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
Art Unit – Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 19, the Examiner interprets the execution units and activation unit as a processor having memory as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) processes which can be performed by a human using basic processing tools. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) rely on generic processing elements which can be implemented in a basic processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims instruct processing that a person could perform using well-understood, routine, and conventional functions in a computer as detailed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are an abstract idea and can be implemented by a person using conventional available tools such as a basic computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to a mental process in which a person can use a generic computing device to accept a license agreement and activate programs. There is a lacks of detailed improvements to the process, generic computing device, or apparatus.
Step 1. The claims are directed to a Process, Machine, and Article of Manufacture.
Step 2A. Prong 1. The invention comprises an Abstract Idea of: a Mental Process, which a person would normally do using conventional processing tools.
The claims are a Mental Process of: a user agreeing to a software license agreement; executing instructions for a first and second program; where the user is asked or not asked for a second program license. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B. e.g. “A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process”. The Examiner reasons that the Applicant’s claims can be performed by a user; the user having access to a generic processor.
Step 2A Prong 2. There are no additional elements which are directed to integration into a practical application. There is no technical improvement or a particular way to achieve results of the apparatus or claimed process. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05
Step 2B. Are there additional elements that amount to significantly more?
The claims cite a procedure which can be performed by a human using a mental processes, and following known rules or instructions of human activity; where the method can be performed by a human using the human’s mind with aid of a conventional processing device such as a generic computer. There claims lack of details for a significant technical improvement or an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05.
The claimed process and apparatus is merely a generic which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The additional claim limitation elements in combination do not amount to significantly more because: In combination, the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions do not improve the function of the apparatus or the process in which a human would be able to perform by using a basic tools such as a computer or a processor. It appears the claims are merely automating a procedure which a human would normally perform.
No prior art rejection are applied at this time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the Abstract Idea rejection listed above is overcome.
The closest reference of record is Kawamura (EP 1589446 A1). In the Applicant’s independent claims 1, 19, and 20 the reference of Kawamura does not teach: activating, from the first program, the second program by executing an activation instruction according to the first program after the agreement to the software license agreement regarding the second program is acquired by the first processing being executed; and, not executing, according to the second program, second processing for acquiring, from a user, the agreement to the software license agreement regarding the second program, and, based on the second program having activated without executing the activation instruction according to the first program, executing, according to the second program, the second processing.
Kawamura fails to directly anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious (to be used with other claimed limitations).
Relevant Prior Art
JP 2020-510924
Abstract
Remote management of internal computer operating system setup options is facilitated by systems and mechanisms that provide initial setup options to a computing device during the early stages of operating system setup. The administrator should specify in the profile how the initial setup options should be set, and when the operating system is set up to communicate with the license server and validate the copy of the operating system. Define. When authorized and set up by an administrator, initial setup options are provided to the computing device early in the operating system setup. The process running on the computing device then utilizes the software license application interface to validate the copy of the operating system as well as perform initial setup options in a pre-specified manner by the administrator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED W BARNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1785. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/TED W BARNES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights