DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has elected claims 1-13 as per the response received 25 February 2026.
Claims 14-17 have been withdrawn as being directed towards un-elected claims.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 April 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed towards a method, claims 7-12 are directed to a system/apparatus, and claim 13 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A method for managing a license on a relay server connected to a cloud server and a license server, the method comprising:
sending a license request corresponding to the license server to the cloud server, wherein the license request includes a certificate of a user corresponding to the license server and an identifier of the license server, and the license server and the relay server are managed by the user;
receiving a license corresponding to the license server from the cloud server;
distributing the license to the license server, wherein the license is associated with a tool, and the license is not used to limit how many copies of the tool to be launched;
obtaining, via the license server, a number of copies of the tool running on a worker server and working durations corresponding to the copies of the tool; and
sending the number of the copies of the tool at running and the corresponding working durations to the cloud server.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing commercial and/or legal interactions. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite steps directed to managing licenses which is grouped within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of managing licenses. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “relay server”, “cloud server”, “license server”, and “worker server” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “relay server”, “cloud server”, “license server”, and “worker server” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “relay server”, “cloud server”, “license server”, and “worker server” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “relay server”, “cloud server”, “license server”, and “worker server” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Regarding Claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, and 12, the claims recite additional steps which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, the claims merely further describe the licenses and the tools associated with the licenses.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the claims merely further describe the licenses being managed and/or recite additional steps which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao et al. (US 20150254439 A1) in view of Dasher et al. (US 20100169977 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 13, Ao discloses:
A method for managing a license on a relay server connected to a cloud server and a license server, the method comprising:
sending a license request corresponding to the license server to the cloud server (See Ao: Para. [0050] – “At block 420, a license request, from the cloud-based application, is listened for. The license request is listened for through a TCP port and opened for communication between the application and the cloud-pubic messaging infrastructure”),
the license server and the relay server are managed by the user (See Ao: Para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user runs the application, a request for a license is sent to a license server. If a license is available, the license server allows the application to run. Upon the expiration of a license period, or when the application is no longer in use, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. Licensing allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to control access to the software.”);
receiving a license corresponding to the license server from the cloud server (See Ao: Para. [0051] – “At block 520, the license request is forwarded to the on-premise license server such that a response to the license request is acquired for the cloud-based application.”);
distributing the license to the license server, wherein the license is associated with a tool, and the license is not used to limit how many copies of the tool to be launched (See Ao: Para. [0051] – “At block 530, the response to the license request is communicated to the cloud-based application through the license-messaging channel.”; See Ao: Para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time”);
obtaining, via the license server, a number of copies of the tool running on a worker server and working durations corresponding to the copies of the tool (See Ao: Para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user runs the application, a request for a license is sent to a license server. If a license is available, the license server allows the application to run. Upon the expiration of a license period, or when the application is no longer in use, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. Licensing allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to control access to the software.”); and
sending the number of the copies of the tool at running and the corresponding working durations to the cloud server (See Ao: Para. [0043] – “With continued reference to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 illustrates a plurality of on-premise platforms (e.g., on-premise platforms 270, 280, 290) each having a license server (e.g., license servers 272, 282, 292). License servers 272, 282, 292 are generally configured for granting and imposing limitations on software use based on a licensing agreement. The license servers 272, 282, 292 support floating licensing based on license requests using license-messaging. License-messaging comprises messages sent from applications 240, 242, 244 as requests and responses (e.g., license messaging requests and responses 278, 288, 298) received from license servers 272, 282, 292 using the cloud public-messaging infrastructure 220. License-messaging using the cloud public-messaging infrastructure 220 may be implemented using the publicly accessible medium 230 and a routing service that establishes an outbound connection through a license-messaging channel such that the license messages are allowed to circumvent network control units (e.g., network control units 274, 284, 294). Network control units, by way of example, include firewalls and NAT protocols that would otherwise prevent communication with the license servers 272, 282, 292.”; See Ao: para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user runs the application, a request for a license is sent to a license server. If a license is available, the license server allows the application to run. Upon the expiration of a license period, or when the application is no longer in use, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. Licensing allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to control access to the software.”).
