DETAILED ACTION
This communication responsive to the Application No. 18/676,016 filed on May 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are directed towards FLEXIBLE AND DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT OF FEATURE LICENSES ON NETWORK DEVICES.
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 06/27/2024 was Acknowledge. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. US 2014/0047506 A1 (hereinafter “Yabe”) in view of Minina et al. US 2024/0295396 A1 (hereinafter “Minina”)
As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Yabe teaches a method comprising:
monitoring, by a network device supporting one or more features, a configuration state associated with the network device (An upgraded version of software is provided in some cases, for additional features or bug fixing. Upgraded versions may be provided in different forms: for example, one with additional features is provided at a cost, and one for bug fixing is provided for free. In the case of provision at a cost, the license is managed such that a new license file or license number is required for installation of the upgraded version. A user obtains the new license file or license number by additionally purchasing the upgraded version of the software. Yabe, para [0006]);
in response to detecting an update of the configuration state, determining whether a state of a feature is affected (The license issue unit 406 issues a license file in accordance with an instruction of the control unit 400 if the result of the determination processing by the license issue determination unit 405 is affirmative. Yabe, para [0055]);
in response to determining that the state of the feature is affected, determining whether to request issuance or release of a license corresponding to the affected feature (A license issue determination unit 405 determines, in accordance with an instruction of the control unit 400, whether or not the license issue request received by the reception unit 401 is proper for issue of the corresponding license file. For determination regarding the license issue request, it acquires appropriate information from a license management unit 408, a product information management unit 409, and a group information management unit 410, and executes license issue determination processing. Yabe, para [0054]).
Yabe does not explicitly teach communicating by the network device with a cloud-based license-management platform to request the issuance or release of the license
However, Minina teaches communicating by the network device with a cloud-based license-management platform to request the issuance or release of the license (Cloud-based license management platform: Developing a secure cloud-based platform for storing and managing licenses, allowing trade show organizers to easily verify licensing information and share updates with exhibitors and attendees. Minina, para [0117]).
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 the teaching of Yabe in view of Minina. One would be motivated to do so, to enhance the efficiency of the system by applying a cloud-based license-management platform.
As per claims 2 and 11, Yabe and Minina teach the method of claim 1 and claim 10, wherein determining whether to request the issuance or release of the license comprises:
in response to determining that the feature is activated, request the issuance of the license (A transmission unit 501 transmits a license issue request to the license management server 102 that is connected via the Internet 100. Also, it transmits an MFP software information acquisition request to the license management server 102 that is connected via the Internet 100. The license issue request is generated by the transmission unit 501. Yabe, para [0062]); and
in response to determining that the feature is deactivated, request the release of the license (If the current date is prior to the date of the information stored in the release date column, the license management server 102 does not issue a license even if it received the later-described license issue request. Yabe, para [0084]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. US 2014/0047506 A1 (hereinafter “Yabe”) in view of Minina et al. US 2024/0295396 A1 (hereinafter “Minina”) and further in view of Fang et al. US 9,104,844 B2 (hereinafter “Fang”)
As per claims 3, 12 and 20, Yabe and Minina teach the method of claim 1, claim 10 and claim 19. Yabe does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: subsequent to communicating with the cloud-based license-management platform to request the issuance of the license, receiving, by the network device, an issued license in response to the cloud-based license-management platform determining that a license pool associated with a user of the network device has at least one remaining license corresponding to the affected feature; and receiving a license-pending notification in response to the cloud-based license-management platform determining that no such license is available in the license pool.
However, Fang teaches subsequent to communicating with the cloud-based license-management platform to request the issuance of the license, receiving, by the network device, an issued license in response to the cloud-based license-management platform determining that a license pool associated with a user of the network device has at least one remaining license corresponding to the affected feature (after the dynamic software license platform 2 obtains a certain number of software licenses from the software supplier 1, the license manager 24 adds corresponding software name and number M of licenses to the license pool 21. If the number of software licenses required by the user end 3 is N, then the license manager 24 checks whether N is smaller than M to assure that the license pool 21 is able to provide sufficient software licenses to the user end 3, wherein, both M and N are positive integrals greater than 0. If the license manager 24 confirms that N is smaller than M, the license manager 24 provides N software licenses to the user end 3 and changes the number of software licenses of the license pool 21 from M to (M-N). Fang, Col. 3 kubes 36-48); and
receiving a license-pending notification in response to the cloud-based license-management platform determining that no such license is available in the license pool (the 5 users A-E in the user end 3 purchase only 3 software licenses. The license manager 24 may set the user A as the highest priority level and set the users BE as ordinary priority level. Thus, the user A is always able to use the software license, and the users BE can only share the two remaining software licenses. The license manager 24 may provide the two remaining software licenses according to the request order of the users B.about.E. In other words, the two users who submitted the request earlier than the other two users are entitled to use the two remaining software licenses. Fang, Col. 3 lines 55-65).
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 the system of Yabe in view of Fang. One would be motivated to do so, to avoid disruption of the service by offering available licenses from a license pool.
As per claims 4 and 13, Yabe, Minina and Fang teach the method of claim 3 and claim 10, further comprising:
subsequent to receiving the issued license or the license-pending notification, updating a license status associated with the affected feature (the PC software information acquisition unit 508 refers to the value of the license authentication column 902 for the acquired PC software information. If the value of the license authentication column 902 is "authenticated", processing proceeds to step S1104. If the value of the license authentication column 902 is "unauthenticated", processing proceeds to step S1103. Yabe, para [0106]); and
running, by the network device, the affected feature based on the license status (the license authentication screen display unit 507 displays the license number entry screen 1200 on the user interface 201, such as a display (not shown) or the like of the PC 103. Yabe, para [0107]).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. US 2014/0047506 A1 (hereinafter “Yabe”) in view of Minina et al. US 2024/0295396 A1 (hereinafter “Minina”) and further in view of Rao et al. US 2021/0143904 A1 (hereinafter “Rao”)
As per claims 8 and 17, Yabe and Minina teach the method of claim 1 and claim 10. Yabe does not explicitly teach wherein communicating with a cloud-based license-management platform to request the release of the license causes the cloud-based license-management platform to add the released license to a license pool associated with a user of the network device and to issue the released license to a second network device.
However, Rao teaches wherein communicating with a cloud-based license-management platform to request the release of the license causes the cloud-based license-management platform to add the released license to a license pool associated with a user of the network device and to issue the released license to a second network device (if the user has purchased licenses that are not needed, e.g. are not required for either the working path 18a or the protection path 18b for a particular service, the unused licenses may be placed in an unused license pool. Rao, para [0048]) (the management system 116 will release licenses to the restored working path 18a′ if the restored working path 18a′ is not currently being used to transmit the transmission signal. When licenses are released, they may be added to the unused license pool. Rao, para [0050]).
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 the system of Yabe in view of Rao. One would be motivated to do so, to organize the released and issued licenses in a license pool.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. US 2014/0047506 A1 (hereinafter “Yabe”) in view of Minina et al. US 2024/0295396 A1 (hereinafter “Minina”) and further in view of Koehler et al. US 2014/0379593 A1 (hereinafter “Koehler”)
As per claims 9 and 18, Yabe and Minina teach the method of claim 1 and claim 10. Yabe does not explicitly teach wherein the network device comprises a switch, and wherein the configuration state associated with the network device comprises a virtual switch configuration.
However, Koehler teaches wherein the network device comprises a switch, and wherein the configuration state associated with the network device comprises a virtual switch configuration (when an affiliated partner sells a vendor's product to a customer, the partner gains access to entitlement data 210 in the license pool corresponding to the particular product. In one embodiment, a partner associated with a particular customer account 200 may access the customer's aggregate license pool data. For example, if three different partners A, B, and C sell virtual switches to the customer, the customer's license pool may include license information of the virtual switches from each partner. Although A, B, and C may access the license pool 205, each partner can access only the licenses 220 and entitlement data 210 for the virtual switches sold by the given partner (e.g., only A can see the entitlement data for virtual switches that A sold to the customer but not for the virtual switches sold by B). However, if customer decides to associate with partner A in the trust model, then partner A becomes privy to the customer's entitlements from virtual switches purchased from partners B and C. Access to such past entitlements may present an added incentive for a partner to agree to associate with a customer. Koehler, para [0027]).
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 the system of Yabe in view of Koehler. One would be motivated to do so, to organize releasing and issuing of licenses according to related switched and virtual switches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are objected by dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Sharma et al. US 2018/0176128 A1 directed to service chaining at network device.
B. Nosov et al. US 2021/0034715 A1 directed to rights management of cloud resources.
C. Vardi US 2004/0249763 A1 directed to license management for computing on demand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH whose telephone number is (571)272-0179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8AM-5PM EST & Friday variable.
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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492