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 .
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.
FINAL ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original submittal made on 04/08/2026. Claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 14 are amended. Claims 4, 12 and 16 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Remarks – Double Patenting
The examiner withdraws the rejection in view of applicant’s approved Terminal Disclaimer.
Examiner’s Remarks – 35 USC § 112
The examiner withdraws the rejection in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s).
Examiner’s Remarks – 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues:
“Independent claim 1 of the present application, from which claims 2, 3, and 5-7 depend, recites, inter alia, a system that includes an IoT device and a processor that is configured to receive a license request from the IoT device and "create a restriction condition on the use of the license" and "revoke the license upon an occurrence of the restriction condition" (emphasis added). Independent claim 8, from which claims 9-11 and 13 depend, and independent claim 14, from which claim 15 depends, both include similar recitations written in different formats. For the reasons discussed below, the Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the above recitations.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell’s col. 16 lines 10-20 disclose:
“The resource control system can continue the assignments until no more Type One LE apply or a host with an OR below ORT1 is reached. Once ORT1 is reached, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs. “.
Again, based on the current construction of the applicant’s amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14, the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be reasonably construed to be implemented in the teachings that Marnell discloses in this instance. The examiner notes that Marnell tells us that upon the condition/restriction of no more Type One LE is met, that the resource control system, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs. The examiner further contends that Marnell establishes that there exist a restriction of quantity for Type One LE in this instance. The examiner notes that Marnell establishes the operation of putting an end (i.e., “revoke”) to the usage of Type One LE and configuring for the usage of Type Two LEs.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 10 lines 55-65 the following:
“… By assigning consumption demand requests to an already exhausted license entitlement, the consumption of that license entitlement would be greater than the available quantity of the license entitlement. This creates exceptions that are handled by the license provision system. According to the method 500, the license provision system can later re-assigned the consumption demand requests to other license entitlements that remain. Each exception cannot be assigned to their optimal license entitlement on the first pass.”.
Again, based on the current construction of the applicant’s amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14, the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be reasonably construed to be implemented in the scenario that Marnell discloses in this instance. Marnell establishes that the license provision later re-assigns the consumption demand request to other license entitlements that remain when the restriction condition of the specific license entitlement originally assigned is completely consumed. The examiner notes that the specific license entitlement originally is revoked based on the restriction of availability. The examiner notes that Marnell tells us that the license provision later re-assigns other license entitlements.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 11 lines 20-35 the following:
“in response to determining that a next ranked license entitlement (i.e., a license entitlement with a ranking/ORT just below that of the top ranking license entitlement of step 504) has sufficient available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests, the license provision system can assign the next ranked license entitlement to the remaining consumption demand requests (e.g., consumption demand requests not assigned in steps 504 and 506). In this scenario, the license provision system prevents applying the top ranking license entitlement because the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. Accordingly, the license provision system applies the lower ranked license entitlement and save the remaining top ranking license entitlements for the possibility that the license provision system runs out of lower ranking entitlements and need something to cover that consumption demand request.”.
The examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell establishes that the top ranking license entitlement ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. The restriction is that the top ranking license is no longer optimal. Marnell tells that the top ranking license is no longer applied but instead, the next ranked license entitlement, just below the top ranking license entitlement is assigned. The examiner notes that this operation of the assignment of the next ranked license entitlement instead of the top ranking license, for which is normally in usage, reasonably reflects a putting a end to (i.e., revoke) the top ranking license entitlement. The examiner further contends that It further reasonably reflects in this instance that the restriction of quantity and/or optimization pertaining to the top ranking license entitlement is the contributing factor(s) to not further utilizing (i.e., revoke) the top ranking license entitlement.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 11 lines 40-55 the following:
“The license provision system can use the most appropriate license for the OR bands as much as possible, and only using less optimal licenses as needed to fill in any gaps”.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of less optimal licenses reasonably reflects a process of putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the most appropriate license for the OR bands.
Marnells teaches in col. 11 lines 55-65 the following:
“Only if there are not enough lower ranked license entitlements to cover the remaining consumption demand requests would the license provision system use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir.”
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the lower ranked license entitlements.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist a number of reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 12 lines 10-30 the following:
“ in an ambiguity set of three license entitlement types and the top two license entitlement types can both have excess licenses in the reservoir (i.e., positive available quantity) after filling their bands, but the bottom license entitlement type needs more licenses (i.e., needs to replenish its available quantity), then license provision system uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement (e.g., the next highest ranking license entitlement than the one currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests), and not the top ranked license. This enables the license provision system to achieve the best result by saving the highest possible number of highest ranked licenses.”.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist a number of reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests. This operation of putting a end (i.e., revoke) of the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) is currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement is based on the restriction of at least quantity associated thereof.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can continue the assignments until no more Type One LE apply or a host with an OR below ORT1 is reached. Once ORT1 is reached, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs”.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) of the usage of Type One LE based on a application restriction thereby transitioning to Type Two LEs.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can assign remaining Type One LEs to hosts in rank order down to that saved host, or until a host is reached that cannot be properly licensed with the remaining Type One LEs. From the saved host or the host that cannot be properly licensed, the resource control system can proceed down the list to assign available Type Two LEs until no more LEs remain or all hosts are assigned to an LE.”
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) assign remaining Type One LEs based on proper assignment condition (i.e., restriction). The examiner notes that the system then proceeds to assign available Type Two Les.
Applicant argues:
“At page 9 of the Office Action, the Office alleges that Marnell discloses the above
recitations, referring specifically to col. 9, 11. 5-20 as allegedly disclosing the claimed creation of a restriction and referring to col. 15, 11. 35-50 as allegedly disclosing the claimed revocation of the license. However, the latter cited portion of Marnell discloses only that a license record can be marked in breach. Similarly, other portions of Marnell disclose simply that a host can be held in breach. The only action that is taken as a result of the breach in Marnell is where "The resource control system can move a VM from one host to another to correct a breach" (col. 15, 11. 52-53). In Marnell, a breach occurs when there are not enough of a specific type of licenses left No with a specific host, and the remedy is to move from one host to another.”.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected. The examiner notes that breach is a form of putting a end to something.
Applicant argues:
“Marnell is completely silent as to the revocation of licenses”.
The term “revocation” as argued is not currently recited in the current construction of the amended claim 1 claim structure.
Applicant argues:
“let alone disclosing or suggesting any basis for such a revocation, and further to revoke a license upon occurrence of a restriction condition, as recited in the present claims. “.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented.
Marnell’s col. 16 lines 10-20 disclose:
“The resource control system can continue the assignments until no more Type One LE apply or a host with an OR below ORT1 is reached. Once ORT1 is reached, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs. “.
The examiner notes that Marnell tells us that upon the condition/restriction of no more Type One LE is met, that the resource control system, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs. The examiner further contends that Marnell establishes that the restriction of quantity for Type One LE in this instance. The examiner notes Marnell establishes the operation of putting an end to (i.e., “revoke) the usage of Type One LE and configuring for the usage of Type Two LEs.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 10 lines 55-65 the following:
“… By assigning consumption demand requests to an already exhausted license entitlement, the consumption of that license entitlement would be greater than the available quantity of the license entitlement. This creates exceptions that are handled by the license provision system. According to the method 500, the license provision system can later re-assigned the consumption demand requests to other license entitlements that remain. Each exception cannot be assigned to their optimal license entitlement on the first pass.”.
Marnell establishes that the license provision later re-assigns the consumption demand request to other license entitlements that remain when the restriction condition of the specific license entitlement originally assigned is completely consumed. The examiner notes that the specific license entitlement originally is revoked base the restriction of availability. The examiner notes that Marnell tells us that the license provision later re-assigns other license entitlements.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 11 lines 20-35 the following:
“in response to determining that a next ranked license entitlement (i.e., a license entitlement with a ranking/ORT just below that of the top ranking license entitlement of step 504) has sufficient available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests, the license provision system can assign the next ranked license entitlement to the remaining consumption demand requests (e.g., consumption demand requests not assigned in steps 504 and 506). In this scenario, the license provision system prevents applying the top ranking license entitlement because the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. Accordingly, the license provision system applies the lower ranked license entitlement and save the remaining top ranking license entitlements for the possibility that the license provision system runs out of lower ranking entitlements and need something to cover that consumption demand request.”.
Marnell establishes that the top ranking license entitlement because the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. The restriction is that the top ranking license is no longer optimal. Marnell tells that the top ranking license is no longer applied but instead, the next ranked license entitlement just below the top ranking license entitlement is assigned. The examiner notes that this operation of the assignment of the next ranked license entitlement instead of the top ranking license, for which is normally in usage, reasonably reflects a revoking the top ranking license entitlement. It further reasonably reflects that the restriction of quantity and/or optimization pertaining to the top ranking license entitlement is the contributing factor(s) to not further utilizing (i.e., revoke) the top ranking license entitlement.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell’s teaches in col. 11 lines 40-55 the following:
“The license provision system can use the most appropriate license for the OR bands as much as possible, and only using less optimal licenses as needed to fill in any gaps”.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of less optimal licenses reasonably reflects a process of putting an putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the most appropriate license for the OR bands.
Marnell teaches in col. 11 lines 55-65 the following:
“Only if there are not enough lower ranked license entitlements to cover the remaining consumption demand requests would the license provision system use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir.”
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the lower ranked license entitlements.
Marnell teaches in col. 12 lines 10-30 the following:
“ in an ambiguity set of three license entitlement types and the top two license entitlement types can both have excess licenses in the reservoir (i.e., positive available quantity) after filling their bands, but the bottom license entitlement type needs more licenses (i.e., needs to replenish its available quantity), then license provision system uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement (e.g., the next highest ranking license entitlement than the one currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests), and not the top ranked license. This enables the license provision system to achieve the best result by saving the highest possible number of highest ranked licenses.”.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests. This operation of putting a end (i.e., revoke) of the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) is currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement is based on the restriction of at least quantity associated thereof.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can continue the assignments until no more Type One LE apply or a host with an OR below ORT1 is reached. Once ORT1 is reached, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs”.
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) of the usage of Type One LE based on an application restriction thereby transitioning to Type Two LEs.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can assign remaining Type One LEs to hosts in rank order down to that saved host, or until a host is reached that cannot be properly licensed with the remaining Type One LEs. From the saved host or the host that cannot be properly licensed, the resource control system can proceed down the list to assign available Type Two LEs until no more LEs remain or all hosts are assigned to an LE.”
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) assign remaining Type One LEs based on proper assignment condition (i.e., restriction). The examiner notes that the system then proceeds to assign available Type Two Les.
Applicant argues:
“In fact, Marnell teaches against such an implementation as Marnell explicitly discloses remedying a breach without revoking a license, but instead taking action to ensure the license can still be fully utilized. Thus, for at least these reasons, Marnell fails to disclose or suggest the above recitation of the present claims.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characterization of Marnell’s teachings.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 11 lines 20-35 the following:
“in response to determining that a next ranked license entitlement (i.e., a license entitlement with a ranking/ORT just below that of the top ranking license entitlement of step 504) has sufficient available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests, the license provision system can assign the next ranked license entitlement to the remaining consumption demand requests (e.g., consumption demand requests not assigned in steps 504 and 506). In this scenario, the license provision system prevents applying the top ranking license entitlement because the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. Accordingly, the license provision system applies the lower ranked license entitlement and save the remaining top ranking license entitlements for the possibility that the license provision system runs out of lower ranking entitlements and need something to cover that consumption demand request.”.
Marnell establishes that the top ranking license entitlement because of the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. The restriction is that the top ranking license is no longer optimal. Marnell tells that the top ranking license is no longer applied but instead, the next ranked license entitlement just below the top ranking license entitlement is assigned. The examiner notes that this operation of the assignment of the next ranked license entitlement instead of the top ranking license, for which is normally in usage, reasonably reflects a revoking the top ranking license entitlement. It further reasonably reflects that the restriction of quantity and/or optimization pertaining to the top ranking license entitlement is the contributing factor(s) to not further utilizing (i.e., revoke) the top ranking license entitlement.
Marnell teaches in col. 11 lines 40-55 the following:
“The license provision system can use the most appropriate license for the OR bands as much as possible, and only using less optimal licenses as needed to fill in any gaps”.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of less optimal licenses reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the most appropriate license for the OR bands.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 11 lines 55-65 the following:
“Only if there are not enough lower ranked license entitlements to cover the remaining consumption demand requests would the license provision system use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir.”
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of use the excess higher ranked license entitlements from the reservoir reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the lower ranked license entitlements.
Marnell teaches in col. 12 lines 10-30 the following:
“ in an ambiguity set of three license entitlement types and the top two license entitlement types can both have excess licenses in the reservoir (i.e., positive available quantity) after filling their bands, but the bottom license entitlement type needs more licenses (i.e., needs to replenish its available quantity), then license provision system uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement (e.g., the next highest ranking license entitlement than the one currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests), and not the top ranked license. This enables the license provision system to achieve the best result by saving the highest possible number of highest ranked licenses.”.
The examiner notes that Marnell’s usage of uses the spare licenses from the middle ranked license entitlement reasonably reflects a putting an end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement with available quantity after that has been used for previous consumption demand requests. This operation of putting a end (i.e., revoke) of the usage of the one (i.e., license entitlement) is currently being evaluated and/or the lowest ranking license entitlement is based on the restriction of at least quantity associated thereof.
The examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can continue the assignments until no more Type One LE apply or a host with an OR below ORT1 is reached. Once ORT1 is reached, if enough Type Two LEs remain to license all remaining hosts, the resource control system can configure all remaining hosts in list to consume Type Two LEs”.
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) to the usage of Type One LE based on an application restriction thereby transitioning to Type Two LEs.
Again, the examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist several reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected.
Marnell teaches in col. 15 lines 55-65 & col. 16 lines 1-10 the following:
“The resource control system can assign remaining Type One LEs to hosts in rank order down to that saved host, or until a host is reached that cannot be properly licensed with the remaining Type One LEs. From the saved host or the host that cannot be properly licensed, the resource control system can proceed down the list to assign available Type Two LEs until no more LEs remain or all hosts are assigned to an LE.”
Specifically, putting a end (i.e., revoke) to assigning remaining Type One LEs based on proper assignment conditions (i.e., restriction). The examiner notes that the system then proceeds to assign available Type Two Les.
Applicant argues:
“Smith and Haeuser are cited by the Office as allegedly disclosing other recitations of the present claims. Assuming arguendo that the Office's characterizations of Smith and Haeuser are accurate, the Applicant respectfully submits that Smith and Haeuser both fail to remedy the deficiencies of Marnell as each fail to disclose or suggest steps to "create a restriction condition on the use of the license" and "revoke the license upon an occurrence of the restriction condition," as recited in the present claims. Thus, each of the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest each of the recitations of the present claims.”.
The examiner notes that Smith teaches in par. 0037 the following: “and shares content/license constraints based on the CCD supported security level.”.
Haeuser teaches in par. 0033 the following: “The billing interface 124 then retrieves media content subscription information associated with the determined identity from the billing storage 126 (block 210). In one example, the subscription information is subscription records associated with a fixed geographical location. For example, the subscription records may be subscription records associated with a subscription to media content at a house. The example subscription records may be associated with a subscription to a premium content channel (e.g., the HBO channel). In another example, the subscription records may be associated with both a geographically fixed location and the mobile device.”. The examiner notes that Haeuser teaches in par. 0034 the following: “the billing interface 124 compares the requested media content to subscription information associated with a fixed geographical location (e.g., a home or a business) to determine if the requesting device is authorized to access the requested media content (block 212). If the consumer and/or the device are not authorized to access the media content, the billing interface 124 transmits a notification (e.g., an access denied error message) to the mobile device via the client interface 118 and the NTU 112 or the wireless communication network (106 (block 218). If the consumer and/or device are authorized to access the media content because of their geographical based subscription (e.g., a subscription associated with a fixed geographical location), the billing interface informs the client interface 118 that the requesting consumer and/or device are authorized to access the media content. The client interface then encrypts and/or establishes a license for the media content (block 214).”.
The examiner notes that Haesuer tells that a geographic location restriction is associated with the license. Therefore, if the recipient of the content is not in the correct geographic location restriction associated with the license, then license is not allowed (i.e., revoked).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marnell et al. (US Patent No. 9,672,334 and Marnell hereinafter) in view of Smith et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0364553 and Smith hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 8 and 14, Marnell teaches a system comprising:
a database including one or more sets of authorized licenses (i.e., …teaches in col. 6 lines 10-20 the following: “he entitlement reservoir 212 is configured to store records associated with license entitlements managed by the license provision system 200. The entitlement reservoir 212 can include attribute/value pairs associated with each license entitlement, including available quantity, license metrics and/or product use rights associated with each license entitlement.”),
each set of authorized licenses associated with a respective vendor software (i.e., …teaches in col. 3 lines 1-5 the following: “a license provision system (e.g., a software publisher or an application service platform)”);
the license manager comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by the processor to (i.e., …illustrates in figure 2 a license manager):
a request to reserve a license of a first set of one or more authorized licenses associated with a first vendor software (i.e., …teaches in col. 7 lines 45-55 the following: “the license provision system attempts to match one or more available license entitlements (e.g., with positive available quantity) in its entitlement reservoir (e.g., the entitlement reservoir 212) to the consumption demand request.”);
determine, via the database, an availability of the license associated with the first vendor software (i.e., …teaches in col. 7 lines 45-55 the following: “the license provision system attempts to match one or more available license entitlements (e.g., with positive available quantity) in its entitlement reservoir (e.g., the entitlement reservoir 212) to the consumption demand request.”);
register, via the database, a unique identifier of the
wherein by registration the unique identifier is associated with the license (i.e., …teaches in col. 8 lines 1-15 the following: “In response to determining a single match between one of the available license entitlements and the consumption demand request, at step 308, the license provision system can assign the matched license entitlement to the requesting account and/or the requesting device”. …teaches in col. 3 lines 5-15 the following: “A resource control system can assign a license entitlement to a consumer object (e.g., an object that triggered a consumption demand request).”),
create a restriction condition on the use of the license (i.e., teaches in col. 6 lines 15-20 the following: "entitlement reservoir 212 can include attribute/value pairs associated with each license entitlement, including available quantity, license metrics and/or product use rights associated with each license entitlement." .teaches in col. 9 lines 5-20 the following: "The generated table can include at least one record per potential number of processors, up to the maximum number of processors found in the operating environment. If different license entitlements in the target set of different limitation on the number of virtual machines allowed, the generated table can also include another column specifying a limit on the number of virtual machines allowed per license entitlement.").;
revoke the license upon an occurrence of the restriction condition (i.e., … The examiner contends that the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” is simply and openly means to “put a end to”. In this instance the examiner notes that the structure of applicant’s current amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14 does not limit the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke”. As such, the examiner contends in this instance that there exist a number of reasonable implementations under which the ordinary meaning/understanding of the term “revoke” can be implemented/reflected. As such the examiner notes Marnell teaches in col. 11 lines 20-35 the following: “in response to determining that a next ranked license entitlement (i.e., a license entitlement with a ranking/ORT just below that of the top ranking license entitlement of step 504) has sufficient available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests, the license provision system can assign the next ranked license entitlement to the remaining consumption demand requests (e.g., consumption demand requests not assigned in steps 504 and 506). In this scenario, the license provision system prevents applying the top ranking license entitlement because the ORT (e.g., threshold) has been reached where it no longer is optimal. Accordingly, the license provision system applies the lower ranked license entitlement and save the remaining top ranking license entitlements for the possibility that the license provision system runs out of lower ranking entitlements and need something to cover that consumption demand request.”. Further teaches in col. 15 lines 35-50 the following: "If there are not enough Type One LEs to cover all physical installations of the Type A os edition, the resource control system configures the remaining hosts to each consume a Type One LE and marks the license record as in breach.);
and grant the license to the
Marnell does not expressly teach:
an internet of things (IoT) device in communication with one or more sensors;
receive, via the IoT device,
a license manager in communication with the IoT device and the database.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Smith.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “an internet of things (IoT) device in communication with one or more sensors”, teaches in par. 0003 the following: “IoT devices with content display capabilities”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “receive, via the IoT device”, teaches in par. 0027 the following: “IoT devices 140 may be introduced to the domain to which IKM 120 is the domain controller by sending a request”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “a license manager in communication with the IoT device and the database”, illustrates in figure 1… IoT devices in communication with a database structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Marnell with the teachings of Smith by having their system comprise an enhanced application of small devices. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide robust device coverage, wherein the enhanced application of small devices will help to facilitate more usage in networks and makes it easier to configure smaller devices.
As to claims 2 and 9, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 1 above teaches license management, specifically Marnell teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
determine a service level agreement to be applied to the
and determine, based on the service level agreement, a priority level of license availability of the license for the first vendor software (i.e., …teaches in col. 10 lines 15-25 the following: “priority to be assigned to the single license entitlement that can satisfy the usage requirement”).
Marnell does not expressly teach: an internet of things (IoT) device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Smith.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “an internet of things (IoT) device in communication with one or more sensors”, teaches in par. 0003 the following: “IoT devices with content display capabilities”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Marnell with the teachings of Smith by having their system comprise an enhanced application of small devices. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide robust device coverage, wherein the enhanced application of small devices will help to facilitate more usage in networks and makes it easier to configure smaller devices.
As to claims 3 and 10, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 1 above teaches license management, specifically Marnell teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: reserve, at the database, one or more of the first set of licenses based, at least in part, on the priority level of license availability (i.e., …teaches in col. 10 lines 35-40 the following: “the license provision system prioritizes assignment of these license”).
As to claims 4 and 12, (Canceled).
As to claims 6 and 11, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 1 above teaches license management, specifically Marnell teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: acquire, from a first software vendor associated with the first vendor software, one or more additional licenses in response to determining that the license is not available (i.e., …teaches in col. 11 lines 35-50 the following: “in response to determining that the next ranked license entitlement does not have enough available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests to the next ORT, the license provision system can calculate (e.g., using the License Metric and Product Use Rights of the next ranked license entitlement) the number of consumption demand requests that the remaining quantity of the remaining total license entitlements can cover, from the bottom of the ordered list of consumption demand requests and up (e.g., consumption demand requests with lowest OR values and up). In this step, the license provision system can use the least amount of higher ranked licenses possible.”);
and grant, responsive to the request, a second license of the one or more additional licenses to the
Marnell does not expressly teach: an internet of things (IoT) device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Smith.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “an internet of things (IoT) device in communication with one or more sensors”, teaches in par. 0003 the following: “IoT devices with content display capabilities”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Marnell with the teachings of Smith by having their system comprise an enhanced application of small devices. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide robust device coverage, wherein the enhanced application of small devices will help to facilitate more usage in networks and makes it easier to configure smaller devices.
As to claim 7, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 1 above teaches license management, specifically Marnell teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: reduce, based at least in part on a usage statistic for the first vendor software, a total number of licenses in the first set of one or more authorized licenses associated with the first vendor software (i.e. …teaches in col. 2 lines 60-67 the following: “… limits how many times the license entitlement can be consumed. An organization can acquire a license entitlement a number of times from a license provision system (e.g., a software publisher or an application service platform) and reduce the available quantity of the license entitlement by that number of times.”),
wherein the usage statistic includes at least one of a current use, average concurrent use, or a peak usage of the first vendor software (i.e. …teaches in col. 1 lines 20-30 the following: “The license entitlement can be “consumed” by per usage, per account, per device, per time period, or any combination thereof.”).
As to claim 15, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 14 above teaches license management, specifically Marnell teaches a method of claim 14, further comprising:
acquiring, via the license manager, one or more additional licenses in response to determining that the license is not available (i.e., …teaches in col. 11 lines 35-50 the following: “in response to determining that the next ranked license entitlement does not have enough available quantity to cover the remaining consumption demand requests to the next ORT, the license provision system can calculate (e.g., using the License Metric and Product Use Rights of the next ranked license entitlement) the number of consumption demand requests that the remaining quantity of the remaining total license entitlements can cover, from the bottom of the ordered list of consumption demand requests and up (e.g., consumption demand requests with lowest OR values and up). In this step, the license provision system can use the least amount of higher ranked licenses possible.”);
and granting, via the license manager, a second license of the one or more additional licenses to the
and reducing, via the license manager, based at least in part on a usage statistic for the first vendor software, a total number of licenses in the first set of one or more authorized licenses associated with the first vendor software (i.e. …teaches in col. 2 lines 60-67 the following: “… limits how many times the license entitlement can be consumed. An organization can acquire a license entitlement a number of times from a license provision system (e.g., a software publisher or an application service platform) and reduce the available quantity of the license entitlement by that number of times.”),
wherein the usage statistic includes at least one of a current use, average concurrent use, or a peak usage of the first vendor software (i.e. …teaches in col. 1 lines 20-30 the following: “The license entitlement can be “consumed” by per usage, per account, per device, per time period, or any combination thereof.”).
Marnell does not expressly teach: an internet of things (IoT) device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Smith.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “an internet of things (IoT) device in communication with one or more sensors”, teaches in par. 0003 the following: “IoT devices with content display capabilities”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Marnell with the teachings of Smith by having their system comprise an enhanced application of small devices. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide robust device coverage, wherein the enhanced application of small devices will help to facilitate more usage in networks and makes it easier to configure smaller devices.
As to claim 16, (Canceled).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marnell in view of Smith as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Haeuser et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2007/0260604 and Haeuser hereinafter).
As to claims 5 and 13, the system of Marnell and Smith as applied to claim 4 above teaches license management, specifically neither Marnell nor Smith teaches a system of claim 4, wherein one or more sensors includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, wherein the restriction condition is one of a geographic or temporal restriction, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: determine, via the IoT device, at least one of a location or local time of the IoT device based on data received from the GNSS receiver; and deny, based at least in part on the at least one of the location or local time of the IoT device, granting the license to the IoT device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Haeuser.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein one or more sensors includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver”, …teaches in par. 0014 the following: “a satellite”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the restriction condition is one of a geographic or temporal restriction”, teaches in par. 0033 the following: “In one example, the subscription information is subscription records associated with a fixed geographical location. For example, the subscription records may be subscription records associated with a subscription to media content at a house. The example subscription records may be associated with a subscription to a premium content channel (e.g., the HBO channel). In another example, the subscription records may be associated with both a geographically fixed location and the mobile device.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: determine, via the IoT device, at least one of a location or local time of the IoT device based on data received from the GNSS receiver”, …teaches in par. 0014 the following: “a satellite”. Further teaches in par. 0034 the following: “the billing interface 124 compares the requested media content to subscription information associated with a fixed geographical location (e.g., a home or a business) to determine if the requesting device is authorized to access the requested media content (block 212). If the consumer and/or the device are not authorized to access the media content, the billing interface 124 transmits a notification (e.g., an access denied error message) to the mobile device via the client interface 118 and the NTU 112 or the wireless communication network (106 (block 218). If the consumer and/or device are authorized to access the media content because of their geographical based subscription (e.g., a subscription associated with a fixed geographical location)…”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and deny, based at least in part on the at least one of the location or local time of the IoT device, granting the license to the IoT device”, teaches in par. 0034 the following: “the billing interface 124 compares the requested media content to subscription information associated with a fixed geographical location (e.g., a home or a business) to determine if the requesting device is authorized to access the requested media content (block 212). If the consumer and/or the device are not authorized to access the media content, the billing interface 124 transmits a notification (e.g., an access denied error message) to the mobile device via the client interface 118 and the NTU 112 or the wireless communication network (106 (block 218).”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Marnell and Smith with the teachings of Haeuser by having their system comprise an enhanced license distribution process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to manage license related data, wherein the enhanced license distribution process helps facilitate proper access control of content within the network and makes it easier to secure content.
Art Made Of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: MOWATT et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0218466).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights