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
This is a reply to the application filed on 7/25/2024, in which, claim(s) 13-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2024, 2/12/2025 and 11/17/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/25/2024 is/are accepted 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) 13-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20060048132 A1; hereinafter Chen) in view of Singh et al. (US 20130254113 A1; hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a request by a user to use a requested service using a first software (the user requests digital content from the content provider, the digital content is sent to the user as an encrypted file. The digital content in the file can be accessed after the file has been decrypted using the decryption means [Chen; ¶4]);
in response to receiving the request, initiating authentication protocols of the first software that cause generation of a unique identifier and to present a prompt to the user to request an unlock code using the generated unique identifier, wherein the generated unique identifier comprises licensing information that includes at least one of data regarding the requested service using the first software, session data for session use of the requested service, data regarding type of system for providing the requested service, or information regarding type of license associated with at least one of the requested service or the first software, wherein the generated unique identifier is sent to and verified by a license server (character code generator creates a code for use on the computing device that allows the particular software program to be used on the computing device. The character code generator receives the unique device identification of the computing device, determined the corresponding machine key and compute hashes based on the unique identifier, generates and provide a sign/activation code for use on the computing device [Chen; ¶21, 38-51, 76-78; Figs. 2-3 and associated texts]);
in response to sending the generated unique identifier to the license server, receiving, the unlock code from the license server, [wherein the unlock code is a per-session code for unlocking a single session use of the requested service using the first software] (obtaining the sign/activation code to run the program, the sign/activation code may be checked each time the program is launched. The program will properly operate only if the sign/activation code, or other indicator that the software program has been properly licensed, is provided [Chen; ¶38-51; Figs. 3-4, 6 and associated texts]). Chen discloses software is licensed for use on a particular computing device. An unlocking code is provided from a distribution service to the computing device (either directly or via a user), which in turn, unlocks the appropriate software or portion of software for use with the associated computing device. Chen does not explicilty discloses wherein the unlock code is a per-session code for unlocking a single session use of the requested service using the first software; however, in a related and analogous art, Singh teaches this feature.
In particular, singh teaches pay-per-use (PPU) software licensing in which license file are created to allow user’s access based on PPU. In a PPU licensing mechanism, users pay as per their usage of the software applications, rendering them to pay a very nominal amount for the usage of software applications as against paying a lump sum as a one time payment [Singh; ¶12, 37-47]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with PPU licensing of Singh with the motivation to gain customer of diverse usage needs as PPU licenses for software applications are getting popular day by day [Singh; ¶12];
in response to receiving the unlock code, verifying the unlock code (after obtained the identifiers/activation code, verified the code [Chen; ¶38-51; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]); and
in response to the unlock code being verified, unlocking the single session use of the requested service using the first software to allow the user to access the single session use of the requested service using the first software (after verified, run the product [Chen; ¶38-51; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts], if the program is trail software, can unlock/upgrade [Chen; Figs. 6 and associated texts], and it can been PPU based on the licenses [Singh; ¶12, 37-47]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the licensing information further comprises one or more of information regarding time that the generated unique identifier was generated, information regarding session information validation, information regarding cost corresponding to the license associated with the at least one of the requested service or the first software, information regarding conditions associated with the license, information regarding limitations associated with the license, information regarding type of hardware associated with the first software, information regarding type of hardware associated with the requested service, or information regarding a session use of the requested service, wherein the type of license comprises one of a pay per use license, a period subscription license, a right to use license, or a free to use license (computing device preferably has a unique identifier. This identifier is used in the creation of a "license" for use of software on that particular computing device [Chen; ¶41], a PPU licensing mechanism, users pay as per their usage of the software applications, rendering them to pay a very nominal amount for the usage of software applications as against paying a lump sum as a one time payment [Singh; ¶12, 37-47]). The motivation to gain customer of diverse usage needs as PPU licenses for software applications are getting popular day by day [Singh; ¶12].
Regarding claim 15, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: encoding the generated unique identifier (signed the unique identifier with a private key [Chen; ¶47]). 330
Regarding claim 16, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein presenting the prompt to the user to request an unlock code using the generated unique identifier comprises presenting two or more options that comprise: displaying the generated unique identifier and a communication device for the user to use or contact and to provide the generated unique identifier; displaying a connection mechanism to a collection of information, the connection mechanism comprising the generated unique identifier; or displaying a visual code and a prompt for the user to scan the visual code, the visual code containing data associated with the generated unique identifier (if the persistent memory does not contain previously stored information pertaining to the product sought to be run, then a user interface, for example, may be provided to the user with instructions on how to buy a license for the software product for the computing device, such as collecting information and payment and other steps to active the product [Chen; ¶45; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 18, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: prior to presenting the prompt to the user to request an unlock code using the generated unique identifier, determining whether the client device is connected to a communication network; and based on a determination that the client device is not connected to a communication network or has limited access to the communication network, graying out, the option to display the connection mechanism to the collection of information (If the computing device is connected via a network, for example, to the activation control system, the activation control system may provide the signed data to the computing device transparently. The computing device uses the corresponding public key to retrieve and verify the unique identifier of the computing device and the product identifier. Optionally with an error message or other indicator being displayed or otherwise provided to the user. Moreover, the software program may be disabled or aborted. The computing device may also be disabled, if desired [Chen; ¶49-50, 56-57]).
Regarding claim 19, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein sending the generated unique identifier to the license server for verification comprises one of: sending the generated unique identifier that is spoken by the user over a telephone; sending the generated unique identifier that is manually entered by the user or another user via a user interface; sending the generated unique identifier that is copied and pasted by the user via the user interface; sending the generated unique identifier as a visual code, an image of which is captured by the user using a camera of a user device; or sending the generated unique identifier from the client device via network communication when the client device is connected to a communication network (The user may provide the unique identifier and the product identifier to the activation control system either manually or via a telephone, kiosk, website, or other manual or electronic means. The computing device is connected via a network, the activation control system and provide the unique ID to the activation control to process requests for software licenses and unlock authorization for use on computing devices [Chen; ¶38-39, 56-57]).
Regarding claim 20, Chen-Singh combination discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the image of the visual code, when captured, triggers one of sending the generated unique identifier over a network or accessing a collection of information that allows the user to manually enter the generated unique identifier (a user manually entering the device identification into the activation control system [Chen; ¶40]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Singh combination in view of Ciavatta (US 20160196484 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen-Singh combination does not explicilty discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the visual code comprises one of a bar code or a quick response ("QR") code; however, in a related and analogous art, Ciavatta teaches this feature.
In particular, Ciavatta teaches scanning of a QR code, allowing the user to access an URL to register and authenticate [Ciavatta; ¶96-99]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen-Singh combination with the QR code and URL user’s registration and authentication of Ciavatta, with the motivation for secured user’s register/authentication and avoiding any compromise of the confidentiality of the data [Ciavatta; ¶15, 25].
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432