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
Response to Amendment
Claims 4 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13 and 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
II. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
III. CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by SOUSA et al (US 2020/0371766).
Per claim 1, SOUSA et al teach a method for managing multiple types of software components, the method being performed by one or more processors in a proxy server, and comprising:
receiving a request for installation of one or more software components among the multiple types of software components from a cloud system, and transferring the received request to each corresponding software provision unit (paras 0007, 0026, 0028-29, 0035, 0046—request to install an application and accessing the installed application residing in a cloud-based server);
receiving, from the software provision unit, each of one or more pieces of software installation data for installation of the one or more software components (paras 0035, 0043, 0052-53, 0058, 0092—receiving a request from the subscriber system to install or integrate an application in the enterprise application suite);
determining whether to provide the one or more pieces of software installation data, so as to perform installation of the one or more software components, through verification of the one or more pieces of software installation data, and storing meta information relating to details about provision of the one or more pieces of software installation data in a database (paras 0053, 0081, 0083-84—once purchased, licensed, and/or integrated, the subscriber system, including any component, may access the application at the installed enterprise applications as part of the enterprise account that includes storage for purchased, licensed, and/or integrated applications); and
verifying the one or more software components installed in the cloud system on the basis of the meta information (paras 0066-67, 0082—verification of installations),
wherein the meta information corresponds to information on details about provision of each piece of software installation data for installation of the multiple types of software components (paras 0067, 0083-84—uploading installed application to the EADS).
Claims 7, 11-13 and 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, SOUSA et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises storing, by the proxy server, a result of the verification of the one or more pieces of software installation data in a database (paras 0046, 0050, 0053-53—storing by a server installation data in a database).
Claims 8-10, 15 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claims 3 are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, SOUSA et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein in the determining, the meta information comprises one or more of identification information of the software component, version information, type information, information on a transmission time point, and information on an item of verification performed for the software installation data (paras 0088-90, 0095, 0118—version of the application, recent updates and any other type of information helpful to a user in understanding more about the application, application ID).
Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, SOUSA et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a part or all of the meta information stored in the database to a terminal so as to provide the same to a manager (paras 0055, 0161, 0163—transmitting data from a database or data store user device to the developer or the enterprise system bypassing the network).
Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
IV. 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.
V. CLAIMS 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOUSA et al (US 2020/0371766) in view of QURESHI et al (US 2014/0007222).
Per claim 2, SOUSA et al teach the method of claim 1, including granting access to a user account and application using a sign-on protocol (para 0036)—yet fail to explicitly teach the method “wherein the determining comprises applying, by the proxy server, a predetermined policy, and determining whether to provide the one or more pieces of software installation data, through verification of the one or more pieces of software installation data”. QURESHI et al teach implementing policies that control device access, verification of the user’s authentication and determining the applications that are installed on the device (paras 0053, 0055-56, 0064, 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of SOUSA et al and QURESHI et al for the purpose of applying a policy to determine whether to provide the software installation data, which is a well-known tool used in the art for determining installation actions and access.
Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
VI. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: ARAI et al (US 2015/0350311); BOUCHARD (US 2024/0054230); CAIN, JR et al (US 2023/0393833).
VII. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
VIII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights