DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08/14/2026, has been entered and fully considered.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection to claim 8 has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting limitations “the provision” in line 8 and “the application” in line 17 has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 8-12, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
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.
Applicants’ arguments, see page 11, with respect to claim 8 not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “internal” should be given its plain meaning. The Examiner notes that the term “internal” was interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2173.01. The Examiner finds that “internal” does not sufficiently modify the non-structural term “entity” to entirely perform the recited functions of “identify” and “transfer”. Nevertheless, the term “registry” does modify the structure of “entity” to entirely perform the recited function and therefore claim 8 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 8 overcomes this claim rejection. However, claim 8 recites “a service” in line 1, “provision of the uniquely identifiable service instance” in line 9 and “the provision of the service” in line 20. The claim establishes that “the device is provided with a uniquely identifiable service instance of the service” in lines 3-4, so therefore “service” and “uniquely identifiable service instance” are distinct claim terms. The claim may be interpreted such that “a service” in line 1 provides antecedent basis for “the service” in line 20. However, under this interpretation, “the provision” of line 20 lacks sufficient antecedent basis because “provision” was established for “the uniquely identifiable service instance” in line 9, not “the service” in line 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-22, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see page 18, that Sanders does not disclose a unique service certificate because the unique ID of the application instance in Sanders does not teach the claimed unique service certificate. However, the instant application specification discloses that “the service certificate (190) and the device certificate (110) are used to identify the device (e.g., the application (200)) to the central registry instance REG” in paragraph [0048]. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.01(I). The unique ID of the application instance in Sanders is an identifier (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the execution authorization request 164 may include one or both of: (1) unique ID data 166a, such as a copy of the unique ID data 144b' stored at the computing device 120a in association with the application instance 104a'; and (2) a computing device ID 166”; paragraph [0027], “Unique identifiers may take any form and may be generated in any of a variety of ways, as is well-known to those having ordinary skill in the art”). Therefore, the unique ID of the application instance in Sanders does teach the claimed unique service certificate.
Applicant argues, see page 18, that Sanders is silent on the application instance unique ID being “inseparably linked” to its application instance. However, Sanders does teach the application instance unique ID being stored in a record with the application instance (Sanders: paragraph [0092], “the streaming server 310 may create application instance record 314a, which contains a copy 316a of the application instance 104a', an application instance unique ID 318a which is equivalent to the application instance unique ID 324a”), the record being used to register the instance (Sanders: paragraph [0103], “application instance 316a is registered (e.g., the IP address and/or MAC address specified by the unique computing device ID 320a of the record 314a”) and that the registration persists into future attempts to execute the application (Sanders: paragraph [0153], “the user may easily effectively execute the application instance on any Internet-connected computing device to which the user has access, without the need to install and/or register the application instance again”). Therefore, Sanders teaches that the record is registered and not separable among future execution attempts. Hence, Sanders is not silent on the application instance unique ID being “inseparably linked” to its application instance.
Applicant argues, see page 18-19, that the computing device ID of Sanders does not teach the claimed device certificate. However, the instant application specification discloses that “the service certificate (190) and the device certificate (110) are used to identify the device (e.g., the application (200)) to the central registry instance REG” in paragraph [0048]. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.01(I). The computing device ID in Sanders is an identifier (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the execution authorization request 164 may include one or both of: (1) unique ID data 166a, such as a copy of the unique ID data 144b' stored at the computing device 120a in association with the application instance 104a'; and (2) a computing device ID 166”; paragraph [0027], “Unique identifiers may take any form and may be generated in any of a variety of ways, as is well-known to those having ordinary skill in the art”). Therefore, the computing device ID of Sanders does not teach the claimed device certificate.
Applicant argues, see page 19, that Sanders does not disclose that the computing device ID is “associated with” the unique application instance ID. However, the computing device ID and the unique application instance ID are associated with each other in the registration server in registration records (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164. If the registration server 150 finds such a matching registration record, the registration server 150 may determine whether the computing device ID 166b in the authorization request 164 matches the computing device ID 156a in the matching registration record 152a”). Therefore, Sanders does teach the claimed relationship between the device certificate and the service certificate.
Applicant argues, see pages 19-20, that Sanders does not disclose the claimed internal registry entity because the registration server of Sanders is a separate component to the computing device and should be interpreted as “external”. However, the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated 05/14/2026, interprets the claimed internal registry entity as the computing device 120a, not the registration server. See page 17 of Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated 05/14/2026. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.01(I). The computing device 120a may be interpreted as being internal to the overall system or device (Sanders: claim 16, “A system comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer program instructions are executable by at least one computer processor to perform a method”). Further, the unique application instance ID and computing device ID are used to identify the computing device (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the execution authorization request 164 may include one or both of: (1) unique ID data 166a, such as a copy of the unique ID data 144b' stored at the computing device 120a in association with the application instance 104a'; and (2) a computing device ID 166”) to a uniquely identifiable service instance (Sanders: FIG. 1B, request 164 is sent to the registration server; paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164”).
Applicant argues, see page 20, that Sanders is silent on verification of the associated device certificate by using the unique service certificate. However, Sanders does teach verification of the computing device ID (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may determine whether the computing device ID 166b in the authorization request 164 matches the computing device ID 156a in the matching registration record 152a. The registration server 150 may conclude that the application instance 104a is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a only if: (1) the registration server 150 finds a matching registration record; and (2) the computing device ID of that registration record matches the computing device ID of the authorization request 164.”) based on the unique application instance ID (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164”).
Applicant argues, see page 20-21, that the authorization response in Sanders does not teach the claimed application instance certificate including protected information. However, the instant application discloses “The result of this "software device provisioning" deployment method is the
automated transfer of the correct application instance certificate (e.g., Device Configuration Application "Instance Certificate") 132 for the application, which later provides the necessary trust relationship for the application 200.” in paragraph [0059]. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.01(I). Therefore, the authorization response is received by the computing device (Sanders: paragraph [0076], “The computing device 120a receives the authorization response 168 (FIG. 2, operation 274) and determines whether the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a”) and is transferred into user accounts (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “if the computing device 120a determines that the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a, then the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280), such as by performing any one or more of the following: providing the user 130a with access to some or all features of the application instance 104a'”) to establish a trust relationship of being authorized to execute (Sanders: paragraph [0081], “each of the user accounts 312a-c contains: (1) data indicating which application instances each of the users 130a-c of the system 300 is authorized to execute; and (2) data enabling the server 310 to execute each such application instance on behalf of the corresponding user”). Further, as explained above in this Office Action, the internal registry entity is interpreted as being taught by the computing device. Sanders teaches the computing device transferring the authorization to the user for the application instance (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “if the computing device 120a determines that the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a, then the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280), such as by performing any one or more of the following: providing the user 130a with access to some or all features of the application instance 104a'”). Therefore, “transfer” of the authorization response is taught by Sanders as being executed on an internal registry entity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12, 14-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the provision of the service” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends reciting “the provision of the uniquely identifiable service instance”
Claims 9-12, 14-15, 17 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders (USP App Pub 2013/0254125).
Regarding claim 8, A device for secure execution of a service of an application provided by a central provision entity for execution on request by a service user (Sanders: abstract, “A computer system enables a computing device to execute a registered software application even though the registered software application is not registered to the computing device”), wherein the device is provided with a uniquely identifiable service instance of the service (Sanders: paragraph [0063], “the computing device 120a may contain or otherwise have access to: (1) a copy 104a' of application instance 104a (or data derived therefrom, such as an installed version of application instance 104a resulting from running an installation executable program for application instance 104a)”), wherein service is assigned at least one server component (Sanders: FIG. 3, application instance record 314a) in each case that is formed by a workflow control component (Sanders: paragraph [0092], “assuming that the request 326 specifies the application instance 104a' and corresponding unique application instance ID 324a, the streaming server 310 may create application instance record 314a”) that is loadable into a workflow control environment and executed at the workflow control environment (Sanders: paragraph [0092], “the application instance record 314a contains data sufficient to enable the streaming server 310 to execute and stream the application instance copy 316a”), and the service is supplied with and inseparably linked to a unique service certificate assigned to an executable service instance of the service during provision of the uniquely identifiable service instance to the device (Sanders: paragraph [0086], “if the application instance A is application instance 104a', then the streaming client 302a may obtain a unique ID 324a of the application instance 104a'”; FIG. 3, unique instance ID 324A is linked to application instance 104a’), so that the uniquely identifiable service instance is created (Sanders: paragraph [0096], “the user may use the streaming server 310 to execute one or more application instances associated with the user's account on the streaming server, and to stream such executing application instances to one or more of the user's computing devices”), the device comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory configured to:
simultaneously receive a device certificate that is also unique and associated with the unique service certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0088], “The streaming client 302a may send, to the streaming server 310 over the network 110… The request 326 may include, for example, one or more of the following:”; paragraph [0090], “the unique application instance ID detected in operation 406 (e.g., unique application instance ID 324a)”; paragraph [0091], “the unique computing device ID detected in operation 402 (e.g., unique computing device ID 322)”); and
an internal registry entity (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the computing device 120a transmits an execution authorization request 164 to the registration server 150 over the network 110”) configured to:
identify itself to the uniquely identifiable service instance (Sanders: paragraph [0074], “In response to receiving the request 164, the registration server 150 determines whether the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a (e.g., whether the application instance 104a' is registered to the computing device 120a) (FIG. 2B, operation 268)”; paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164”) using the associated device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the execution authorization request 164 may include one or both of: (1) unique ID data 166a, such as a copy of the unique ID data 144b' stored at the computing device 120a in association with the application instance 104a'; and (2) a computing device ID 166”); and
after verification of the associated device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may determine whether the computing device ID 166b in the authorization request 164 matches the computing device ID 156a in the matching registration record 152a. The registration server 150 may conclude that the application instance 104a is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a only if: (1) the registration server 150 finds a matching registration record; and (2) the computing device ID of that registration record matches the computing device ID of the authorization request 164.”) using the unique service certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164”), transfer an application instance certificate into the application (Sanders: paragraph [0076], “The computing device 120a receives the authorization response 168 (FIG. 2, operation 274) and determines whether the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a”), which contains protected information (Sanders: paragraph [0081], “each of the user accounts 312a-c contains: (1) data indicating which application instances each of the users 130a-c of the system 300 is authorized to execute; and (2) data enabling the server 310 to execute each such application instance on behalf of the corresponding user”) required to continue to carry out the provision of the service (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280), such as by performing any one or more of the following: executing the application instance 104a', providing the user 130a with access to some or all features of the application instance 104a'”),
wherein the unique service certificate, the device certificate, or the unique service certificate and the device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0054], “the application instance data 154a may include one or both of the application ID 144a and the unique ID 144b”) are supplemented by license information (Sanders: paragraph [0087], “the application instance data 154a-c contain license keys, then the unique IDs 324a-b obtained by the streaming client 302a may also be license keys of application instances 104a' and 106a'”), wherein the license information determines functionality of the uniquely identifiable service instance (Sanders: paragraph [0040], “the user 130a provides input 140c representing what the user purports to be the unique identifier (e.g., license key)”; paragraph [0043], “to allow the user 140c to install or otherwise execute the application instance 104a on the computing device 120a only if the unique ID input 140c represents the unique ID associated with the application instance 104a”) and is stored on the device in a dedicated license information store (Sanders: paragraph [0087], “The unique IDs 324a-b may be of the same type as the unique IDs that are stored in the application instance data 154a-c in the registration records 152a-c on the registration server 150”).
Re. claim 1, it recites analogous limitations as claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the license information is appended to the device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0087], “the application instance data 154a-c contain license keys, then the unique IDs 324a-b obtained by the streaming client 302a may also be license keys of application instances 104a' and 106a'”; FIG. 1B, application instance data 154 is appended to device ID 156) as a user extension (Sanders: paragraph [0040], “the user 130a provides input 140c representing what the user purports to be the unique identifier (e.g., license key)”).
Regarding claim 7, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
when verifying the license information (Sanders: paragraph [0043], “to allow the user 140c to install or otherwise execute the application instance 104a on the computing device 120a only if the unique ID input 140c represents the unique ID associated with the application instance 104a”), the device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0085], “The streaming client 302a detects a unique ID 322 (e.g., IP address and/or MAC address) of the computing device 120a on which the streaming client 302a is executing (FIG. 4, operation 402)”) and the unique service certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0086], “The streaming client 302a may obtain a unique ID (e.g., license key) of the application instance A (FIG. 4, operation 406)”) have a common certificate-issuing provision entity (Sanders: FIG. 3-4, both device ID 322 and application instance ID are obtained/issued from computing device 120a) and a same biunique address (Sanders: paragraph [0044], “uniquely identifies the computing device 120a, such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computing device 120a” i.e., the computing device 120a has a unique IP address, and both device ID 322 and application instance ID are obtained/issued from computing device 120a).
Regarding claim 10, Sanders teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the internal registry entity (Sanders: paragraph [0073], “the computing device 120a”) is part of a directory service (Sanders: paragraph [0053], “the registration server 150 may create and store a registration record 152a”; paragraph [0065], “registration record 152a includes … computing device ID data 156a representing a computing device (e.g., computing device 120a) to which the first application instance is registered” i.e., a directory service is a system that stores and manages information about connected devices).
Regarding claim 11, Sanders teaches the device of claim 8, wherein
the uniquely identifiable service instance is transported from the central provision entity (Sanders: paragraph [0092], “streaming server 310 to execute and stream the application instance copy 316a”) to the device (Sanders: paragraph [0106], “The streaming server 310 streams the executing application instance 316a to the streaming client 302a”; FIG. 5, computing device 120a includes streaming client 302a) via secure communication (Sanders: paragraph [0156], “secure methods for exchanging software application instances among users”; paragraph [0106], “streaming the application involves exchanging streaming input/output 522 between the streaming server 310 and streaming client 302a”).
Regarding claim 13, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the protected information (Sanders: paragraph [0081], “each of the user accounts 312a-c contains: (1) data indicating which application instances each of the users 130a-c of the system 300 is authorized to execute; and (2) data enabling the server 310 to execute each such application instance on behalf of the corresponding user”) required to continue to carry out the secure provision of the service (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280), such as by performing any one or more of the following: executing the application instance 104a', providing the user 130a with access to some or all features of the application instance 104a'”) includes correct address information (Sanders: paragraph [0103], “To overcome this problem and enable the application instance 316a to execute on the streaming server 310, even though the streaming server 310 is not the computing device 120a to which the application instance 316a is registered, the server 310 may mimic, when executing the application instance 316a, the unique ID (e.g., IP address and/or MAC address) of the computing device to which the application instance 316a is registered”).
Re. claim 14, it recites analogous limitations as claim 13 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the device is configured to obtain authority (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “if the computing device 120a determines that the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a, then the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280)”) to transmit to the service, in the application instance certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0111], “modify the buying user's account 312b to provide the buying user 130b with authority to execute the application instance 316a”), the protected information (Sanders: paragraph [0081], “each of the user accounts 312a-c contains: (1) data indicating which application instances each of the users 130a-c of the system 300 is authorized to execute; and (2) data enabling the server 310 to execute each such application instance on behalf of the corresponding user”) required to continue to carry out the secure provision of the service (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “providing the user 130a with access to some or all features of the application instance 104a'”) without further manual authorization (Sanders: paragraph [0153], “the user may easily effectively execute the application instance on any Internet-connected computing device to which the user has access, without the need to install and/or register the application instance again”).
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.
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) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Gwalani et al. (US Pat No 9,621,403; hereinafter Gwalani).
Regarding claim 2, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
… including the device certificate (Sanders: FIG. 3, Device ID 322; paragraph [0085], “The streaming client 302a detects a unique ID 322 (e.g., IP address and/or MAC address) of the computing device 120a on which the streaming client 302a is executing”).
Sanders does not teach … a plurality of device certificates assigned to the device are stored in a device certificate store on the device, the plurality of device certificates…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gwalani does teach … a plurality of device certificates assigned to the device are stored in a device certificate store on the device, the plurality of device certificates (Gwalani: col 6, lines 52-53, “The certificate storage 130 is configured to store a set of certificates 132 and 134. While two certificates 132 and 134 are illustrated, the subject technology may involve more … than two certificates”),…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device ID of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Gwalani to use dedicated storage for the device ID and other device certificates. The motivation for doing so is that network administrators can have greater control of the devices that can connect to the network (Gwalani: col 6, lines 57-62, “The end-user of the client computing device 116 may be prevented from modifying the certificates 132 or 134 stored in the certificate storage 130 or from copying the certificates 132 or 134 to another computing device, resulting in network administrators having greater control over the device(s) that may connect to the network(s)”).
Re. claim 9, it recites analogous limitations as claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Gajjala et al. (USP App Pub 2018/0062860; hereinafter Gajjala).
Regarding claim 4, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, wherein…
Sanders does not teach …additional functions of the service are suppliable with necessary certificates and information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gajjala does teach …additional functions (Gajjala: paragraph [0011], “activating developer hardware capabilities to convert the secure device into a development capable hardware device”; paragraph [0038], “Certificate 216 may include key 224, which interacts with security processor 202 to transform and/or convert hardware capabilities 210”) of the service are suppliable with necessary certificates and information (Gajjala: paragraph [0025], “developer mode activation component 116 sends a request to certificate generation component 118 to generate a cryptographically signed certificate, including a key, to activate developer mode capabilities on the associated secure device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the service activation of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Gajjala to use additional certificates to activate new capabilities. The motivation for doing so is so that the certificate can define permissions levels for the new capabilities (Gajjala: paragraph [0044], “a certificate defining permissions level for development capabilities”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Carbone et al. (USP App Pub 2004/0015962; hereinafter Carbone).
Regarding claim 6, Sanders teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: …
Sanders does not teach …creating, in the central provision entity, a further device certificate with updated license information; and transferring the further device certificate to the device so that the functionality of the uniquely identifiable service instance of the application running on the device is changeable.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Carbone does teach … creating, in the central provision entity, a further device certificate with updated license information (Carbone: paragraph [0033], “The method then enters block 354 (both from block 348 and from block 351), wherein a new version of the local license certificates for the basic programs is generated from the respective license certificates stored on the server workstation”); and
transferring the further device certificate to the device (Carbone: paragraph [0033], “The new version of the local license certificates is sent from the licensing management application to the full-function agent on the client workstation”) so that the functionality of the uniquely identifiable service instance of the application running on the device is changeable (Carbone: paragraph [0044], “the local license certificates are continually replaced with the respective new versions (received from the server workstation) after each bootstrap”; paragraph [0020], “The license certificate 225 includes an identifier of the certificate, an identifier of a publisher of the program, conditions of use of the program as authorised by the publisher, and exceptional conditions of use (outside the authorised ones) under which the program can still run”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the license component of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Carbone to update the license information to modify functionality of the system. The motivation for doing so is to “this ensures that the local license certificates stored on the client workstation are always up to date” (Carbone: paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Ochmanski et al. (USP App Pub 2017/0099148; hereinafter Ochmanski).
Regarding claim 12, Sanders teaches the device of claim 8, wherein
the service certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0088], “the unique application instance ID detected in operation 406 (e.g., unique application instance ID 324a)”)…
Sanders does not teach …is an initial device identifier, generated in accordance with IEEE 802.1AR.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ochmanski does teach …is an initial device identifier, generated in accordance with IEEE 802.1AR (Ochmanski: paragraph [0022], “the device identity is derived from the IEEE 802.1AR (also known as IDevID or LDevID) standard”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ID of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Ochmanski to use an IEEE 802.1AR device identifier. The motivation for doing so is because “the IEEE 802.1AR standard allows for the creation of a digital signature based on a private key so that the client application will use the services of the identity service in the device to prove that it is the device” (Ochmanski: paragraph [0038]).
Re. claim 3, it recites analogous limitations as claim 12 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Gao et al. (USP App Pub 2017/0134474; hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claim 15, Sanders teaches the device of claim 11, wherein…
Sanders does not teach …the secure communication is via transport layer security (TLS).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gao does teach … the secure communication is via transport layer security (TLS) (Gao: paragraph [0053], “the computing device 1100 communicates with other computing devices 1100′ via any type and/or form of gateway or tunneling protocol e.g. Secure Socket Layer (SSL) or Transport Layer Security (TLS)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the streaming I/O of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Gao to use TLS. The motivation for doing so is to have an encrypted protocol for transmitting data (Gao: paragraph [0053], “tunneling protocol e.g. Secure Socket Layer (SSL) or Transport Layer Security (TLS)”) i.e., it is well known and common knowledge in the art that TLS is a secure encryption protocol).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Schaerz et al. (USP App Pub 2016/0300042; hereinafter Schaerz) in further view of Fernandes et al. (USP App Pub 2007/0136465; hereinafter Fernandes).
Regarding claim 17, Sanders teaches the device of claim 8, wherein
…, and wherein the application instance certificate is transferred automatically (Sanders: paragraph [0111], “modify the buying user's account 312b to provide the buying user 130b with authority to execute the application instance 316a”) after the verification (Sanders: paragraph [0077], “if the computing device 120a determines that the response 168 indicates that the application instance 104a' is authorized to execute on the computing device 120a, then the computing device 120a allows the application instance 104a' to execute on the computing device 120a (FIG. 2B, operation 280)”) of the associated device certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may determine whether the computing device ID 166b in the authorization request 164 matches the computing device ID 156a in the matching registration record 152a.”) using the unique service certificate (Sanders: paragraph [0075], “the registration server 150 may locate the registration record 152a that is associated with the application instance 104a' by searching the application instance data 154a-c for a unique application instance ID that matches the unique application instance ID 166a in the authorization request 164”) to provide automatic authentication (Sanders: paragraph [0153], “the user may easily effectively execute the application instance on any Internet-connected computing device to which the user has access, without the need to install and/or register the application instance again”).
Sanders does not teach …a trust relationship is established in reverse with respect to device provisioning according to OPC Foundation Part 21, wherein the service is accessible via a common port…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schaerz does teach …a trust relationship is established in reverse with respect to device provisioning according to OPC Foundation Part 21 (Schaerz: paragraph [0051], “In step S130, verification of the license 24 for the HW component 12 is started by the SW component 16”; paragraph [0020], “verifying a license for the hardware component in the software component comprises receiving a device identification from the hardware component and verifying the device identification, and the step of activating the hardware component upon successful verification of the license for the hardware component in the software component comprises activating the hardware component upon successful verification of the device identification of the hardware component” i.e., the device identifies itself to the software for verification; Instant application specification: paragraph [0048], “The method is now used, contrary to the Device Provisioning described in OPC Foundation Part 21, in the reverse direction: the IGDS 310, which acts as an internal registry instance, identifies itself to the application 200”),…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the application execution system of Sanders to incorporate the teachings of Schaerz to have the device identify itself to the application. the motivation for doing so is to control the functionalities of the hardware using a license (Schaerz: paragraph [0012], “The license enables the usage of the identical HW components according to the coverage of the license, so that different functionalities can be realized by the HW component. Accordingly, the HW components may be easily scaled to provide different functionalities depending on the license, but not on the HW component itself”).
Sanders and Schaerz do not teach …wherein the service is accessible via a common port…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fernandes does teach …wherein the service is accessible via a common port (Fernandes: paragraph [0032], “this option allows any authorized application, but only authorized applications, to share a port with the original application”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the application execution system of Sanders and Schaerz to incorporate the teachings of Fernandes to allow authorized applications to share a common port. The motivation for doing so is to control access of different application to the port (Fernandes: paragraph [0026], “access of different applications to port 962 can be controlled or restricted as desired”).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights