DETAILED ACTION
Response received on September 30, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-19 are pending.
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
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 11/29/2022 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of September 30, 2025 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
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 1‐19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (process), claims 10-14 are directed to a system (machine/apparatus), and claims 15-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture/machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 10 and 15. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, from a licensing portal a request for a license associated with a feature to enable the feature of a product for a duration, wherein the request for the license includes a digital certificate; validating the request from the licensing portal using the digital certificate to determine whether a user is authorized to enable the feature of the product for the duration based on the license associated with the feature, wherein the validating of the request includes querying a user profile to obtain information associated with the user; determining whether the user has sufficient points to enable the feature for the duration based on the user profile; in response to authenticating the request and validating that the user is authorized to use the feature and has sufficient points, enabling the feature of the product for the duration based on a parameter in the license and adding the license to a collection of active licenses and inactive licenses associated with the product, wherein each of the collection of the active licenses and the inactive licenses is associated with a different feature and a different duration, wherein the collection of the active licenses and the inactive licenses is stored according to a data structure in a license data store with the user profile, and wherein the parameter includes information associated with the feature and the duration included in the data structure: and in response to the enabling the feature successfully, committing a transaction associated with the request.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of receiving a request from a user for a license to enable a feature of a product for a duration and determining whether the user is authorized and has sufficient points to enable the feature for the duration. These recited limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the related computer components, this claim encompasses managing interactions that could conventionally be performed by licensing administrator or product manager manually as part of manual review process that determines a list of authorized users, verify whether a person meets the conditions to activate a product feature and record approval or denial. This progress can be done manually through paper and pencil. Additionally, verifying user eligibility/authorization and enabling/restricting user access is considered managing user interactions because it involves managing interactions related permission, validation, and usage control, which are basic methods of organizing human activity related to interaction decision-making. The mere nominal recitation of, “processor”, “license portal”, and “digital certificate”, does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “processor”, “licensing portal”, and “digital certificate”. Claim 10 includes the additional element of a Claim 1 as well as the additional elements of “information “handling system”, “processor”, “licensing portal”, a “memory”, and “interface”. Claim 15 recites the additional element of only a “a non-transitory CRM”, “licensing portal”, and “digital certificate”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements (combination of computer, the use of AI, and the use blockchain) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 10, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of processor, licensing portal and digital certificate when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 10, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-4, recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 1. The claims recite wherein the collection of the active licenses includes a set of licenses that are associated with a set of features of the product, determining a number of points to enable the feature for the duration, and wherein the collection of the active licenses and the inactive licenses is pre-installed in the product. The dependent claims 2-4 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 1, 10, and 15. The claims recite the applicant is reciting limitations that further limit the abstract idea to include updating a license account balance of the user by deducting the points used to enable the feature for the duration, determining whether enabling the feature of the product is successful, rolling back the license in response to a failure in enabling the feature of the product, and in response to determining that the license expired, removing the license from the collection of licenses. The dependent 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 claims do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 5, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the request includes a service wherein the product is installed. In addition, the claim recites a new additional element of “information handling system” which is considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection are noted. Applicant amends independent claims 1, 10, and 15 to remove the objected to limitation “in response to the enabling the feature successfully, committing a transaction associated with the request: and in response to the enabling the feature failing, rolling back the transaction associated with the request from the independent claims and respectfully requests the Examiner withdraw the foregoing rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Examiner acknowledges the amendments and therefore withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for claims 1, 10, 15.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that claims 1-19 were rejected under § 101 and that this rejection is moot in light of the amendments to claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 made herein. This general allegation is not persuasive. The applicant is referred to the 101 rejection above as to why the claims are still not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that claim limitations recite the abstract idea of receiving a request from a user for a license to enable a feature of a product for a duration and determining whether the user is authorized and has sufficient points to enable the feature for the duration. These recited limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-19 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 6 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts the cited art, individually or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest the combination of features now recited in claim 1. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. However, despite the lack of clarity in the applicant’s argument, the based on the new claim amendments, the prior art of record Prahlad et al. (US 20160034869) in view of Fang et al. (US 20130326637), further in view of Zhang et al. (20190164242) teaches majority of the recited limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 15. However, the prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the limitations of “in response to authenticating the request and validating that the user is authorized to use the feature and has sufficient points, enabling the feature of the product for the duration based on a parameter in the license and adding the license to a collection of active licenses and inactive licenses associated with the product, wherein each of the collection of the active licenses and the inactive licenses is associated with a different feature and a different duration, wherein the collection of the active licenses and the inactive licenses is stored according to a data structure in a license data store with the user profile, and wherein the parameter includes information associated with the feature and the duration included in the data structure” found in the independent claims 1, 10, and 15. The prior art of record teachings as recited in the previous office action fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations for the dependent claims due to their respective dependencies to the independent claims 1, 10, and 15 as recited above. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension
of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the
mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this
final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory
period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In
no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights