CTNF 18/994,662 CTNF 79365 Detailed Action 1. This Office Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 01/15/2025. Claims 9-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 4. Claim s 1, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 8: “A apparatus” should be “A n apparatus”. On line 6 of claim 6: “using ad target license control item set” should be “using a[[d]] target license control item set” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 6. Claim 8 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph , because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a license usage quantity statistic module, which is configured to acquire the configuration data modified by a target network element, and determine a license control item set associated with the target network element …; a license adaption module, which is configured to determine a license control item increment set …; and a license-center authentication module, which is configured to authenticate each license control item to be authenticated in the license control item increment set, and indicate that activation …” in claim 8. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 8. 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. 07-31-02 AIA 9. Claim s 1 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. 10. As to claims 1 and 8: It is not clear whether the “determining a license control item set associated with the target network element” is based on (1) “according to the configuration data” to be activated (in the preamble) or (1) “according to the configuration data modified by the target network element” (in the previous limitation). It is not clear about the relationship between “the license control item information” determining “a license control item increment set” and “the license control item information” corresponding to each license control item to be authenticated. It is not clear with respect to what “said increment” in “determining a license control item increment set” is calculated and it is also unclear what is incremented and with respect to what original feature/value . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA 11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA 12. Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 13. As to claims 9-10, dependent claims 9-10 recite different statutory categories “a computer device” and “a non-transient computer-readable storage medium” than the base method claim 1. A computer device and a non-transient computer-readable storage medium of dependent claims 9-10 are NOT “a product made by the base method claim 1” and it can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim 1. Also, claims 9-10 currently claim a computer device and a non-transient computer-readable storage medium being used to perform/execute operations of the base method claim 1, that does not further limit the base method claim 1. Therefore, they would NOT be proper dependent claims of the base method claim 1. Examiner respectfully suggests to amend (or rewrite) claims 9-10 as independent claims to include all the steps of method claim 1. Note: Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 14. 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. 15. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 8-10 recite the steps: “acquiring the configuration data …”; “determining a license control item set …”; “determining a license control item increment set …”; “authenticating each license control item …”; and “… indicating that activation of the configuration data of the target network element succeeds” , are directed to a generic prediction model that can be constructed in the human mind (or using a pen and a piece of paper). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows: The limitations of “acquiring the configuration data …”; “determining a license control item set …”; “determining a license control item increment set …”; “authenticating each license control item …”; and “… indicating that activation of the configuration data of the target network element succeeds” of claims 1 and 8, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a storage device, a processor and a computer program (such as software modules/applications) stored on the storage device” in claims 8-10, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (or using a pen and a piece of paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1 and 8-10 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1 and 8-10 only recite using “a storage device, a processor and a computer program (such as software modules/applications) stored on the storage device” to perform “acquiring, determining, authenticating and indicating” steps. The storage device, processor and computer program (such as software modules/applications) stored on the storage device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage device storing a computer program and a processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claim 1, respectively. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 16. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 17. Claim s 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Conte et al. (US 5,845,065), hereinafter “Conte” . 18. As to claim 1, Conte teaches a method for activating configuration data ( Fig. 13, Step 1218 : launch of application) , comprising: acquiring the configuration data modified by a target network element ( col. 19, lines 44-46 : identify all of the applications belonging to that suite and all users who are waiting for those applications must be considered, Step 1322 of Fig. 13 ) ; determining a license control item set ( col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 19 : determines if there are any unassigned licenses available for the requested application … (based on) … a database containing entries for each of the application licenses available and the assigned/unassigned status for each license, as illustrated in Figs. 4A-4B) associated with the target network element according to the configuration data ( col. 19, lines 44-50 : associated with the current user waiting for the application) , wherein the license control item set comprises one or more license control items to be authenticated and license control item information corresponding to each license control item to be authenticated ( col. 19, lines 48-50 : number of waiting users who were put onto the waiting list ahead of the current user (called “M” in this depiction) waiting for those applications (i.e., wherein each identified application corresponds to a license control item)) ; determining a license control item increment set ( col. 9, line 5 - col. 10, line 37 : only those users in an “analysis pool” which includes those users who are running applications that may be involved in the decision about whether the requested launch should be permitted … the list is sorted; and Fig. 10, col. 9, lines 15-46 : Steps 1016-1024 of Fig. 10 showing the increment (one by one) of the pool of users using that application in the sorted list (i.e., wherein the increment of the users using the application before the current user in the sorted list corresponds to the increment of the target network element and the list of those increments corresponds to the increment set) corresponding to the target network element according to the license control item information ( col. 19, lines 44-50 : for each identified application) ; authenticating each license control item to be authenticated in the license control item increment set ( col. 19, lines 56-59 : If it has been found that there are sufficient single and suite licenses available for an identified application, the same analysis procedure (Steps 3126, 1328) is applied to the next application Step 1330) ; and if each license control item to be authenticated is successfully authenticated, indicating that activation of the configuration data of the target network element succeeds ( col. 19: lines 60-62 : if all identified applications have been considered (Step 1332), the license is reserved) . 19. As to claim 2, Conte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the license control item information corresponding to each license control item to be authenticated comprises a target usage quantity (i.e., number of waiting users) and an obtained authorized quantity of the license control item to be authenticated (i.e., number of single and suite licenses available for the identified application) , the license control item increment set comprises an increment application value corresponding to each of the one or more license control items to be authenticated, and the increment application value of each license control item to be authenticated is obtained by subtracting the authorized quantity of the license control item to be authenticated from the target usage quantity of the license control item to be authenticated ( col. 9, line 41 – col. 10, line 3 : the number of single licenses is subtracted from the number of waiting users who were put onto the waiting list ahead of the current user (Step 1326) (called “M” in this depiction). If the single licenses are not sufficient to satisfy all the needs of the waiting users plus the requesting user for this application, then it is determined whether M is less than or equal to the number of suite licenses available for the identified application… if there are sufficient single and suite licenses available for an identifier application, the license is reserved … if not, the user must either put himself at the end of the waiting list, or continue waiting) . 20. As to claim 3, Conte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein authenticating each license control item to be authenticated in the license control item increment set comprises: determining a current target license control item set of a license-center authentication module, wherein the target license control item set comprises one or more target license control items, a current authorized quantity and a current usage quantity of each target license control item; and authenticating each license control item to be authenticated in the license control item increment set one by one according to the current authorized quantity and the current usage quantity of each target license control item ( col. 9, line 41 – col. 10, line 3 : the number of single licenses is subtracted from the number of waiting users who were put onto the waiting list ahead of the current user (Step 1326) (called “M” in this depiction). If the single licenses are not sufficient to satisfy all the needs of the waiting users plus the requesting user for this application, then it is determined whether M is less than or equal to the number of suite licenses available for the identified application… If it has been found that there are sufficient single and suite licenses available for an identified application, the same analysis procedure (Step 1326, 1328) is applied to the next application (Step 1330)) . 21. As to claims 8-10, claims 8-10 are corresponding apparatus, computer device and non-transient computer-readable storage medium claims that do not define any limitations above limitations of method claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 22. Claim s 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 23. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. 24. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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. /QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 5 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 6 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 7 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 8 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 9 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 10 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 11 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 12 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 13 Art Unit: 2441 Application/Control Number: 18/994,662 Page 14 Art Unit: 2441
Prosecution Insights