DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on August 19, 2026. The application contains claims 1-22:
Claims 13 and 14 were previously cancelled
Claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 22 are amended
Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on August 19, 2026, have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 112 rejections to claims are updated to reflect the issues that remain. Please see below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 12 and 16-22 for not falling within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. After careful reconsideration, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are updated and maintained. Please refer below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
In response to Applicant’s 1st argument on page 3 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that the new limitation “a license management module that serves as an interface with the license server(s)” claims “a three-tier logical/physical architecture”, which distinguishes the recited invention from the cited prior art BAI, which taught “a two-tier logical/physical architecture”, the examiner disagrees because “a license management module that serves as an interface with the license server(s)” does not reflect “a three-tier logical/physical architecture”. Such a distinction in architecture should be reflected in the claim language in terms of function, not mere play with words.
In response to Applicant’s 2nd argument on page 4 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment as quoted below:
“Compared with the prior art, license information of a license server is obtained through the license management module, so that the required license information can be obtained without directly accessing a license file on the license server after being authorized, and a license information base can be stored and created based on the license information for further retrieval by considering that different categories of license information occur at different frequencies, and determining a priority during format matching based on this, a speed of information extraction can be greatly accelerated. (See paragraphs [0032] and [0038] of the specification).”
The examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant’s above argument is incommensurate with the claimed invention. The claims neither recite any limitation about the authorization nor reflect the alleged benefit.
As such, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections are updated and maintained. Please refer below for details.
Examiner’s Note
Despite her best efforts, the examiner is unable to understand the meaning of the new limitation “… in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information” introduced to claims 1, 12, and 15, which makes it impossible to apply prior art to the new limitation. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections to claims 1, 2, 12, 15, and 16 as set forth in the previous office action are updated and maintained until further clarifications are made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 each recite the limitation "extracting ... at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information" in lines 8-10, 13-15, and 9-11, respectively. The underlined portion has no support in the original disclosure. The specification discusses “a ratio” in paragraphs [0038] and [0071], both of which state “a ratio of a field of each category in all fields in the license information”. The specification never mentions “an order” in this context. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-11 and 16-22 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1 and 12, respectively.
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 1-12 and 15-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 each recite the limitation "extracting ... at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information" in lines 8-10, 13-15, and 9-11, respectively. The underlined portion is incomprehensible, and the specification does not provide additional information to help understand it.
The specification discusses “a ratio” in paragraphs [0038] and [0071], both of which state “a ratio of a field of each category in all fields in the license information”. The newly introduced “a number” to the above underlined portion, which was previously recited in claim 11, neither has support in the original disclosure nor clarifies the limitation.
The limitation “a number of fields of each of the at least one category” may refer to more than one “number of fields” when there exists more than one category. It is unclear which “number of fields” out of the multiple numbers of fields is being used for calculating “a ratio”. Furthermore, it is unclear how “an order” relates to “a ratio” and in what fashion the “order” is being used for the “extracting” step. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-11 and 16-22 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1 and 12, respectively.
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 1-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-12 and 15-22 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-11), a machine (claims 12 and 16-22), and a manufacture (claim 15). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 12 and 15, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 12, and 15 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“sending … a license query request to …, the license query request being configured to obtain license information on …; receiving … the license information from the …, the license information being retrieved by the … from the …; extracting … at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information; and creating … a license information base based on the at least one information item” are directed to the abstract idea of requesting information from somewhere, receiving the requested information, mentally processing the information, and using the receive information to create an information base of one’s own. The “extracting …” is recited at a high level of generality and can be practically performed in the human mind. The recitation of “a plurality of software features” does not prevent it from being performed in the human mind because when software features are simple and descriptive, evaluating them and extracting specific pieces of information can be practically performed in the human mind. Other than "a license management module serving as an interface with at least on license server" and "at least one license server" that generally link the limitations to computers, the “sending”, “receiving”, and “creating” steps recite a fundamental information gathering activity that has been regularly performed by humans. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a license management module serving as an interface with at least on license server” and “at least one license server” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – computer technology in general, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“a client” in claim 1, “an electronic device”, “at least one hardware processor”, and “at least one non-transitory memory” in claim 12, and “a processor” in claim 15 may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 12, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. There are no additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) that needs re-evaluation.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 and 16 each recite additional elements listing the categories for a plurality of EDA software features. The recitation of EDA software features does not prevent the “extracting” from being performed in the human mind. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3-7 and 17-21 each recite additional elements to determine EDA software features from a received query request to help retrieve information, receive license information, process the received license information, update the license information base with the updated license information, and present the information to the client. All the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and they may still be characterized as Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C.
Dependent claims 8 and 22 each recite additional elements “determining at least one field in the license information; determining at least one format corresponding to at least one category; selecting, for each of the at least one field, a format corresponding to the field from the at least one format; and extracting an information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the format corresponding to the field”. Determining fields in license information or formats corresponding to each category of information can be performed in the human mind. Selecting a suitable format for each field can be performed in the human mind as well. Extracting information based on the selected format is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses what can be practically performed in the human mind. These additional elements are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 9-11 each recite additional elements similar to the “determining” and “selecting” steps recited in claim 8. Likewise, additional elements are still mentally performable.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 16-22 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAI et al. (CN103279696A).
Regarding claim 1,
BAI teaches
a method for creating a license information base (Page 1: Abstract), comprising:
sending, by a client, a license query request to a license management module serving as an interface between the client and at least one license server, the license query request being configured to obtain license information on the at least one license server (Page 3, lines 1-2, 32-33; Page 6, lines 24-35: Step S201; Page 1, Abstract; Page 8, last line - Page 9 line 1: the license monitoring system sends a request message for obtaining a license file from the client to the server, wherein the license monitoring system serves as an interface between a client who makes the request and the server);
receiving, by the client, the license information from the license management module, the license information being retrieved by the license management module from the at least one license server (Page 3, line 3, 34; Page 6, lines 36-38: Step S202: Receive a license file returned according to the above request message);
extracting, by the client, at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information (Page 7, lines 4-17: Step S205: Collect and save the license log file. Page 7, lines 10-17: items collected from the license log file include the host name, user name, the start time and end use of the license currently in use, the expiration time of the license currently in use, etc. Due to the indefiniteness discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejections, no prior art can be applied to the limitation “in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information” until further clarifications are made to the language); and
creating, by the client, a license information base based on the at least one information item (Page 7, lines 1-3: after parsing the license file, design the fields of the database table based on the data in the license file and store the corresponding data in the MySQL database).
Regarding claim 2,
BAI teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one category comprises the following categories for a plurality of electronic design automation (EDA) software features: a state of a license server, a state of a daemon, a total number of software features, an expiration of a software feature, a number of software features that are being used, a user who is using a software feature, and a usage time of a software feature that is being used (Page 7, lines 4-17: Step S205: Collect and save the license log file. Page 7, lines 10-17: items collected from the license log file include the host name, user name, the start time and end use of the license currently in use, the expiration time of the license currently in use, etc.).
Regarding claim 12,
BAI teaches
an electronic device (Page 1: Abstract), comprising:
at least one hardware processor (all computer systems have at least one processing unit and at least one memory);
at least one non-transitory memory (all computer systems have at least one processing unit and at least one memory), the at least one non-transitory memory being coupled to the at least one hardware processor and storing instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the electronic device to perform actions, the actions comprising:
sending a license query request to a license management module serving as an interface between the electronic device and at least one license server, the license query request being configured to obtain license information on the at least one license server (Page 3, lines 1-2, 32-33; Page 6, lines 24-35: Step S201; Page 1, Abstract; Page 8, last line - Page 9 line 1: the license monitoring system sends a request message for obtaining a license file from the client to the server, wherein the license monitoring system serves as an interface between the electronic device of a client who makes the request and the server);
receiving the license information from the license management module, the license information being retrieved by the license management module from the at least one license server (Page 3, line 3, 34; Page 6, lines 36-38: Step S202: Receive a license file returned according to the above request message);
extracting at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information (Page 7, lines 4-17: Step S205: Collect and save the license log file. Page 7, lines 10-17: items collected from the license log file include the host name, user name, the start time and end use of the license currently in use, the expiration time of the license currently in use, etc. Due to the indefiniteness discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejections, no prior art can be applied to the limitation “in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information” until further clarifications are made to the language); and
creating a license information base based on the at least one information item (Page 7, lines 1-3: after parsing the license file, design the fields of the database table based on the data in the license file and store the corresponding data in the MySQL database).
Regarding claim 15,
BAI teaches
a computer program product having a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein when the program is executed by a processor (all computer systems have a processor), the processor is caused to:
send a license query request to a license management module serving as an interface between the processor and at least one license server, the license query request being configured to obtain license information on the at least one license server (Page 3, lines 1-2, 32-33; Page 6, lines 24-35: Step S201; Page 1, Abstract; Page 8, last line - Page 9 line 1: the license monitoring system sends a request message for obtaining a license file from the client to the server, wherein the license monitoring system serves as an interface between the processor of a client who makes the request and the server);
receive the license information from the license management module, the license information being retrieved by the license management module from the at least one license server (Page 3, line 3, 34; Page 6, lines 36-38: Step S202: Receive a license file returned according to the above request message);
extract at least one information item of at least one category for a plurality of software features from the license information in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information (Page 7, lines 4-17: Step S205: Collect and save the license log file. Page 7, lines 10-17: items collected from the license log file include the host name, user name, the start time and end use of the license currently in use, the expiration time of the license currently in use, etc. Due to the indefiniteness discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejections, no prior art can be applied to the limitation “in an order according to a ratio of a number of fields of each of the at least one category to a number of all fields in the license information” until further clarifications are made to the language); and
create a license information base based on the at least one information item (Page 7, lines 1-3: after parsing the license file, design the fields of the database table based on the data in the license file and store the corresponding data in the MySQL database).
Regarding claim 16,
BAI teaches
the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one category comprises the following categories for a plurality of electronic design automation (EDA) software features: a state of a license server, a state of a daemon, a total number of software features, an expiration of a software feature, a number of software features that are being used, a user who is using a software feature, and a usage time of a software feature that is being used (Page 7, lines 4-17: Step S205: Collect and save the license log file. Page 7, lines 10-17: items collected from the license log file include the host name, user name, the start time and end use of the license currently in use, the expiration time of the license currently in use, etc.).
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 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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAI et al. (CN103279696A), in view of Coley et al. (US 20050273436 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
As discussed in claim 2, BAI teaches all the limitations therein.
BAI does not teach
the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
determining, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item; retrieving a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base; and presenting the set of information items.
Coley teaches
the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
determining, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item; retrieving a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base; and presenting the set of information items (Abstract: receive a license validity inquiry request from a client module, query the database to determine whether a valid license exists for the client software application, and responsive to the query, and send a response message to the client module responsive to the query. Even though EDA software is not explicitly taught here, on the one hand, EDA is taught by the primary reference as discussed above; on the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the teaching applies to all kinds of software including EDA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI to incorporate the teachings of Coley to determine, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item, retrieve a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base, and present the set of information items. Doing so would allow software use to be monitored in an automated fashion, without user input, and moreover, permit a software provider to transparently control the use of licensed software as taught by Coley ([0017]).
Regarding claim 4,
As discussed regarding claim 3, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI further teaches
the method according to claim 3, wherein retrieving the set of information items from the license information base comprises:
sending, in response to receiving the query request for the first information item, a second license query request to the license management module; receiving second license information in response to the second license query request; updating information in the license information base based on the second license information; and retrieving the set of information items from the updated license information base (Page 5, lines 20-45; Page 6, lines 1-13: Step S11: Scan the license log file every fixed time. Step S13: Find out the newly added data in the license log file. Step S14: Update the newly added data in the license log file to the license log file database to be available for queries).
Regarding claim 7,
As discussed regarding claim 3, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI further teaches
the method according to claim 3, wherein presenting the set of information items comprises:
comparing, in response to determining that a third information item of the set of information items includes an expiration of a software feature or a usage time of a software feature that is being used, the third information item with a corresponding time threshold; and presenting, based on a comparison result of the third information item and the corresponding time threshold, the third information item in a manner associated with the comparison result (Page 8, lines 15-27: Step S212: determine whether the remaining usage time of the license is less than the predetermined time. Step S213: generate a prompt message to remind the user that the license is about to expire).
Regarding claim 17,
As discussed in claim 16, BAI teaches all the limitations therein.
BAI does not teach
the electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the actions further comprise:
determining, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item; retrieving a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base; and presenting the set of information items.
Coley teaches
the electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the actions further comprise:
determining, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item; retrieving a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base; and presenting the set of information items (Abstract: receive a license validity inquiry request from a client module, query the database to determine whether a valid license exists for the client software application, and responsive to the query, and send a response message to the client module responsive to the query. Even though EDA software is not explicitly taught here, on the one hand, EDA is taught by the primary reference as discussed above; on the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the teaching applies to all kinds of software including EDA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI to incorporate the teachings of Coley to determine, in response to receiving a query request for a first information item in the license information base, at least one EDA software feature associated with the first information item, retrieve a set of information items associated with the at least one EDA software feature from the license information base, and present the set of information items. Doing so would allow software use to be monitored in an automated fashion, without user input, and moreover, permit a software provider to transparently control the use of licensed software as taught by Coley ([0017]).
Regarding claim 18,
As discussed regarding claim 17, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 17, wherein retrieving the set of information items from the license information base comprises:
sending, in response to receiving the query request for the first information item, a second license query request to the license management module; receiving second license information in response to the second license query request; updating information in the license information base based on the second license information; and retrieving the set of information items from the updated license information base (Page 5, lines 20-45; Page 6, lines 1-13: Step S11: Scan the license log file every fixed time. Step S13: Find out the newly added data in the license log file. Step S14: Update the newly added data in the license log file to the license log file database to be available for queries).
Regarding claim 21,
As discussed regarding claim 17, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 17, wherein presenting the set of information items comprises:
comparing, in response to determining that a third information item of the set of information items includes an expiration of a software feature or a usage time of a software feature that is being used, the third information item with a corresponding time threshold; and presenting, based on a comparison result of the third information item and the corresponding time threshold, the third information item in a manner associated with the comparison result (Page 8, lines 15-27: Step S212: determine whether the remaining usage time of the license is less than the predetermined time. Step S213: generate a prompt message to remind the user that the license is about to expire).
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAI et al. (CN103279696A), in view of Coley et al. (US 20050273436 A1), and in further view of Stein et al. (US 20190325351 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
As discussed regarding claim 4, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI and Coley do not teach
the method according to claim 4, wherein updating the information in the license information base comprises:
setting, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value.
Stein teaches
the method according to claim 4, wherein updating the information in the license information base comprises:
setting, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value (Fig. 3; [0063]: an entity key that lacks a feature value in one or both data sets 334-336 may be assigned a default value (e.g., 0 for a numeric feature) and/or a “missing” value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI and Coley to incorporate the teachings of Stein to set, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value. Doing so would allow record-level comparisons 322 and/or distribution-level comparisons 324 to be defined and/or performed using the entity key instead of omitting the entity key from record-level comparisons 322 and/or distribution-level comparisons 324 as taught by Stein ([0063]).
Regarding claim 6,
As discussed regarding claim 5, BAI and Coley and Stein teach all the limitations therein.
Stein further teaches
the method according to claim 5, wherein presenting the set of information items comprises:
presenting, in response to determining that the value of the second information item is the preset value, the second information item in a manner different from that of the first information item ([0063]-[0064]: visualize comparison results with missing values set to “missing”).
Regarding claim 19,
As discussed regarding claim 18, BAI and Coley teach all the limitations therein.
BAI and Coley do not teach
the electronic device according to claim 18, wherein updating the information in the license information base comprises:
setting, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value.
Stein teaches
the electronic device according to claim 18, wherein updating the information in the license information base comprises:
setting, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value (Fig. 3; [0063]: an entity key that lacks a feature value in one or both data sets 334-336 may be assigned a default value (e.g., 0 for a numeric feature) and/or a “missing” value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI and Coley to incorporate the teachings of Stein to set, in response to determining that a value of a second information item in the license information base is missing from the second license information, the value of the second information item to a preset value. Doing so would allow record-level comparisons 322 and/or distribution-level comparisons 324 to be defined and/or performed using the entity key instead of omitting the entity key from record-level comparisons 322 and/or distribution-level comparisons 324 as taught by Stein ([0063]).
Regarding claim 20,
As discussed regarding claim 19, BAI and Coley and Stein teach all the limitations therein.
Stein further teaches
the electronic device according to claim 19, wherein presenting the set of information items comprises:
presenting, in response to determining that the value of the second information item is the preset value, the second information item in a manner different from that of the first information item ([0063]-[0064]: visualize comparison results with missing values set to “missing”).
Claims 8-11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAI et al. (CN103279696A), in view of Gligan et al. (US 12154358 B2).
Regarding claim 8,
As discussed in claim 1, BAI teaches all the limitations therein.
BAI does not teach
the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least one field in the license information; determining at least one format corresponding to at least one category; selecting, for each of the at least one field, a format corresponding to the field from the at least one format; and extracting an information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the format corresponding to the field.
Gligan teaches
the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least one field in the license information; determining at least one format corresponding to at least one category; selecting, for each of the at least one field, a format corresponding to the field from the at least one format; and extracting an information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the format corresponding to the field (Claim 1: identify fields from the identified document type from the layout-based classification, identify a document type using the plurality of templates by using an acceptance criteria based on minimum confidence thresholds for ones of the plurality of templates using at least one classifier configured to employ layout-based classification, and extract data from the document using the defined plurality of fields identified from the identified document type from the layout-based classification, the field processing including a minimum confidence threshold based on the minimum confidence threshold for the ones of the plurality of templates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI to incorporate the teachings of Gligan to determine at least one field in the license information, determine at least one format corresponding to the at least one category, select, for each of the at least one field, a target format corresponding to the field from the at least one format, and extract the information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the target format. Doing so would include a set of templates for identifying the document type (classification) and extracting data from the documents. The templates can be configured, i.e., by the user, by defining the fields to be extracted and the position of the field on the document as taught by Gligan (Col. 2, lines 8-18).
Regarding claim 9,
As discussed in claim 8, BAI and Gligan teach all the limitations therein.
Gligan further teaches
the method according to claim 8, wherein selecting the format corresponding to the field comprises:
selecting a first format from the at least one format; determining a first matching degree between the first format and the field; and selecting, in response to the first matching degree being greater than a predetermined matching degree threshold, the first format as the format corresponding to the field (Claim 1: identify a document type using the plurality of templates by using an acceptance criteria based on minimum confidence thresholds for ones of the plurality of templates using at least one classifier configured to employ layout-based classification, and extract data from the document using the defined plurality of fields identified from the identified document type from the layout-based classification, the field processing including a minimum confidence threshold based on the minimum confidence threshold for the ones of the plurality of templates, wherein minimum confidence thresholds indicate “greater than a predetermined matching degree threshold”).
Regarding claim 10,
As discussed in claim 9, BAI and Gligan teach all the limitations therein.
Gligan further teaches
the method according to claim 9, wherein selecting the format corresponding to the field further comprises:
determining, in response to the first matching degree being less than the predetermined matching degree threshold, a second matching degree between a second format of the at least one format and the field; and selecting, in response to the second matching degree being greater than the predetermined matching degree threshold, the second format as the format corresponding to the field (Claim 1: the minimum confidence thresholds as discussed in the parent claim inherently teach this limitation: templates not meeting the minimum confidence threshold are passed and subsequent templates meeting the threshold will be selected).
Regarding claim 11,
As discussed in claim 9, BAI and Gligan teach all the limitations therein.
Gligan further teaches
the method according to claim 9, wherein selecting the first format comprises:
determining a priority of a format corresponding to each category based on the ratio; and selecting, from the at least one format, a format with a highest priority as the first format (Col. 11, lines 36-41: for a given document type, multiple templates can be created; find the best suitable template to use for data extraction. No prior art is applied to “the ratio” due to the indefiniteness discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejections).
Regarding claim 22,
As discussed in claim 12, BAI teaches all the limitations therein.
BAI does not teach
the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the actions further comprise:
determining at least one field in the license information; determining at least one format corresponding to at least one category; selecting, for each of the at least one field, a format corresponding to the field from the at least one format; and extracting an information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the format corresponding to the field.
Gligan teaches
the electronic device according to claim 12, further comprising:
determining at least one field in the license information; determining at least one format corresponding to at least one category; selecting, for each of the at least one field, a format corresponding to the field from the at least one format; and extracting an information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the format corresponding to the field (Claim 1: identify fields from the identified document type from the layout-based classification, identify a document type using the plurality of templates by using an acceptance criteria based on minimum confidence thresholds for ones of the plurality of templates using at least one classifier configured to employ layout-based classification, and extract data from the document using the defined plurality of fields identified from the identified document type from the layout-based classification, the field processing including a minimum confidence threshold based on the minimum confidence threshold for the ones of the plurality of templates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BAI to incorporate the teachings of Gligan to determine at least one field in the license information, determine at least one format corresponding to the at least one category, select, for each of the at least one field, a target format corresponding to the field from the at least one format, and extract the information item from a corresponding position in the field based on the target format. Doing so would include a set of templates for identifying the document type (classification) and extracting data from the documents. The templates can be configured, i.e., by the user, by defining the fields to be extracted and the position of the field on the document as taught by Gligan (Col. 2, lines 8-18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
