclosing, “As such, in various embodiments described herein, the license 225 uses that which is fixed in the cloud environment,” ([0029] of Condon)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen and Obligacion, in view of Condon to include techniques of wherein the host is a cloud computing platform. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using cloud computing platforms (e.g. cost savings, enhanced security, flexibility, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that claim 1 recites an approach that improves the ability of license server and remote host to manage licensing of components and therefore constitutes “[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer”. The Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that
the functions recited in the claim such as “determining…”, “instructing…”, and “refusing…” are generic computer functions that can be performed by generic computers;
the functions recited in the claim such as “determining…”, “instructing…”, and “refusing…” can also performed manually without any additional elements; and
even if the functions recited in the claim such as “determining…”, “instructing…”, and “refusing…” are performed by generic computers and/or generic computer components, generic computers and/or generic computer components are used as a tool to perform the functions. The use of generic computers and/or generic computer components as a tool to implement the functions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer and/or network performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally) (MPEP 2106.05(a)). In the instance, the entire scope of the independent claims can be performed manually or manually, therefore, there is no improvement of the computer functionality involved in the claims.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection will be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose “if the predefined time elapses without receiving the heartbeat message from the component, refuse a request from the component for a second temporary license for use upon expiration of the first temporary license. The Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Oblkigacion teaches this limitation by disclosing, “Additional licenses may be requested by sending a request message to an address of the team 204. The team 204 may respond with a message either granting the requested licenses or refusing the requested licenses.” ([0026] of Obligacion); and “If the selected one of the slave devices 208a-c fails, the client may detect the failure after a pre-determined period of time, such as three missed heartbeats. After the pre-determined period of time, the client 210 may terminate the license tunnel due to inactivity or the client 210 may shutdown.” which means a secondary license will be refused since the license tunnel is terminated ([0031] of Obligacion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Pedersen, in view of Obligacion to include techniques of if the predefined time elapses without receiving the heartbeat message from the component, refuse a request from the component for a second temporary license for use upon expiration of the first temporary license. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would save the resources for deploying applications to unconnected servers.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection will be maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090222505 to Pavan for disclosing:
a peer to peer software license management system that is capable of temporarily relocating available software licenses is disclosed. Any node of the peer to peer software license management system (i.e., any computer in which the software license management system software of the invention is installed) is allowed to act as a license provider, or act as a license consumer, or act as both a license provider and a license consumer. Any node of the peer to peer software license management system has the capacity to temporarily borrow a software license from another node, and to re-serve the borrowed software license to yet another node as if the node that borrowed the software license were itself a license provider. Each node of the peer to peer software license management system operates as both a license provider and a license consumer.
US 20110197062 to De Gaetano for disclosing:
methods, apparatus and systems, including computer program products for license management in one or more computer systems. A first computer runs a master license server process instance. The master license service process instance is associated with a hardware identifier relates to the first computer and has a license to run a predefined number of concurrent production license server process instances that are responsible for license management towards clients. A request is received by the master license server process instance for a license from a production license server process instance in a second computer. The master license server process instance provides a virtual identifier to the production license server process instance to be used as a unique identifier for license management purposes towards clients by the production license server process instance. The virtual identifier is cryptographically secured against modification.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699