Ao fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the license request includes a certificate of a user corresponding to the license server and an identifier of the license server
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dasher discloses:
wherein the license request includes a certificate of a user corresponding to the license server and an identifier (See Dasher: Para. [0028] – “receiving a request for the license over the network to enable the user to observe the segment of media content on a player device, wherein the request includes a player identifier identifying the player device and a certificate that indicates the user has rights to observe the segment of media content;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the license request data structure disclosed by Ao for the data structure comprising a certificate and identifier as disclosed by Dasher to include a user certificate and server identifier yielding the predictable result of an increase in the security strength of the invention by ensuring that licensing requests are originating from trusted sources.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, the combination discloses:
wherein receiving the license corresponding to the license server from the cloud server comprises: receiving an updated license from the cloud server (See Ao: Para. [0048] – “he response 348 may comprise a grant of a license to the requesting cloud-based application. The response 348 may also comprise a denial of a license to the requesting cloud-based application. It is contemplated that the response 348 may include the grant, or denial, and additional data associated with the license request.”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, the combination discloses:
wherein receiving the updated license from the cloud server comprises: periodically receiving the updated license from the cloud server (See Ao: Para. [0048] – “he response 348 may comprise a grant of a license to the requesting cloud-based application. The response 348 may also comprise a denial of a license to the requesting cloud-based application. It is contemplated that the response 348 may include the grant, or denial, and additional data associated with the license request.”), wherein the updated license includes an updated validity period (See Ao: Para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user runs the application, a request for a license is sent to a license server. If a license is available, the license server allows the application to run. Upon the expiration of a license period, or when the application is no longer in use, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. Licensing allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to control access to the software.”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, the combination discloses:
wherein: the tool is a first tool; the license is also associated with a second tool, and validity periods of the first tool and the second tool equal a validity period of the license; and the validity period of the license is less than or equal to 24 hours (See Ao: Para. [0016] – “With particular reference to network license servers that facilitate floating licensing or concurrent licensing, one such implementation relates to a limited number of licenses for a software application shared among a larger number of users over time. When an authorized user runs the application, a request for a license is sent to a license server. If a license is available, the license server allows the application to run. Upon the expiration of a license period, or when the application is no longer in use, the license is reclaimed by the license server and made available to other authorized users. Licensing allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to control access to the software.”; See Ao: Para. [0046] – “The cloud public-messaging infrastructure may further function as a license hub in that the messaging infrastructure generates license channels and aggregates licenses of different applications to service multiple deployments of different applications in the cloud”).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao in view of Dasher in further view of Davis et al. (US 20210073360 A1)
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the combination of Ao and Dasher discloses:
wherein: the license server is configured to: in response to a check-out request of the user for launching one or more copies of the first tool, check out one or more tokens from the first sub-license and record check-out time for the one or more copies of the first tool; in response to a check-in request of the worker server for ending the one or more copies of the first tool, check in the one or more tokens to the first sub-license and record check-in time for the one or more copies of the first tool; and send a number of the one or more copies of the first tool, the check-out time, and the check-in time to the relay server (See Ao: para. [0015] – “Traditional software licensing models have met some challenges in cloud computing platform implementations of applications that utilize licensing. Conventionally, in order for a user to get authorization to use a license, several different techniques could be used. First, a dongle solution, where a hardware token is presented during execution of the application and features of the application are licensed based on the communication with the hardware token. Second, a system fingerprinting solution, where a hardware fingerprint (e.g., CPU identification, or other hardware identifiers) are used to create a license key. And third, a network license server may issue licenses to clients on demand.”).
The combination of Ao and Dasher fails to explicitly disclose:
Wherein the license comprises a first sub-license and a second sub-license, the first sub-license is associated with the first tool, and the second sub-license is associated with the second tool;
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Davis discloses:
Wherein the license comprises a first sub-license and a second sub-license, the first sub-license is associated with the first tool, and the second sub-license is associated with the second tool (See Davis: para. [0088] – “As described in detail below, again, with reference to Method 200g of FIG. 2G, according to one embodiment of the present disclosure the Cooperative Manufacturing functionality is enabled when the consumer registers their DMC license. As applied to collectible DMC licenses generated in Method 200g, each registered, tokenized AR sublicense is considered owned by the consumer, with an intrinsic, enduring value that is established by the terms of the parent license. The value is an inextricable property (a right) of the sublicense itself and travels with the sublicense. When the consumer combines one of their registered AR sublicenses with an object registered in the Merchandise Licensed Database 171, to create an item of Merchandise 110, the sublicense itself contributes unique value to the finished item of Merchandise 110 through Cooperative Manufacturing. The Cooperative Manufacturing functionality described in Method 200g applies equally to collectible and non-collectible, tokenized DMC licenses as paired with digital-media-enhanced merchandise. This embodiment includes the capacity for DMC licenses to be applied across merchandise categories at the consumer's discretion or curation. This embodiment references limited-edition merchandising rights, but also applies to non-limited-edition merchandising rights.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the license disclosed by Ao and Dasher to be divided into sub-licenses based on separate rights as disclosed by Davis yielding the predictable result of an increase in the efficiency of the invention by consolidating licensing issuance to a singular request rather than multiple separate requests.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao in view of Dasher in further view of Lee et al. (US 20200372518 A1)
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, the combination of Ao and Dasher disclsoes the method according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose:
determining cost of using the tool according to the number of the copies of the tool at running and the corresponding working durations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
determining cost of using the tool according to the number of the copies of the tool at running and the corresponding working durations (See Lee: para. [0007] – “obtaining the number of software licenses and a full utilization rate of the software in a preset period; obtaining a number of employees who work overtime, a number of overtime hours, amount of time spent using the software, and cost related to the overtime in the preset period; computing opportunity cost based on the number of employees who work overtime, the number of overtime hours, the amount of time spent using the software and the cost related to the overtime; and determining an expected increase in number of the software licenses according to the opportunity cost and the full utilization rate.”; See Lee: Para. [0024] – “The storage device 120 can store a database for storing the number of software licenses, a full utilization rate and an average utilization rate of the software in a preset period, the number of employees who work overtime, the number of overtime hours, the amount of time spent using the software, and the cost related to the overtime in an overtime period during the preset period, wherein the preset period is one month or one year.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the licensing system disclosed by Ao and Dasher to additionally perform the cost determination method disclosed by Lee yielding the predictable result of a more economically efficient invention by determining the optimal number o f software licenses that should be issued (See Lee: para. [0004])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm EST.
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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights