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
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on March 27, 2024.
2. Claims 10-18 have been examined.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 14 is objected to. Based on claims 10 and 13, please consider to amend claim 14 to read:
The device according to claim 11, wherein the uninstallation processing circuitry is configured to uninstall the application for which the contract period of the tenant has expired, which is installed from [[an]]the installation source, and in which a predetermined library is not incorporated in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
4. 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.
5. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “receive, from the device, a request for information on an application installable onto the device or information of an application to be uninstalled from the device, and transmit, to the device, the information on the application installable onto the device or the application to be uninstalled from the device” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (communication circuitry, non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, a device, microservices, system and subsystem) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 13 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The device according to claim 12, wherein in a case where a predetermined library is not incorporated in the application installed on the device, the uninstallation processing circuitry is configured to uninstall the application installed on the device,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claims 11, 12 and claim 13 into claims 10 and 18 would put claims 10 and 18 in condition for allowance.
7. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 14 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The device according to claim 11, wherein the uninstallation processing circuitry is configured to uninstall the application for which the contract period of the tenant has expired, which is installed from an installation source, and in which a predetermined library is not incorporated,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claim 11 and claim 14 into claims 10 and 18 would put claims 10 and 18 in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
8. 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.
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.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0005032 to Znidarsic (hereafter “Znidarsic”).
Claim 17.
Znidarsic discloses an information processing apparatus for providing an application to a device (FIG.2, License Server 200 providing App.1, App.2, … to End-user System 204),
the information processing apparatus comprising:
communication circuitry configured to receive, from the device, a request for information on an application installable onto the device or information of an application to be uninstalled from the device (FIG.5, step 506, License Server 200 receives a request from the End-user System 204 for information about an available license), and
transmit, to the device, the information on the application installable onto the device or the application to be uninstalled from the device (FIG.5, License Server 200 responds available license? If Yes then go to step 508, if No then go to step 514).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
10. 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.
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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 10, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Znidarsic in view of US 2018/0101340 to Nakatani et al. (hereafter “Nakatani”).
Claim 10.
Znidarsic discloses a device for communicating (FIG.2, End-user system 204 and related text),
via a network, with at least one information processing apparatus that provides an application to the device (FIG.2, License Server 200 that provides App.1, App.2 … to the End-user systems 204),
the device comprising:
communication circuitry configured to transmit, to the information processing apparatus, a request for information on an application installable onto the device or information of an application to be uninstalled from the device (FIG.5, step 506 and related text, End-user system 204 requests for information from the License server 200 “whether a license is available?” so that an application/software later can be installed on End-user system 204); and
installation control circuitry configured to perform at least one of a process of installing the application onto the device or a process of uninstalling the application from the device, in accordance with the information, on the application installable onto the device or the application to be uninstalled from the device, received from the information processing apparatus (FIG.5, step 510, software/application is installed onto the End-user system 204 based on information “license available? Yes”),
wherein the installation control circuitry is configured to uninstall the application based on the information received from the information processing apparatus (FIG.5, step 516, uninstall software/application based on the information license available and software/application was installed on the End-user system 204).
Znidarsic does not disclose uninstall the application based on source information indicating an installation source of the application installed on the device.
However, Nakatani discloses uninstall the application based on source information indicating an installation source of the application installed on the device (0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nakatani’s teaching into Znidarsic‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to restrict the uninstallation if the installation source of the installation is fee-based or contract-based as suggested by Nakatani (0104).
Claim 15.
Znidarsic discloses the device according to claim 10, wherein the application installable onto the device includes an application for which a contract period of a tenant to which the device belongs is valid, and wherein the installation control circuitry includes an installation processing circuitry configured to install the installable application (FIG.5, step 510, software/application is installed onto the End-user system 204 based on an available/valid license).
Claim 16.
Znidarsic does not disclose the device according to claim 15, wherein the communication circuitry is configured to receive, from the information processing apparatus, information on a latest version of the application installable onto the device, wherein in a case where a version of the application installed on the device is older than the latest version, the installation processing circuitry is configured to transmit a request for updating the installed application to the information processing apparatus, and install the latest version of the application received from the information processing apparatus.
However, Nakatani discloses the communication circuitry is configured to receive, from the information processing apparatus, information on a latest version of the application installable onto the device, wherein in a case where a version of the application installed on the device is older than the latest version, the installation processing circuitry is configured to transmit a request for updating the installed application to the information processing apparatus, and install the latest version of the application received from the information processing apparatus (0109).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nakatani’s teaching into Znidarsic‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to update to a new version as suggested by Nakatani (0109).
Claim 18.
This claim is a system version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 10, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
12. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Znidarsic in view of Nakatani, and further in view of US 2020/0394282 to Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang”).
Claim 11.
Znidarsic and Nakatani do not disclose the device according to claim 10, wherein the application to be uninstalled includes an application for which a contract period of a tenant to which the device belongs has expired, and wherein the installation control circuitry includes uninstallation processing circuitry configured to uninstall the application to be uninstalled.
However, Wang discloses the application to be uninstalled includes an application for which a contract period of a tenant to which the device belongs has expired, and wherein the installation control circuitry includes uninstallation processing circuitry configured to uninstall the application to be uninstalled (0051).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang’s teaching into Znidarsic and Nakatani‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to remove the software associated with an expired license as suggested by Wang (0051).
Claim 12.
Znidarsic does not disclose the device according to claim 11, wherein the source information is stored in the device.
However, Nakatani discloses the source information is stored in the device (FIG.24, product information and installed application stored in device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nakatani’s teaching into Znidarsic and Wang‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to restrict the uninstallation if the installation source of the installation is fee-based or contract-based as suggested by Nakatani (0104).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights