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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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 1-20 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: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
Claim 1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when performed by processing circuitry of a set of one or more computing devices, cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container by:
the new containerized application receiving a license identifier (ID) of a licensing service, the license ID being associated with the old containerized application;
sending an instruction directing the old containerized application to dissociate with the license ID; and
in response to the old containerized application dissociating with the license ID, associating the new containerized application with the license ID to become licensed with the licensing service (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
Claim 1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when performed by processing circuitry of a set of one or more computing devices (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity), cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container by:
the new containerized application receiving a license identifier (ID) of a licensing service, the license ID being associated with the old containerized application (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
sending an instruction directing the old containerized application to dissociate with the license ID (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information); and
in response to the old containerized application dissociating with the license ID, associating the new containerized application with the license ID to become licensed with the licensing service.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
Claim 1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when performed by processing circuitry of a set of one or more computing devices, cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container by:
the new containerized application receiving a license identifier (ID) of a licensing service, the license ID being associated with the old containerized application (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
sending an instruction directing the old containerized application to dissociate with the license ID (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information); and
in response to the old containerized application dissociating with the license ID, associating the new containerized application with the license ID to become licensed with the licensing service.
Claim 2. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to:
send the license ID from the new containerized application to a newer containerized application operating in a third container to replace the new containerized application operating in the first container (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information); and
in response to the new containerized application receiving an instruction to dissociate with the license ID, causing the new containerized application to dissociate with the license ID via the licensing service (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 3. The computer program product of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to send a confirmation from the new containerized application to the newer containerized application to confirm that the new containerized application has dissociated with the license ID (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 4. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the license ID is received by the new containerized application from the old containerized application in response to the new containerized application sending a request to the old containerized application (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The computer program product of claim 4 wherein the request is an idempotent request (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 6. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the license ID is received by the new containerized application from an installer application, the installer application having initiated installation of the new containerized application (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 7. The computer program product of claim 1 wherein sending the instruction includes the new containerized application sending the instruction to the old containerized application in response to the new containerized application receiving the license ID (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 8. The computer program product of claim 1 wherein sending the instruction includes an installer application sending the instruction to the old containerized application in response to the new containerized application receiving the license ID, the installer application having initiated installation of the new containerized application (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 9. The computer program product of claim 1 wherein associating the new containerized application with the license ID includes, in response to the new containerized application receiving a confirmation from the old containerized application that the old containerized application has dissociated from the license ID, the new containerized application registering the license ID with the licensing service (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 10. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to cause the new containerized application to:
receive configuration parameters of the old containerized application (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information); and
implement the received configuration parameters within the new containerized application (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 11. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the new containerized application and the old containerized application are network shutdown applications (generic computing components).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Smith et al. (US 2016/0142511) (hereinafter Smith) in view of
Novick et al. (US 2014/0109237) (hereinafter Novick) in view of
Albasheir (US 2021/0349747).
As per claim 1, Smith primarily teaches the invention as claimed including:
a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when performed by processing circuitry of a set of one or more computing devices ([0025] processor and hardware and [0027] computer-readable instructions, firmware, wired and/or programmed hardware, or any combination thereof on a tangible medium i.e., transitory or non-transitory);
sending an instruction directing the old application to dissociate with the license ([0004] instructing an external application store to disassociate a previous license for the application from the user and [0020] disassociate licenses from application store accounts associated with the users in response to applications being unassigned from the users); and
in response to the old application dissociating with the license, associating the new application with the license to become licensed ([0032] disassociate a license for the application associated with the previous purchase account and then associate a license for the application from the new purchase account with the user and [0057] disassociate the previous license from the previous purchase account for the application from the user and then associate a new license with the user from the new purchase account).
Smith does not explicitly teach:
cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container by:
the new containerized application receiving a license identifier (ID) of a licensing service, the license ID being associated with the old containerized application.
However, Novick teaches the new application receiving a license identifier (ID) of a licensing service, the license ID being associated with the old application ([0046] and [0052] communication device having applications communicates with licensing service to identify current state of the license for applications and [0060] license information may indicate current state of license including license identities associated with different applications).
Novick and Smith are both concerned with application licensing in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick because it would provide for improved application licensing whereby application modes are determined based on at least both the previous state of a license for an application or a suite of applications and a current state of the license for the application or suite of applications. By considering the previous and current states of a license, licensing mechanisms can be accommodated while still allowing for flexible application usage.
Smith in view of Novick do not explicitly teach cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container.
However, Albasheir teaches cause the set of computing devices to configure a new containerized application operating in a first container to replace an old containerized application operating in a second container ([0036]-[0037] create a new replacement container before terminating an old container, cause state data and/or other data to be transferred from the instance of the network application in the old container to the new replacement instance of the network application in the new container, and accordingly, the replacement instance of the network application in the new container may be configured to take over sessions previously handled by the underperforming instance of the network application in the old container and [0066] create a replacement container and cause a replacement instance of the network application to execute within the replacement container).
Albasheir and Smith are both concerned with managing applications in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir because it would provide a way to replace an underperforming or problematic instance of a network application in an old container with a new instance of the network application in a new container, and effectively restart or reboot the underperforming or problematic instance of the network application within a new replacement container. In some situations, the new instance of the network application may perform better and/or report better application key performance indicators than the terminated underperforming instance of the network application did.
As per claim 2, the combination of references above teaches wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to:
send the license ID from the new containerized application to a newer containerized application operating in a third container (Novick [0046] and [0052] communication device having applications communicates with licensing service to identify current state of the license for applications and [0060] license information may indicate current state of license including license identities associated with different applications) to replace the new containerized application operating in the first container (Albasheir [0036]-[0037] create a new replacement container before terminating an old container, cause state data and/or other data to be transferred from the instance of the network application in the old container to the new replacement instance of the network application in the new container, and accordingly, the replacement instance of the network application in the new container may be configured to take over sessions previously handled by the underperforming instance of the network application in the old container and [0066] create a replacement container and cause a replacement instance of the network application to execute within the replacement container); and
in response to the new containerized application receiving an instruction to dissociate with the license ID, causing the new containerized application to dissociate with the license ID (Smith [0004] instructing an external application store to disassociate a previous license for the application from the user and [0020] disassociate licenses from application store accounts associated with the users in response to applications being unassigned from the users) via the licensing service (Novick fig. 4, block 421 licensing service).
As per claim 4, Novick teaches wherein the license ID is received by the new application from the old application in response to the new application sending a request to the old application ([0062] the local license information may be stored in and retrieved from a data structure accessible based on an identity of a developer of the application indicated by the developer profile, and to retrieve the local license information, an application may communicate a request to a utility application to access the data structure).
As per claim 6, Smith further teaches wherein the license is received by the new application from an installer application, the installer application having initiated installation of the new application ([0041] associate and disassociate licenses from the purchase account to application store accounts to allow the user to download and install the application associated with the license and [0046] send an install command to the device, and the device either automatically installs by communicating with the application store directly or does so after the user accepts an install confirmation prompt).
As per claim 7, the combination of references above further teaches wherein sending the instruction includes the new containerized application sending the instruction to the old containerized application (Smith [0004] instructing an external application store to disassociate a previous license for the application from the user and [0020] disassociate licenses from application store accounts associated with the users in response to applications being unassigned from the users) in response to the new containerized application receiving the license ID (Novick [0046] and [0052] communication device having applications communicates with licensing service to identify current state of the license for applications and [0060] license information may indicate current state of license including license identities associated with different applications).
As per claim 8, the combination of references above teaches wherein sending the instruction includes an installer application sending the instruction to the old containerized application (Smith [0004] instructing an external application store to disassociate a previous license for the application from the user and [0020] disassociate licenses from application store accounts associated with the users in response to applications being unassigned from the users) in response to the new containerized application receiving the license ID (Novick [0046] and [0052] communication device having applications communicates with licensing service to identify current state of the license for applications and [0060] license information may indicate current state of license including license identities associated with different applications), the installer application having initiated installation of the new containerized application (Smith [0041] associate and disassociate licenses from the purchase account to application store accounts to allow the user to download and install the application associated with the license and [0046] send an install command to the device, and the device either automatically installs by communicating with the application store directly or does so after the user accepts an install confirmation prompt).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Rybak (US 2009/0209314).
As per claim 3, Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to send a confirmation from the new containerized application to the newer containerized application to confirm that the new containerized application has dissociated with the license ID.
However, Rybak teaches wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to send a confirmation from the new containerized application to the newer containerized application to confirm that the new containerized application has dissociated with the license ID ([0035] license token may be in one of the two states, e.g., the issued state or the available state, the license token may stay in the issued state until it is disassociated from the terminal it was issued to, and at this point, the license token may enter the available state and wait until the license token is again associated with a terminal).
Rybak and Smith are both concerned with managing licenses in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Rybak because it would provide a way of managing the assignment of applications to users externally from an application store, thus resulting in greater flexibility in the mechanisms for application assignment. For example, a network administrator may take advantage of different types of application assignments (e.g., to devices or device groups, to user groups, etc.) that may not be available through the application store. Further, existing processes for managing application assignments in a device management system may be utilized, and the application store may be updated by the device management system when configuration changes warrant such an update. Administrators may also avoid having to manage licenses manually within a device management system to update the license and purchase account configuration of the external application automatically in response to an application assignment change. In addition, the techniques described herein may associate licenses on demand in response to user requests to install application, meaning that administrators may assign an application to more users than they have purchased licenses for. This allows efficient use of licenses, as only users that actually request to install the application may be allocated a license.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Chow et al. (US 2019/0373526) (hereinafter Chow).
As per claim 5, Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir do not explicitly teach wherein the request is an idempotent request.
However, Chow teaches wherein the request is an idempotent request ([0012] transmitting an idempotent request of the network data to a server via the plurality of networks).
Chow and Smith are both concerned with managing applications in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Chow because it would provide a way for a length of a delay to be set based on a known or expected size of a response to an idempotent request (e.g., short delays for small sized responses and longer delays for large sized responses) or based on other cost considerations (e.g., shorter delays for small costs and longer delays for higher costs). The computing device can then detect which connection has better performance (e.g., which of the connections delivers a response first) and continue using the better connection while dropping (e.g., refraining from receiving the response and/or transmitting further requests) the other connection.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Ryback in view of Riscutia et al. (US 2018/0260541) (hereinafter Riscutia).
As per claim 9, Ryback teaches wherein associating the new containerized application with the license ID includes, in response to the new containerized application receiving a confirmation from the old containerized application that the old containerized application has dissociated from the license ID ([0035] license token may be in one of the two states, e.g., the issued state or the available state, the license token may stay in the issued state until it is disassociated from the terminal it was issued to, and at this point, the license token may enter the available state and wait until the license token is again associated with a terminal).
Rybak and Smith are both concerned with managing licenses in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Rybak because it would provide a way of managing the assignment of applications to users externally from an application store, thus resulting in greater flexibility in the mechanisms for application assignment. For example, a network administrator may take advantage of different types of application assignments (e.g., to devices or device groups, to user groups, etc.) that may not be available through the application store. Further, existing processes for managing application assignments in a device management system may be utilized, and the application store may be updated by the device management system when configuration changes warrant such an update. Administrators may also avoid having to manage licenses manually within a device management system to update the license and purchase account configuration of the external application automatically in response to an application assignment change. In addition, the techniques described herein may associate licenses on demand in response to user requests to install application, meaning that administrators may assign an application to more users than they have purchased licenses for. This allows efficient use of licenses, as only users that actually request to install the application may be allocated a license.
Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Ryback do not explicitly teach the new containerized application registering the license ID with the licensing service.
However, Riscutia teaches the new containerized application registering the license ID with the licensing service ([0056] the licensing service, upon receipt of a license request including one or more location fields specifying the provider of the network services to which the device is connected, verifies that the provider has a provider ID registered with the licensing service that is configured to enable additional features of the application, and if a valid provider ID is found, the license data structure returns to the device a license providing a first set of enabled features based on the user's ID and one or more additional sets of enabled features based on the provider's ID).
Riscutia and Smith are both concerned with managing licenses in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Rybak in view of Riscutia because it would provide activation of a full installation of an application having all features available but selectable using a license data structure rather than a product key. The user may also prefer to use the benefit of an additional or other feature or features of the application not available in a professional edition but instead available in a different edition of the same application. In this case, the user may acquire the license of the different (e.g., home) edition in order to use the preferred features.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Dujmovic et al. (US 2014/0189671) (hereinafter Dujmovic).
As per claim 10, Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to cause the new containerized application to: receive configuration parameters of the old containerized application; and implement the received configuration parameters within the new containerized application.
However, Dujmovic teaches wherein the instructions further cause the set of computing devices to cause the new containerized application to: receive configuration parameters of the old containerized application; and implement the received configuration parameters within the new containerized application ([0004] capture configuration parameters corresponding to the old application and applying those parameters to the new software module).
Dujmovic and Smith are both concerned with managing applications in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Dujmovic because it would provide for an improved approach for synchronizing between middleware configurations and application configurations. The deployment of middleware (e.g., an application server or a domain server) in an enterprise serves to lower the cost of operations, improve organizational performance, enhance scalability, and provide a foundation for database applications. In enterprise installations, the lifecycle of middle ware often evolves under a separate and distinct regime as compared to the lifecycle of applications deployed on it. Over time, best practices for minimizing system changes at any maintenance event have emerged, and some best practices encourage administrators to apply changes sequentially (rather than in parallel), and thus, system administrators often elect to change either code or configuration (but not both) in only one of the middleware or the application. In an exemplary installation, specifically an installation comprising a database engine and a plurality of software applications, improvements to the middleware are needed in order to keep pace with the improvements to the software applications that use the middleware, yet some configuration parameters may have been established in an earlier timeframe in the installation lifecycle, and may need to persist through many upgrade cycles. Implementing the above cycle to manage edition components for minimizing downtime during upgrades relies in part on a particular configuration of an edition.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Roberts (US 2016/0099943).
As per claim 11, Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir do not explicitly teach wherein the new containerized application and the old containerized application are network shutdown applications.
However, Roberts teaches wherein the new containerized application and the old containerized application are network shutdown applications ([0024] a network traffic shut-down mechanism in the form of a software application is loaded onto a client device).
Roberts and Smith are both concerned with managing applications in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Novick in view of Albasheir in view of Roberts because providing enhanced network traffic security. The client device includes a processor and it would provide for a network connection element selectively operable to provide two-way data traffic between a client device and a digital communications network. The client device includes a memory device managed by and accessible to the processor, and the memory device stores a network traffic schedule, which may be defined by a device operator through a shut-down mechanism user interface. The client device includes a shut-down mechanism causing the network connection element to provide the two-way data traffic between the client device and the network according to the network traffic schedule, which defines first and second time periods. The shut-down mechanism allows the network connection element to connect to the network during the first time period and prevents the network connection element to connect during the second time period to enhance the security of the device.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Neifer et al. (US 2025/0209139) disclose license binding of an application license to a device.
Nissen et al. (US 2021/0374215) disclose licensing a tool chain.
Karademir et al. (US 2019/0370436) disclose generating a license blob containing data representing a product key copied from a record of license information in the host storage upon receiving a user request to launch an application in the guest operating system.
Ramanujam et al. (US 2019/0278887) disclose when a license is obtained at the computing device for a container application, the application license manager may update license data in association with a native application so that a counterpart license can be obtained automatically by the native application, and vice versa.
Peza Ramirez et al. (US 2018/0260536) disclose license aggregation for applications.
Conway et al. (US 2017/0262825) disclose a license recommendation service.
Kobets et al. (US 8,763,159) disclose application licensing.
Yuki (US 2013/0133080) discloses licensing applications.
Womack et al. (US 2011/0289003) disclose license management for applications.
Strom et al. (US 2011/0179268) disclose a license generation module for generating a license including both a usage policy for an application and a key.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 February 24, 2026