DETAILED ACTION
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 .
35 USC 101 rejection were withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz e al(US 20050091216 A1) in view of Dadu (US 20120131345 A1).
With regards to claim 1, 7, Kranz discloses, A method ([0075] discloses “An information handling system, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU); and a non-transitory memory, accessible to the CPU, including processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the CPU, cause the system to perform operations including”) comprising: obtaining, from a cloud licensing server, licensing information for an end user of a host information handling system, wherein the licensing information is indicative of end user licenses to access one or more licensable capabilities of the host ([[0008] A software system may be designed to facilitate a licensing process. The software can be used for downloading the content from a server and verifying a license for the content. The software usually includes routines or objects designed to recognize and validate the license on the server. For example, the software may include a licensing manager that handles the licensing process. The software may include a communications handler, which is responsive to requests to download licensed content from a server. ….The software, for example, can be the client's runtime environment, media player, applet, plug-in or web browser. The software may communicate with the server using, for instance, HTTP and TCP/IP protocols, to download the content and locate the license. If the license is authenticated and it is the correct license for the content, the software is allowed to run or play the content on the client system.); and
providing the licensing information to an intelligent installation service (IIS) executing in an operating system of the host, wherein the IIS is enabled to leverage a multiservice installer to provision the host system with capabilities ([0008]The software may include a communications handler, which is responsive to requests to download licensed content from a server. The software may include one or more routines, which are used to locate the license, verify its authenticity and determine which URL address is covered by the license. The software may be installed on a client system or on a distributed system. The software, for example, can be the client's runtime environment, media player, applet, plug-in or web browser. The software may communicate with the server using, for instance, HTTP and TCP/IP protocols, to download the content and locate the license. If the license is authenticated and it is the correct license for the content, the software is allowed to run or play the content on the client system.[0067] Rather, the license 130 enables the server 102 to deploy digital content 120 to the client system 100. This licensing scheme enables the provider of software utilized in the interpretation of web content to license the use of that software for commercial purposes without controlling access to either the software or the content. Instead of controlling access to the software or the content, deployment of content from a server is controlled Note: license allow client to run and deploy content on clients are multiple capabilities),
Kranz does not exclusively but Dadu teaches,
host system with capabilities including one or more licensable capabilities in accordance with the licensing information ([0022] FIGS. 4 and 5 are diagrams of a process 400, 500 for obtaining a license and authorizing restricted software according to an embodiment of the present invention.)
and provisioning, by the IIS leveraging the multiservice installer, the host with one or more licensable capabilities in accordance with the licensing information, wherein the provisioning comprises installing or enabling, on the host, at least one licensable capability indicated as licensed by the licensing information (FIG 5 510 and associated text; [0024] At block 510, the Host Application decrypts the encrypted restricted software using the LEK and allows access to the software on the computing platform.), wherein the installing or enabling comprises invoking one or more installation routines to install and register the at least one licensable capability on the host such that the host is thereafter operable to execute the at least one licensable capability (FIG 5 504-508 and associated text; ), and wherein, after the provisioning, the at least one licensable capability remains persistently available on the host for use by the end user (FIG 5 506 and associated text; Note: lease time ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kranz’s method with teaching of Dadu in order to provisioning a license and an application program from a first server to a computing platform over a network (Dadu abstract).
With regards to claims 2, 8 Kranz further discloses, wherein the one or more licensable capabilities include one or more licensable capabilities selected from: one or more licensable audio performance capabilities ([0037] Software can be used to perform the licensing process described in FIG. 3. Software can be created or existing software can be modified to handle this licensing process. Referring to FIG. 1, such software can be a browser 110, plug-in or media player 112, runtime environment 114, dynamically linked library (DLL), ActiveX control, or any other form of executable code. Note: creating a plug-in media player which has audio performance capability); one or more licensable telemetry capabilities; and one or more licensable overclocking capabilities.
Claims 5-6, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz e al(US 20050091216 A1) in view of in view of Dadu (US 20120131345 A1) and further in view of Potrebie et al(US 20100162292 A1).
With regards to claim 5, 11 Kranz in view of Dadu do not but Potrebie wherein the IIS is configured to: scan one or more file depositories to determine available software services ([0064]; For instance, the high-definition channel may be mapped to channel map of the client and the standard-definition channel may be excluded from the channel map (block 608).); and scan the host to determine capabilities available to the end user ([0047] In the illustrated system 200, the access module 130 of the client 104 is configured to determine the hardware and software content capabilities 136 of the client 104. This determination may be performed in a variety of ways, such as by querying a driver of the client 104 (e.g., to determine which software and/or hardware is available on the client),). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kranz in view of Dadu’s method with teaching of Potrebie in order to provide content access based on client capabilities (Potrebie [0003]).
With regards to claim 6, 12 Kranz in view of Dadu and Potrebie teaches, wherein the IIS is configured to determine capabilities available to the end user based, in part, on: hardware capabilities of the host ([0047] In the illustrated system 200, the access module 130 of the client 104 is configured to determine the hardware and software content capabilities 136 of the client 104. This determination may be performed in a variety of ways, such as by querying a driver of the client 104 (e.g., to determine which software and/or hardware is available on the client),); information technology (IT) policy information for an IT policy associated with the host; and user selection information indicative of user input selecting from one more available options for a capability. Motivation would be same as stated in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160042482 A1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED WALIULLAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7987. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 to 430 PM.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 1-571-272-8878. 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.
/MOHAMMED WALIULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
